University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Answering the Call for Shared Leadership - The Missing Conditions for Successful
Implementation of English Language Teacher Leadership:
An Evaluation Study

by

Amy O’Connor Stolpestad

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

December 2020

Copyright 2020 Amy O’Connor Stolpestad

ii
Dedication
To my husband and best friend, Rob, whose enduring love and support makes all things
possible.

iii
Acknowledgements
No matter what accomplishments you make, somebody helped you. - Althea Gibson

I come from a place of great privilege in nearly all ways it can be measured, so the work
represented in this dissertation is further proof of the advantages I have because of the people
who surround me. My bench is deep: I have my husband, Rob, and children, Tommy and Joey,
who keep me on my toes and make me laugh every day. My dog and constant writing
companion, Roper, provides frequent reminders to live in the moment. I also have my parents,
siblings, in-laws, friends (Emily Wingfield added my dissertation milestones to her calendar!),
and extended family, who have, and will no doubt continue to support me in more ways than I
can count. I am incredibly grateful for the blessing they are in my life and I only wish all people
were as well-loved as I am.
Having a job I adore and colleagues, especially Michelle, who inspired me to earn a
doctorate degree in the first place is yet another advantage I benefit from every day. Michelle
and the other staff and faculty have been checking in and encouraging me throughout the process
of writing this dissertation. They are my sounding boards – willing to get into the weeds of my
research, read drafts, and think through conceptual and theoretical frames. To work with such
kind and talented scholars whose commitment to equity and love for learning serves as a source
of motivation and is yet another way in which I am blessed.
I am also grateful for the professors and University of Southern California Rossier School
of Education faculty and staff. Reginald always provided a kind and friendly ear when needed;
Dr. Robles helped me learn the USC fight song and inspired me with her optimistic commitment
to equity; Dr. Ott opened my eyes to new ways of thinking about leadership; Dr. Samkian

iv
provided me with an important mantra, it depends; and Dr. Moore helped to set me up for
success as my first professor, where I wrote the most excruciating paragraph of my academic
career. I would be remiss without mentioning Drs. Min and Canny, as they are the professors I
want to be to my own students: gracious, committed, thorough in their feedback, and consistent
in their support of students. Among my many blessings is the fact that Dr. Min was appointed to
be my dissertation chair and Dr. Canny my capstone chair. I cannot thank them enough for the
support and encouragement they have provided.
Finally, there is no adequate way for me to describe the gratitude I have for my
Organizational Change and Leadership Cohort 11 classmates. You are a source of
encouragement, laughter, and friendship. You challenge my thinking and add a richness to my
life from, literally, all across the country and globe. Please know I will always be cheering you
on and taking great comfort in the fact that you are leading the way to a better world. Fight on!

v
Table of Contents
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice.................................................................... 1
Organizational Context and Mission .......................................................................................... 4
Organizational Goal .................................................................................................................... 6
Related Literature........................................................................................................................ 7
Importance of Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 9
Description of Stakeholder Groups ........................................................................................... 10
Stakeholder Group for the Study .............................................................................................. 10
Purpose of the Project and Questions ....................................................................................... 11
Definitions................................................................................................................................. 12
Organization of the Project ....................................................................................................... 13
Chapter Two: Review of The Literature ....................................................................................... 14
Teacher Leadership in the United States .................................................................................. 14
Historical Perspectives on Teacher Leadership .................................................................... 15
Political Influences on Teacher Leadership .......................................................................... 16
Distributed Leadership Models and Teacher Leadership ......................................................... 18
Role of the Organization in the Form of Principal Support .................................................. 19
Teacher Leaders’ Agency ..................................................................................................... 21
Roles and Expectations for Teacher Leaders ........................................................................ 23
Dedicated Time for Teacher Leadership Duties ................................................................... 24
EL teachers and Students in United States PreK-12 schools .................................................... 26
Lack of Preparation for Working with ELs in Teacher Education Programs ....................... 27
Taking Responsibility for EL Student Achievement ............................................................ 29
EL Teachers’ Identities ......................................................................................................... 31
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences Framework . 34
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ...................................... 35
Knowledge and Skills ........................................................................................................... 35
Motivation ............................................................................................................................. 41
Organization .......................................................................................................................... 48
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and the
Organizational Context ............................................................................................................. 54
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 59
Chapter Three: Methods .............................................................................................................. 60
Sampling and Recruitment ........................................................................................................ 60
Contextual Considerations Related to COVID-19 ................................................................ 61

vi
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................... 61
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale........................................................................... 63
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale ......................................................................... 65
Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 66
Interviews .............................................................................................................................. 68
Documents and Artifacts....................................................................................................... 71
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 72
Credibility and Trustworthiness ................................................................................................ 74
Ethics......................................................................................................................................... 75
Limitations and Delimitations................................................................................................... 78
Chapter 4: Results and Findings ................................................................................................... 80
Participating Stakeholders ........................................................................................................ 80
Findings..................................................................................................................................... 81
EL Teacher Leaders’ Knowledge and Motivation in Relation to the Organizational and
Stakeholder Goals ..................................................................................................................... 82
Knowledge Results ............................................................................................................... 83
Motivation Results ................................................................................................................ 96
Interaction Between Organizational Culture and Context and The EL Teacher Leaders’
Knowledge and Motivation..................................................................................................... 104
Organizational Results ........................................................................................................ 104
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 113
Chapter 5: Solutions and Recommendations .............................................................................. 115
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ................................................. 117
Knowledge Recommendations ........................................................................................... 117
Motivation Recommendations ............................................................................................ 122
Organization Recommendations ......................................................................................... 126
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ..................................................................... 131
Implementation and Evaluation Framework ....................................................................... 131
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations ................................................................ 132
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators ............................................................................. 133
Level 3: Behavior ................................................................................................................ 135
Level 2: Learning ................................................................................................................ 139
Level 1: Reaction ................................................................................................................ 143
Evaluation Tools ................................................................................................................. 144
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation ................................................... 145
Data Analysis and Reporting .............................................................................................. 146
Summary ............................................................................................................................. 146
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach ........................................................................... 147
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................................. 148
Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................................. 149
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 151

vii
References ................................................................................................................................... 153
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................. 168
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................. 169
Appendix C ................................................................................................................................. 171
Appendix D ................................................................................................................................. 172
Appendix E ................................................................................................................................. 173
Appendix F.................................................................................................................................. 175
Appendix G ................................................................................................................................. 176
Appendix H ................................................................................................................................. 178

viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals ................. 11
Table 2: Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Analysis ....................................... 39
Table 3: Motivation Influences, Types, and Assessments for Analysis ....................................... 47
Table 4: Organizational Influences on the Stakeholder Goal ....................................................... 53
Table 5: Participant Demographics ............................................................................................... 81
Table 6: Participant Interview Details .......................................................................................... 81
Table 7: EL Teacher Leader Knowledge Needs ........................................................................... 83
Table 8: KMO Evidence Supporting the Organizational Goal .................................................. 115
Table 9: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ........................................ 117
Table 10: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations ...................................... 123
Table 11: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations ................................... 127
Table 12: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes ..................... 133
Table 13: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ............................ 136
Table 14: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ......................................................... 137
Table 15: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program ..................................... 142
Table 16: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program .................................................... 144

ix
List of Figures
Figure 1: The Stakeholder Goal’s Effects on Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization in
Teacher Leadership ............................................................................................................... 56

x
Abstract
English language learners (ELs) represent nearly 10% of the U.S. student body, yet they
struggle academically in content area classrooms, where they spend the vast majority of the
school day with teachers who have little, if any, training in second language acquisition. Teacher
leadership, a growing trend in U.S. preK-12 public schools, utilizes the skills of teachers to
distribute leadership responsibilities across school personnel. This qualitative evaluation study
used document analysis and interviews to examine an initiative to train Prairieville Public
Schools English language (EL) teachers to become teacher leaders who support their content
area teaching colleagues in professional development related to teaching ELs and to support
them as non-evaluative, peer instructional coaches. The Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge,
Motivation, and Organization Gap Analysis Framework provided a structure to identify existing
qualities of trained EL teacher leaders in Prairieville Public Schools and find gaps in knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors in the EL teacher leadership initiative. Findings reveal
that, while trained EL teacher leaders in Prairieville Public Schools demonstrated components of
the required knowledge and motivation needed to fulfill their responsibilities, development of EL
teacher leader’s understanding of non-evaluative peer instructional coaching and self-efficacy is
needed. Further, organizational factors such as scheduling and leadership practices indicate there
are systemic gaps related to supporting the work of EL teacher leaders. It is recommended that
preK-12 schools and districts with EL teacher leaders ensure ongoing training related to peer
coaching is provided and that reallocation of resources in the form of dedicated time be
considered to ensure success. In addition, research is needed in order to better understand the
general education teachers’ and administrators’ perspectives related to EL teacher leadership.
Keywords: EL teacher, EL teacher leadership, Distributed leadership

1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice
A wide variety of teacher leadership initiatives have been implemented across the United
States (U.S.) as a means of distributing or sharing leadership duties within the complex
organizational structures of preschool, elementary, middle, and secondary schools (PreK-12
schools), yet the provisions and parameters for such initiatives remain undefined and
inconsistent. This evaluation study addresses the problem of insufficient supports for teacher
leadership initiatives in U.S. PreK-12 public schools, specifically as they relate to EL teachers
serving as teacher leaders through a peer coaching model of professional development designed
to prepare practicing general education teachers in methods that support English language
learners (ELs) throughout the school day (Martin, 2019). Distributed leadership, which is
sometimes referred to as shared leadership, has no singular definition but is generally considered
a system where any member of an organization plays a role in leadership, regardless of title or
position (Leithwood, et al., 2007). The 2014 Teach to Lead Initiative, the National Education
Association’s Teacher Leadership Initiative, and the National Association of Secondary School
Principals 2015 position statement each call for the development of teacher leaders, yet these
initiatives provide few details on how to structure schools to make teacher leadership part of a
organization’s operations.
Further complicating the national calls to cultivate teacher leaders is the fact that there is
no single, agreed upon definition of teacher leadership in the literature (York-Barr & Duke,
2004; Wenner & Campbell, 2017). This holds true for English language (EL) teachers who, in
response to the push for teacher leadership from professional organizations such as the Teachers
of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) International Association, support their
colleagues’ in promising instructional practices for English learners (ELs). Despite these efforts,

2
literature on the practice of EL teachers as teacher leaders is scant. Given the growing population
of ELs in schools across the U.S. (United States Department of Education, n.d.), positioning EL
teachers as instructional “consultants” (TESOL, 2014) may be the most cost-effective way to
develop teacher knowledge, skills, and dispositions for those charged with instructing ELs. The
lack of literature on the topic highlights the rationale for this study.
For the purpose of their meta-analysis of the literature, as well as for this study, Wenner
and Campbell (2017) define teacher leaders as, “teachers who maintain PreK-12 classroom-
based teaching responsibilities while also taking on leadership responsibilities outside of the
classroom” (p. 140). These additional responsibilities can include site leadership team
membership and instructional coaching within or across content areas, as well as other formal
and informal roles that assist in the operation and continuous improvement of the school. This
conception of teacher leader affords teachers opportunities to take on leadership roles without
having to leave the classroom altogether, which York-Barr (2004) established is a key factor for
instructional support and teacher retention. In the case of EL teachers serving as teacher leaders,
specific leadership responsibilities include providing professional development facilitation and
non-evaluative peer instructional coaching.
EL teacher leadership, in particular, attends to the research on effective professional
development (Guskey & Yoon, 2009), as it is job-embedded and sustained over time. In some
states (Education Commission of the States, 2014), content area teachers are required to
complete a certain number of credits that specifically address the instructional needs of ELs.
However, the requirement does not account for practicing or in-service teachers who earned their
credentials prior to the requirement. EL teacher leadership is intended to address this gap in
skills, knowledge, and dispositions for working with ELs in the general education classroom. In

3
this study, Wenner and Campbell’s definition serves as the primary conception of teacher
leadership as it is enacted by EL teachers who both serve in the capacity of teacher leaders
through non-evaluative peer instructional coaching of their general education colleagues while
also maintaining responsibilities for direct instruction through classroom teaching.
The literature on teacher leadership covers an array of methods through which teachers
fulfill their leadership duties. It further establishes that, in order to implement an effective
teacher leadership initiative, schools may need to adjust existing operational structures in order
to support the work. Organizational structures identified to support teacher leadership include
clearly defined roles or job descriptions (Jacobs, Gordon, & Solis, 2016; Margolis, 2012;
Wenner & Campbell, 2017), distributive or shared leadership structures endorsed by the
principal (Berg, Bosch, & Souvanna, 2013; Cheng & Szeto, 2016; Smylie & Eckert, 2018),
prioritized scheduling (Bruno, et al., 2012; Ross, et al., 2011; Vannest, et al., 2009), and
dedicated time for teacher leadership duties to be fulfilled (Bruno, et al., 2012; Ross, et al., 2011;
Vannest, et al., 2009). Additionally, it demonstrates that principal support (Berg, Bosch, &
Souvanna, 2013; Cheng & Szeto, 2016; Smylie & Eckert, 2018) has an impact on the success of
teachers taking on leadership roles.
It has been established through the literature that undertaking a teacher leadership
initiative without first establishing clearly defined roles and dedicating time for the fulfillment of
responsibilities within a distributed leadership framework or system will result in a less effective
outcome (Holloway, Nielsen, & Saltmarsh, 2018). While the research on teacher leadership
addresses multiple iterations of teachers taking on leadership and instructional coaching
responsibilities (York-Barr & Duke, 2004; Wenner & Campbell, 2017), such as expert science
teachers coaching novice science teachers (Criswell, et al., 2018), there is very little research

4
specifically focused on teacher leadership taken up by EL teachers working across different
content areas of instruction. Given that many teachers graduated from teacher preparation
programs which did not include curriculum on how to best meet the academic needs of ELs
(Lucas, et al., 2018), teacher leadership may help to improve the academic success of ELs
through ongoing, non-evaluative, peer coaching delivered by EL teachers to their general
education teacher colleagues.
Organizational Context and Mission
This evaluation study takes place in Prairieville Public Schools (pseudonym), which
serves approximately 7,600 students (2019 State Department of Education District Report Card,
not named to retain confidentiality) in its PreK-12 public schools. Prairieville is a suburban
public-school system, which shares a border with a larger city and is located in the Midwest
region of the U.S. The district is comprised of the following schools: eight K-6 elementary, one
K-8 elementary and middle, one middle, one high school, an alternative high school, an early
childhood center, an early childhood special education center, and an area learning center.
Recent newspaper reports cite the Prairieville Public Schools as a destination for almost 1,000
students from the neighboring urban district whose parents are looking for alternatives to their
assigned local school (citation withheld to retain confidentiality).
The student body in Prairieville is 0.4% American Indian or Alaska Native, 6.8% two or
more races, 13.7% Hispanic or Latino, 15.8% Black or African American, 19.6% Asian, and
43.7% White. The district does not have any students who identify as Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander (2019 State Department of Education District Report Card). Of this population,
14.8% are emerging bilingual or ELs, 14.2% qualify for special education services, 44.7%
receive free or reduced lunch, and 1.3% are homeless (2019 State Department of Education

5
District Report Card). Data related to the number of students who are multilingual but do not or
no longer qualify for English language services is not available. The 2018 data shows that 87.9%
of Prairieville students graduate from high school in four years and another 7.2% continue
beyond a fourth year in order to complete their high school degree (2019 State Department of
Education District Report Card).
On the staffing side, 92.26% of the Prairieville Public Schools educators are considered
experienced, which is defined as having three or more years of teaching experience. This is
above state averages for both high- and low-poverty districts, as well as districts with both high
and low populations of students of color and American Indian or Alaska Native students.
Slightly more than 99% of the courses in the district are taught by state licensed educators and
67.7% of those educators hold advanced degrees, which is also above average for the state in the
aforementioned categories. In terms of race and ethnicity, the licensed educators in the district
identify as follows: 0.0% as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 0.16% as American
Indian or Alaska Native, 1.56% two or more races, 2.82% Black or African American, 3.44%
Hispanic or Latino, 4.07% Asian, and 87.95% as White (2019 State Department of Education
District Report Card).
Prairieville Public Schools have a comprehensive strategic plan available for public
viewing on their website (school district website, not named to retain confidentiality). Their
mission is concise, with a focus on excellence in teaching and equity, and their vision further
refines the mission as it focuses exclusively on equity for not only students, but also families and
staff. This equity vision specifically calls out home or first language along with other qualities
such as race, ethnicity, gender, and gender identity. The strategic plan provides five focus areas
broken down into a number of strategies meant to serve as a guide for arriving at the mission and

6
vision of the district. These focus areas include improving: outcomes for students of color and
ELs who receive special education services; communication with families, particularly those
from underrepresented populations; the social-emotional supports for students; the ways in
which the district prepares students for post-secondary education; and the management of
resources so facilities can be updated. Each of these strategies are either directly or indirectly
linked to the education that Prairieville Public Schools provides to the ELs in their district.
Organizational Goal
The mission of Prairieville Public Schools focuses on cultivating high quality, equity-
focused instruction across the district, which is complemented by focus areas specifically related
to ELs in the following ways: improving learning for all students, including English learners
(ELs); improving communication with families, particularly those who are historically
underrepresented; improving supports for social-emotional development of students; and
building out the supports for college and career readiness (Prairieville Public Schools website,
withheld to retain confidentiality). Each focus area in the district’s strategic plan is inclusive of
ELs, with the first specifically calling out how ELs are served. Improving instruction for ELs in
Prairieville Public Schools is important because the EL student population grew by 47.6%
between 2009 and 2014 (United States Department of Education, n.d.). Proficiency for ELs on
state exams, however, have decreased since 2016 from 20% of ELs testing as proficient to 16.7%
meeting proficiency in 2018 (2019 State Department of Education District Report Card, not
named to retain confidentiality).
Under the focus area related to improving learning for all students, the Prairieville Public
Schools’ strategic plan calls for the district to examine the specific needs of ELs and implement
changes accordingly (Prairieville Public Schools website, n.d.). The problem of practice

7
addressed in this evaluation study directly relates to this strategy, as Prairieville Public Schools
have developed a formal partnership with a local university to train its EL teachers in teacher
leadership skills. This partnership and the training of EL teacher leaders provides a structured
means for improving instruction for ELs in the district. The university trains the EL teachers,
who then facilitate professional development and provide one-on-one, non-evaluative, peer
instructional coaching to their general education teacher colleagues. The intended result is
improved instruction for ELs in all content areas and, ultimately, achievement gains for this
population of students. As such, the following goal will drive this evaluation study: Improve
learning for English learners through teacher leadership. For the purposes of this study, teacher
leadership will be defined as “teachers who maintain PREK-12 classroom-based teaching
responsibilities while also taking on leadership responsibilities outside of the classroom”
(Wenner & Campbell, 2017). This definition aligns with the teacher leadership enacted in
Prairieville Public Schools, where EL teacher leaders also serve as the teacher of record,
providing direct instruction to ELs for the majority of the school day.
Related Literature
While teacher leadership is not necessarily a novel idea (York-Barr & Duke, 2004),
explicit calls for increased teacher leadership roles are relatively new (Duncan, 2014; United
States Department of Education, 2015). However, there are variations in the roles and
expectations of teacher leaders across PreK-12 schools in the U.S. and many of these positions
lack a succinct job description (Margolis, 2012). Wenner & Campbell (2017), who carried out an
meta-analysis of the literature on teacher leadership published between January 2004 through
December 2013 as a follow-up study to the seminal work of York-Barr and Duke (2004),
discovered there is not a consistent or agreed upon definition of teacher leadership in the

8
literature. This variation in how teacher leadership is defined exacerbates the problem of teacher
leaders feeling unsuccessful in their roles. Jacobs, Gordon, and Solis (2016) also found there is
diversity in the specific roles that teacher leaders play throughout the nation.
The success of teacher leaders is further dependent on administrators, specifically
principals, who establish the conditions for distributed or shared leadership at the school level.
Principals need to trust teacher leaders and be deliberate in their discussions about how to
maximize time for teacher leaders to fulfill their roles and duties (Berg, Bosch, & Souvanna,
2013). Based on these finding, Smylie and Eckert (2018) built a theoretical model for teacher
leadership development at the school level. The model encompasses principal support, leadership
capacity of the teachers, design of the leadership work, resources (specifically, time and social
support), and school conditions (e.g. climate, culture, etc.). School principals typically have
some control over master schedules for the school day and year (Wahlstrom, et al., 2011), which
means they have jurisdiction over a resource that is lacking for teacher leaders: dedicated time to
fulfill their leadership duties.
Insufficient amounts of time for teacher leaders to perform their jobs is a recurrent
problem in teacher leadership implementation. A 2009 study conducted by Vannest, et al., where
teachers were trained in time management and self-monitoring of time use, did not consistently
result in more efficient or effective use of time for teachers, in large part because of the lack of
control teachers have over the systems in which they work. Bruno, Ashby, and Manzo (2012)
conducted a study of 983 teachers in Chicago Public Schools and found the average teacher
works 10 hours and 48 minutes per workday, which is well beyond the contractually required
hours. In addition to the qualities required of EL teacher leaders to fulfill their responsibilities,
this evidence lays clear the need for specific organizational supports for teacher leadership,

9
including clear job descriptions, principal support, and dedicated time. The literature
demonstrates that these supports are identified as lacking in teacher leadership initiatives at the
organizational and/or school level (Margolis, 2012; Berg, Bosch, & Souvanna, 2013; Gordon,
Jacobs, & Solis, 2014; Berry, 2015; Jacobs, Gordon, & Solis, 2016; Sebastian, Allensworth, &
Huang, 2016; Wenner & Campbell, 2017; Holloway, Nielsen, & Saltmarsh, 2018).
Importance of Evaluation
There are multiple calls for the development of teacher leaders at the federal level, most
notably by the U.S. Department of Education (Duncan, 2014), and each come with the ultimate
promise of increased academic success for students, particularly those who are historically
marginalized. Significant federal, state, and local resources have been allocated to answer the
call for teacher leadership, including but not limited to the creation of new jobs, federal grants,
leadership micro-credential and degree programs, human resource funding, and professional
development time. Given there is limited empirical evidence of teacher leadership’s impact on
instructional practices and student achievement (Wenner & Campbell, 2017), this study serves to
add to the body of literature so that educators better understand the effects of teacher leadership
initiatives. As such, this evaluation study will specifically examine the experiences of EL teacher
leaders to determine how their experience is similar to and different from the existing research
on teacher leadership, as well as how EL teacher leaders perceive the supports put in place by
their school district administrators and principals. By focusing on EL teacher leaders, this study
will not only add to the body of literature, but also extend it into an unexplored area of teacher
leadership, where teachers provide non-evaluative peer instructional coaching and professional
development to peers across content areas.

10
Description of Stakeholder Groups
There are multiple stakeholder groups who are central to the problem of practice and
organizational goal, including but not limited to school-level administrators, teachers, and
students. While ELs are the ultimate beneficiary of instructional practices designed to meet their
learning needs (Slavin, 2008), EL teacher leaders will serve as the stakeholders of focus because
of their role in changing instruction through their teacher leadership practices. It is empirically
established that teacher quality has a significant impact on student achievement (Darling-
Hammond, 2000; Harris & Sass, 2011) so studying the behaviors of EL teacher leaders who are
charged with affecting instructional change will allow for examination of the problem at its
potential source.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
A full analysis would include all three of the stakeholder groups identified above,
however, EL teacher leaders will be the stakeholder group of focus for this evaluation. In
addition to practicality, there are several reasons for homing in on these teachers as the primary
stakeholder group, one of which is they are the agents of change for enacting teacher leadership
through a formalized, grant funded, partnership that Prairieville Public Schools has with a local
university. EL teachers, who are already trained in applied linguistics and second language
pedagogy, are the primary audience for the teacher leadership training and are responsible for the
delivery of non-evaluative peer instructional coaching and professional development that are
required as a result of the training. For these reasons, data collected from EL teachers will help to
establish how these efforts are experienced by trained EL teacher leaders and the perceived
effects they have on instructional practices in their respective school settings. As such, the

11
stakeholder goal for the focus group is complementary to the implementation language of the
federal grant that funds the EL teacher leadership training offered to EL teachers in Prairieville
Public Schools.
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
High quality teaching with a focus on equity.
Organizational Performance Goal
Improve learning for English learners through teacher leadership.
School Administrators’ Goal Teachers’ Goal Students’ Goal
By June of 2020, Prairieville
Public School administrators
will develop clear EL teacher
leadership roles in job
descriptions, arrange a schedule
for EL teacher leaders that
allows dedicated time for peer
instructional coaching, and a
structured system for support
for EL teacher leaders from the
administrators.
By June of 2020, English
language teacher leaders will
deliver six hours of
professional development on
language learning and peer
instructional coaching to up to
10 of their general education
teacher colleagues.
By June of 2023,
Prairieville Public School
ELs will demonstrate
increased achievement in
state standardized tests in
reading, math, and science
as compared to EL
achievement prior to the EL
teacher leadership
implementation at the
school.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this evaluation study is to examine the degree to which the organization is
meeting its organizational goal. The analysis focuses on knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences related to achieving the organizational goals using Clark and Estes’
2008 Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization (KMO) Framework. This framework is designed
to better understand the gap between an organization’s actual performance and its vision for how
it should be performing by examining the influences related to knowledge, motivation, and the

12
organization or systems within which the work is happening. Guiding question for this
evaluation study address knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization influences for
teachers. These questions are:
1. To what extent is the organization meeting its goal of improving learning for ELs through
EL teacher leadership?
2. What is the EL teacher leaders’ knowledge and motivation related to the organizational
and stakeholder goals?
3. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and the EL teacher
leaders’ knowledge and motivation?
Definitions
Distributed Leadership: A leadership style that is not as reliant on traditional hierarchies for
leadership work and decision-making processes. It is sometimes referred to as shared
leadership.
English learners (ELs): English learners in U.S. public schools are students who have indicated a
language other than English is spoken at home and who do not meet proficiency
standards on English language assessments, which vary by state. These students qualify
for special language instruction services, as required by Lau v. Nichols (1974).
English language (EL) teacher: A teacher who has formally studied second language acquisition,
applied linguistics, related theory and pedagogy, and who serves EL students in PreK-12
U.S. public schools. EL teachers usually hold licensure or certification in EL instruction.
General education teachers: General education teachers are trained to teach in a given set of
grade levels, e.g. elementary, or in a specific content area, e.g. math. For the purposes of
this study, all teachers other than those who hold a PreK-12 teaching license or
certification in English language instruction are considered general education teachers.
Non-evaluative Peer Instructional Coaches: In this evaluation study, peer instructional coaches
refer to trained EL teacher leaders who hold specific expertise related to second language

13
learning and acquisition, coaching general education peer colleagues in a non-evaluative
way in order to make improvements to instruction for English learners.
PreK-12 schools: In the U.S., these are schools that serve any or all of the students who fall
between preschool and grade 12.
Shared Leadership: A leadership style that is less reliant on traditional hierarchies for leadership
work and decision-making processes. It is also referred to as distributed leadership.
Teacher Leadership (TL): teachers who serve as the teacher of record for a portion of the school
day and are also responsible for fulfilling leadership duties for the remaining portion of
the school day (Wenner & Campbell, 2017).
Organization of the Project
This evaluation study is organized into five chapters. The first chapter includes key
concepts and terminology related to teacher leadership and the context for the study, Prairieville
Public Schools, as well as the organization’s mission, goals and the stakeholders for the project.
Chapter Two begins with a review of the literature relevant to the project and addresses the
history of teacher leadership, the role of distributed leadership in teacher leadership
implementation, and the literature on role clarity, principal support, and dedicated time for
teacher leadership responsibilities. This chapter continues with a review of the literature related
to EL teachers’ role within the context of U.S. PreK-12 schools. Chapter Three details the
knowledge, motivation and organizational influences related to the specific participants, data
collection and analysis. The data collected and results are assessed and analyzed in Chapter Four.
Finally, Chapter Five identifies potential solutions, based on data analysis and literature, for
closing the perceived gaps. Chapter Five concludes with recommendations for an
implementation and evaluation plan for the solutions.

14
Chapter Two: Review of The Literature
This literature review examines potential causes of gaps in supports for teacher leadership
initiatives in U.S. PreK-12 schools, as they specifically relate to EL teachers enacting teacher
leadership responsibilities. The review begins with general research on the history of teacher
leadership and political influences in the U.S. This is followed by an overview of literature on
the role distributed leadership plays in teacher leadership implementation. This section includes
current research on principal support as it relates to teacher leadership, as well as the allocation
of time for the fulfillment of teacher leadership duties. The review presents an in-depth
discussion on the importance of teacher leaders having clearly defined roles and expectations and
teacher time analyses. Finally, the literature related to EL teachers and ELs is reviewed to
provide a bridge between the teacher leadership literature and the current study’s stakeholder
group of focus. This section explores the connections between the two, given the scarcity of
empirical literature that directly addresses EL teacher leadership. Following the general research
literature, the review turns to the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework
and, specifically, knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on teacher leadership
implementation in U.S. PreK-12 school settings.
Teacher Leadership in the United States
Understanding the role history plays in contemporary implementations of teacher leaders
provides a context for the inductive data analysis used in this study, which examines the
experiences of EL teacher leaders in Prairieville Public Schools. This context is important
because it helps to illuminate the origins of teacher leadership initiatives and the political
influences that may play a role in school district’s responses to calls for teacher leadership in the
U.S. The following sections review the literature on teacher leadership’s history, as well as the

15
political context that brought teacher leadership to the forefront of conversations around
implementing change in the way schools address the academic needs of ELs in PreK-12 U.S.
schools.
Historical Perspectives on Teacher Leadership
While the view that teachers are central to the operation of a school is not new, there is an
increased amount of attention on teacher leadership as a component of school improvement and
educational reform. In their seminal meta-analysis of the literature on teacher leadership, York-
Barr and Duke (2004) found that current iterations of teacher leadership have roots in the
educational reform movement beginning in the 1980s and have expanded since that time.
According to their research, the educational reform movement originated in the 1980s had the
ultimate aim of increasing student achievement across all demographics and teacher leadership
grew out of reform initiatives such as merit pay and new opportunities for professional
responsibility, all of which intend to professionalize the field of teaching. These professionalized
models of teaching included teacher leadership and were designed to restructure education
systems for student academic achievement, built on the critical role teacher knowledge plays in
increased academic success for students (York-Barr & Duke, 2004).
Fullan (2009) further helps to flesh out the changes that the 1980s educational reform
leaders were seeking. These changes went well beyond the classroom and called for system-level
initiatives in education, or large-scale reforms, which require leadership from everyone involved,
including teachers. In addition, the education reform movement addressing accountability
measures in the 1980s represented a new focus on reforms, including teaching leadership.
According to Fullan, reform efforts in the U.S., directed by the No Child Left Behind policy,
have been largely unsuccessful in leveraging expert teachers to be leaders, especially in schools

16
with students who struggle academically. This lack of success is attributed to many factors,
including but not limited to “too many and too narrow tests, short timelines, little capacity
building, and a punitive strategy” (Fullan, 2009, p. 107).
With the adoption of Common Core Standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative,
n.d.) came a push to reform the teaching profession in an effort to improve teacher quality so
students meet the more rigorous academic standards (The Aspen Institute, 2013). According to
The Aspen Institute (2013), teacher leadership provided a framework for the reformation of
teacher evaluation and compensation structures for teachers. These were thought to better reflect
the responsibilities, knowledge, and skills of a teacher leader. The systemic school reform, as
argued by The Aspen Institute, also allows for innovations initiated by teacher leaders. While
there is limited literature specifically related to EL teachers serving as teacher leaders, these
larger historical patterns help to describe the background that influences the EL teacher
leadership work which serves as the focus of this study.
Political Influences on Teacher Leadership
As the education reform movement and the professionalization of teaching as a career
evolved, it garnered attention from policy makers and leaders in the U.S. who worked to develop
government-supported initiatives to develop teacher leaders. The National Commission on
Teaching and America’s Future (1996) called for mentoring programs that allow expert teachers
to share their knowledge with new teachers. They also made recommendations that teachers be
rewarded for their professional skills, noting this requires the development of new compensation
structures. The commission went further and suggested traditional hierarchies needed to be
flattened so leadership can be distributed to those who work directly with students (1996).

17
These political calls for teacher leadership continued and the National Education
Association’s Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium eventually created the Teacher
Leader Model Standards (2011). These standards call for the reformation of historical concepts
of authority and influence, stating they need to be changed in order for teachers to become
leaders in their schools. This includes the implementation of distributed or shared leadership
models where reciprocity between teachers and principals is built into the systemic structures
under which the school operates. The standards further describe that models of accountability
need to be carefully developed for teacher leaders so that effectiveness is more likely. In order to
maximize resources so teacher leadership is successful, the standards describe partnerships
between schools, districts, and colleges of education need to be developed.
The Teacher Leader Model Standards (2011) set the stage for Arne Duncan’s 2014 call
for the advancement of teacher leadership at the Teaching and Learning Conference in
Washington DC. In his address to conference attendees, Duncan stated that teacher leadership is
an opportunity for teachers to have their voices heard and to take part in reshaping education. He
further clarified that teachers have expressed a desire to take part in leadership decision making
without having to give up their instructional roles, which can be done through the
implementation of teacher leadership models following the definition of teacher leadership used
in this study (Wenner & Campbell, 2017). Duncan’s conference speech (2014) was preceded by
the development of a partnership between the U.S. Department of Education, the National
Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, Teach for America, and others in
the education reform community (Duncan, 2014). The partnership eventually resulted in the
Teach to Lead campaign (Teach to Lead, n.d.), which is charged with helping to professionalize
teaching and recruit talented young adults to become teachers.

18
As stated previously, there is very little empirical research related specifically to EL
teacher leaders exists, although literature related EL teacher identity, described in a subsequent
section, attends to the subject. Nonetheless, the political call for teacher leadership is
demonstrated in the TESOL International Association (March 2014) professional paper, which
addressed how the professional association saw the role of EL teachers evolving in PreK-12 U.S.
schools. This paper stated that EL teachers need to consider an expansion in their roles beyond
direct instruction to include leadership roles such as expert, advocate, and consultant. This means
EL teachers may be responsible for providing professional development to their colleagues on
second language acquisition theory and pedagogy. TESOL International Association added to the
call for teacher leadership and the professionalization of the field by implying that the evolution
of EL teacher positions within school systems will advance their role and expertise.
Distributed Leadership Models and Teacher Leadership
Distributed leadership models are either mentioned or explicitly called for in the literature
on teacher leadership and the political movements toward the enactment of teacher leadership in
PreK-12 U.S. schools (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996; National
Education Association’s Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium, 2011). According to the
literature, principals play an important role in setting up organizational systems of distributed
leadership to support teacher leaders (Berg, Bosch, & Souvanna, 2013; Cheng & Szeto, 2016;
Klein, et al., 2018; Smylie & Eckert, 2018). The literature also addresses the issue of teacher
leaders, as well as other teachers in a school building, having clarity around the roles and
expectations of their position. The issue of teacher leaders needing dedicated time to fulfill those
teacher leadership duties is recurrent in the literature (Holloway, Neilsen, & Saltmarsh, 2018;
Smylie & Eckert, 2018; Jacobs, Gordon, & Solis, 2016; Gordon, Jacobs, & Solis, 2014; Lai &

19
Cheung, 2014; Berg, Bosch, & Souvanna, 2013; Margolis, 2012). Although principals often have
control of scheduling and budgets, the ability to carve out dedicated time for teacher leadership
often lies within the purview of other organizational leaders rather than teacher leaders
themselves. However, the literature also demonstrates that teachers, and teacher leaders more
specifically, have a degree of agency both individually and collectively in the way that they
manage their roles within the school (Taylor, et al., 2011; Bangs & MacBeath, 2012; Biesta, et
al., 2015).
Role of the Organization in the Form of Principal Support
Principals have the authority to implement systems of leadership at the school level,
albeit within the parameters of the district and state policies. As such, the success of teacher
leaders and the stakeholder group in this evaluation study is tied to, although not fully dependent
on, having principals who establish the conditions of distributed leadership, where teachers are
able to take up leadership responsibilities within the larger structure of school operations. Cheng
and Szeto (2016) looked at the development of novice teachers taking up teacher leadership roles
in Hong Kong school. Based on their findings, they are able to demonstrate a relationship
between principals and teacher leadership. The study suggests teachers are less resistant toward
participating in teacher leadership in schools with more collaborative cultures, which also points
toward the principal’s role in systems of distributed leadership and school culture. The authors
ultimately call for a “systematic leadership talent identification” process for schools to cultivate
future teacher leaders as a means of building leadership capacity within a given school. The
authors suggest schools establish ways to identify leadership needs, engage in long-term career
planning with teachers, and provide an avenue for teachers to come forward if they are interested
in taking up a teacher leadership role. In essence, Cheng and Szeto (2016) argue that, at the

20
organizational level, a deliberate and structured process for both recognizing teachers with
leadership potential and then cultivating that potential is key to establishing and then reaping the
benefits of teacher leadership. These benefits tie back to teachers’ satisfaction with their work.
Their findings are underscored by other studies that focus more broadly on teacher leadership in
the U.S.
In their multi-year qualitative study of science teacher leaders working in K-12 schools,
Klein, et al. (2018) examined how relationships and the leadership context affected their work.
The science teacher leaders, much like the stakeholders in the study, were participants in a grant
funded project that supported emerging science teacher leaders as a mechanism to initiate change
in school leadership practices. Using distributed leadership as their theoretical frame, Klein, et al.
found internal limitations on enacting teacher leadership included relationship with principals
and other administrators. They go on to recommend that including administrators in the
preparation of teacher leaders may lead to greater success toward building a distributed
leadership model in a school.
Berg, Bosch, and Souvanna (2013) examined what they refer to as the “critical
conditions” for teacher leadership to be successfully implemented. They describe how principals
and teacher leaders who agree on the structure of distributed leadership used in the school feel
they are more likely to be successful in their respective roles. A second implication of their work
is that the school leaders must cultivate a sense of trust in order for professional growth through
teacher leadership to take place. Finally, the authors found that teacher leaders need to have
clarity around the decision-making authority they have, which is related to the principal’s role in
the school and enactment of a shared leadership model at the organizational level.

21
Like Berg, Bosch, and Souvanna (2013) before them, Smylie and Eckert found in their
2018 study that the principal plays an important role related to the support of teacher leadership,
including: the design of the leadership work; the distribution of resources, specifically, time and
social support; and the school conditions, e.g. climate and culture. Further they found the school
principal’s support of teacher leadership development is unique in that the development may not
be led by the principal but must be actively encouraged by him or her or them. As in other
studies, Smylie and Eckert (2018) identify distributed or shared models of leadership at the
organizational level as important if principals are going to support the work of teacher leaders.
Distributed leadership and authority are “critical conditions” (Berg, Bosch, and Souvanna, 2013)
for the successful implementation of teacher leadership, as well as principal support, but teacher
leaders have agency that is not dependent on school leaders, which enables a form of distributed
leadership in their schools.
Teacher Leaders’ Agency
Although principal support creates the conditions for success (Berg, Bosch, & Souvanna,
2013; Cheng & Szeto, 2016; Klein, et al., 2018; Smylie & Eckert, 2018), there is evidence that
teacher leaders are able to create space for teacher leadership within a school without explicit
administrator support through their own authority within the context of a school. Given that EL
teacher leaders are the stakeholders of focus in this evaluation study, teacher agency is an
important subject to explore. In Biesta, et al. (2015), the authors conducted a two-year study to
examine the advancement and augmentation of teacher agency within the context of a significant
education reform in Scotland. Teacher agency, as they define, is applied through actions rather
than an emotion or feeling a teacher has (p. 626). As such, Biesta, et al. focused on teachers’
beliefs and the circumstances that result in their agency as it is expressed through actions. They

22
found teacher agency is dependent upon individual characteristics, including the teacher’s
knowledge and skills as they relate to their professional roles, and is impacted by short-term
goals rather than long-term visions. Biesta, et al. recommend explicit attention to the purpose of
change initiatives and education as a whole as a means to increase teacher agency.
While Biesta, et al. (2015) examined the role of teacher agency during a change initiative,
Taylor et al. (2011) look more closely at the at formal teacher leadership and the role that having
voice has on actions. In their three-year longitudinal study of teachers who were enrolled in a
master’s degree program in teacher leadership, which was developed in partnership with a local
teachers union and focused on preparing teachers to become leaders while continuing to teach,
they found training to become a teacher leader allowed teachers to amplify their professional
voice in a way that made them shift from recipients of information to sources of knowledge.
Taylor et al. found this meant trained teacher leaders were more inclined to define the parameters
of their own roles. In addition, they found discovering and defining professional voice directly
impacted teacher agency, which in turn impacted their self-efficacy (Bandura, 2000) or belief in
the skills and knowledge they possess. Taylor et al.’s (2011) research demonstrates the
importance of teacher agency development through training, but collective leadership also plays
a role in teachers’ sense of their own influence.
Bangs and MacBeath (2012) argue that teachers, and teacher leaders more specifically,
have agency through the teacher’s union as a collective form of leadership. The authors establish
that teachers’ unions serve the purpose of not only exercising a form of leadership in their own
right, but also advocating for the expression of leadership through the empowerment of teacher
members. As such, teachers’ unions are able to initiate changes through policy development and
innovations. Bangs and MacBeath cite the national teachers’ unions’ involvement in the

23
development of the Teacher Leader Model Standards (2011) as an example of how union
involvement in policy writing impacts teacher agency through teacher leadership. Such policies
add to the body of knowledge related to how teacher leadership is enacted in schools.
Roles and Expectations for Teacher Leaders
The literature further demonstrates that teacher leaders need clearly defined roles and
expectations in order to be able to manage their work effectively. Margolis (2012), studied what
he referred to as “hybrid teacher leaders”, which fits the definition of teacher leadership used in
this study, where teachers maintain some responsibility for directly instructing students while
also serving in a leadership capacity within the school (Wenner & Campbell, 2017). Margolis’
study (2012) reveals teacher leaders need clear systems, clear expectations, intentionality, and
instructional modeling. In their research, teacher leaders who lacked a clear job description and
worked in schools where other teachers did not understand the teacher leader’s role felt like the
other teachers in the building associated teacher leaders more with administration than with
teachers. In other words, they did not view the teacher leader as a teaching peer or colleague.
According to Margolis (2012), this is detrimental to trust between teaching peers. These findings
have important implications for this study’s focus, where EL teacher leaders are acting as peer
instructional coaches who serve in a non-evaluative capacity. Finally, Margolis (2012) found
teacher leaders felt overwhelmed by the number of tasks they were expected to complete while
simultaneously being delegated tasks not directly related to their leadership roles, such a
substitute teaching and student behavior monitoring.
Jacobs, Gordon, and Solis (2016) examined what they framed as critical issues
influencing teacher leadership. They found there is variety in the roles that teacher leaders play
throughout the U.S. and concluded teacher leadership functions need to be defined and

24
commonly understood in order to establish the organizational conditions for success. They
further stated that all levels of leadership, as well as every teacher in a school, need to understand
the roles of teacher leaders. Conflicts can arise between teachers and teacher leaders without this
clarity, which creates the circumstances for teacher leaders to feel ineffective in their work.
Finally, the authors determine that agreements made between teacher leaders and principals will
help to establish common understandings and expectations for teacher leaders (Jacobs, Gordon,
& Solis, 2016).
In a follow-up to York-Barr and Duke’s (2004) seminal research on teacher leadership,
Wenner and Campbell (2017) conducted a similar meta-analysis on the teacher leadership
empirical literature since York-Barr and Duke’s publication. As stated in chapter one, they found
there is not an agreed upon definition of teacher leadership in the literature and concluded more
empirical research is needed on this topic in order to establish clear roles and expectations of
teacher leaders if there is to be a single, common understanding. A clear and consistent definition
of what teacher leadership means may help to further empirical research in the field, according to
Wenner and Campbell (2017). In fact, they determine an “explicit articulation” (p. 163) of the
work that a teacher leader is responsible for completing will help to create the supportive
conditions addressed in this evaluation study. Clearly defined roles, as spelled out in job
descriptions, can have an impact on the ability of teacher leaders to fulfill their job duties, but
they also need organizational changes specifically related to scheduling in order to be successful.
Dedicated Time for Teacher Leadership Duties
Insufficient amounts of time for teacher leaders to perform their jobs is a persistent
problem in teacher leadership implementation. In their article on the operationalization of teacher
leadership, Lai and Cheung (2014) discovered a need for dedicated time was a consistent theme

25
found in the coding process and data analysis across the participant groups in this study. The
authors determined that, regardless of the specific responsibilities of the leadership work, teacher
leaders must be provided the time and resources needed to fulfill their roles.
In a study designed to better understand how teachers use their time during the workday,
Vannest, Soares, Harrison, Brown, and Parker (2009) trained U.S. PreK-12 teachers in time
tracking, after which the teachers set goals for adjustments to how they use their professional
time. This training in time management did not consistently result in more efficient or effective
use of time for teachers. Several barriers to reformulating teacher use of time were named by the
authors, including the lack of control teachers have over the organizational systems in which
they work. While Vannest, et al. (2009) found that self-monitoring use of time has the potential
to empower teachers with data in order to discuss changes to use of time with principals, the
principals may still have decision-making power over any substantial changes made (Smylie and
Eckert, 2018; Cheng and Szeto 2016; Berg, Bosch, and Souvanna 2013), as described in the
previous section.
Additional studies underscore the concept that teachers’ lack control of how they use
their time during a contractual workday. Bruno, Ashby, and Manzo (2012) surveyed 983 teachers
in Chicago Public Schools (CPS) to learn about their teaching activities, non-teaching activities
conducted during the school day, non-teaching activities conducted outside of contractual hours
during the week, and demographic information. The results of their study showed that a CPS
teacher work an average of 58 hours each week during the contractual school year (9 months),
which comes out to approximately 10 hours and 48 minutes per day. Contrary to a popular belief
that teachers do not work eight full hours in a per day, which was detailed in the background of
the study, Bruno, Ashby, and Manzo (2012) found the teacher work day begins before students

26
arrive and ends after they leave the school building. Survey respondents indicated only nine
minutes per day is used to plan with colleagues, which further indicates significant structural
changes need to be made to the organization in order to create time for teacher leadership duties
in schools where teachers are already overscheduled and lack the capacity to take on additional
responsibilities.
Multiple organizational factors influence the success of teacher leaders and the literature
shows there are consistent themes related to the need for principal support, clarity in roles, and
dedicated time. The next section examines how the literature related to teachers’ roles are
understood within PreK-12 schools in the U.S., the data on EL academic achievement, and how
those bodies of literature relate to the history, political push, and factors that influence the
implementation of teacher leadership.
EL teachers and Students in United States PreK-12 schools
Subject to the political influences described above are U.S. EL teachers and the students
they serve. Sometimes the only professionals in a school trained in principles of second language
acquisition, EL teachers hold specialized knowledge that has not historically been part of general
educators’ teacher preparation curricula. Recognizing the direct instruction one EL teacher can
provide to large numbers of students is limited, schools of education are beginning to
acknowledge the need to include second language acquisition in their pre-service teacher
curricula (Ballantyne, Sanderman, & Levy, 2008). For in-service teachers, professional
development is the means by which in-service teachers can get access to the theoretical and
pedagogical knowledge they need to effectively teach ELs. However, this also means general
education teachers need to see EL students as their responsibility rather than the exclusive
responsibility of the EL teacher (Ballantyne, Sanderman, & Levy, 2008). Positioning EL teachers

27
as consultants and facilitators of professional development (TESOL International Association,
2014) places them into teacher leadership roles. This is one way to deliver theory and pedagogy
for second language acquisition to practicing general education teachers in a way that is both
efficient and cost effective because it does not require practicing teachers to pay for university
credits. In addition, it adheres to what are considered best practices in professional development.
Two of these best practices are: professional development should be ongoing and site based
(Guskey & Yoon, 2009). EL teacher leaders can fulfill both of these criteria given they are
embedded within each school as resident experts in supporting ELs in the general education
classroom and curricula.
Lack of Preparation for Working with ELs in Teacher Education Programs
Historically, PreK-12 teachers in the U.S. rarely completed coursework focused on the
learning needs and pedagogy recognized as effective for instructing ELs. Ballantyne, Sanderman,
and Levy (2008) established that in 2008 only 29.5% of general education teacher had been
trained in pedagogy related to language learners, yet most teachers have at least one EL in their
classroom. Many of the teachers who were prepared to teach prior to 2008 are teaching today.
Effective instruction for English learners involves pedagogical knowledge in both the content
being taught and in principles of second language acquisition. As such, all teachers who have or
will have ELs in their classrooms must further understand that ELs are learning both content and
language simultaneously and should therefore recognize the impact this has on their instructional
choices and practices. Because the number of ELs in the U.S. has grown significantly over the
last decade (United States Department of Education, n.d.), Ballantyne, Sanderman, and Levy
(2008) assert both teachers and school administrators need to move away from the notion that
ELs are not their responsibility or they “belong” to the EL teacher. Finally, resources must be

28
allocated toward ensuring all teachers have access to professional development that addresses the
skills, knowledge, and dispositions required to teach ELs. Access to professional development
attending to the academic needs of ELs is one of several solutions described in the literature as
necessary for preparing all teachers to work effectively with ELs.
Pettit (2011) found that the literature demonstrates a connection between teachers’ beliefs
about ELs and their instructional practices. In her research, she discovered general education
teachers did not fully understand the role of the EL teacher but expressed the job of teaching ELs
fell exclusively to the EL teacher as opposed to it being a shared responsibility among all of the
teachers charged with instructing ELs. Petit further determined some general education teachers
believe ELs cannot learn the content area curriculum, which suggests they would benefit from
professional development related to multilingualism, Translanguaging (Celic & Seltzer, 2013)
and second language acquisition in order to better understand how languages are learned and the
implications it has on their instructional practices in the general education classroom. This type
of professional development may be well received, as Pettit also found evidence that general
education teachers recognize their own lack of training and identified this as a hinderance to their
ability to effectively teach ELs in their classrooms.
Demographically, the growth in the number of EL students is not limited to urban areas
and rural teachers who see increases in ELs in their classrooms may not have the same access to
resources that metropolitan schools do. This lack of resources often includes the financial means
to support students with such culturally responsive instructional materials as bilingual texts.
Hansen-Thomas, Richins, Kakkar, and Okeyo’s 2016 mixed-methods study discovered many of
the teacher participants were concerned about their ability to communicate effectively with ELs
in order to teach the content in a comprehensible way. Teacher participants further noted a lack

29
of time as responsible for their inability to enact instructional strategies that would help the ELs
in their classrooms learn the content materials. The authors of this study recommend sustained
professional development for rural teachers of ELs, which is supported by the literature on
effective professional development (Guskey & Yoon, 2009). Interestingly, the teachers in their
study who completed two or more college courses that addressed teaching ELs felt better
prepared to work with their students. This finding alludes to the research of Petit (2011), which
discovered content area or general education teachers did not always feel responsible for
teaching ELs. The literature goes beyond the dispositions that general education teachers have
toward ELs and examines their willingness to take responsibility for EL student achievement.
Taking Responsibility for EL Student Achievement
Lucas, et al. (2018) found, while it is well established in the literature that most U.S.
teachers will teach ELs, the majority of teachers graduate from teacher education programs
unprepared to do so. In their analysis of 28 empirical studies, the authors found many studies
highlighted the need for general education teachers to have knowledge about language and
language learning in order to better instruct ELs. Moreover, in the literature that named general
education teachers’ need to gather background knowledge about ELs to inform their teaching,
working with their EL colleague in the collaborative capacity of mentor-mentee or coach was
most the most common recommendation. In addition, the authors name supported exploration
and reflection on instructional practices as a means by which teachers who lack training in
effective practices for ELs can improve their work with ELs in their general education
classrooms.
Martin’s 2019 discourse analysis provides and in-depth look at how Lucas et al.’s (2018)
finding manifest in two elementary general education teachers. In their research, the authors

30
found that while the teachers valued their work with ELs and wanted to ensure their comfort in
the classroom, this value served as a distraction from the teachers’ lack of the skills and
knowledge needed to help ELs develop academic language in English. Both participants in the
study demonstrated they were committed to ensuring that ELs in their classrooms were
comfortable and the discourse analysis led the authors to conclude this was primarily due to the
teachers’ belief that comfort in the classroom would enable student social participation.
However, the desire for ELs’ comfort in the classroom did not necessarily extend to an explicit
focus on their academic learning needs. Despite clearly valuing the presence of ELs, the
participants in this study did not choose to engage in professional development that might help
them move from care for ELs’ social-emotional wellbeing to theoretical knowledge or pedagogy
focused on the language development of ELs. Martin’s (2019) study adds to the body of
literature demonstrating the need for language acquisition focused professional development.
While Lucas et al. (2018) and Martin (2019) provide insights into the gaps in teacher
knowledge related to working with ELs, the Common Core Standards (CCS) have highlighted
some of these gaps since their nationwide launch. Bunch (2013) found, with the adoption of the
CCS (Common Core Standards Initiative, n.d.), teachers and administrators are facing a
relatively new challenge in that the standards hold all teachers and school leaders, not just EL
teachers, accountable for the academic achievement of ELs. Bunch argues the new standards
pose unique challenges because they require general education teachers to understand how to
teach the language of their content area, given that language is the primary vehicle for
instruction. For example, science teachers need to know the content area specific language of
biology or chemistry and utilize that knowledge in their instruction of ELs. According to Bunch,
the challenges of historical monolingualism and the lack of cultural, racial, and linguistic

31
diversity in the teaching profession compound the needs to rethink traditional ways of teaching
in order to address the needs of ELs so they can rise to the challenge of the new standards. The
process of rethinking the ways in which we define the roles of teachers points toward teacher
self-perception and how they define their roles within the construct of a school system.
EL Teachers’ Identities
Lortie (1975) presents a framework for understanding how our notions of teaching are
ingrained in our common understanding of what teachers do and, conversely, do not do in their
work. This common understanding, according to Lortie, is the result of what he refers to as the
Apprenticeship of Observation. Lortie asserts that as students attend school through the years,
they are simultaneously engaged in a type of apprenticeship for learning what makes up the work
of a teacher. As a result, children who grow up to become teachers already have a well-
developed sense of what they believe the job of a teacher is and is not. In fact, Lortie estimates
students in the U.S. spend 13,000 hours apprenticing with teachers as observers (Lortie, 1975, p.
61), hence the Apprenticeship of Observation. Of course, students are unable to see the whole of
a teacher’s responsibilities and, as a result, may enter into the field of teaching with
misconceptions based on their observations of teacher personalities rather than deeply analytical
understandings of pedagogy. Lortie further describes the historically individualistic pursuit of
teaching, which isolates teachers and places their success at the level of the person rather than
the group. As this research considers EL teacher leaders, which is an understudied and relatively
new conception of the role of EL teachers, much of what is being asked of EL teacher leaders
likely has not been observed and pushes EL teachers to think beyond their learning as teacher
apprentices to conceive of a new identity.

32
Helterbran (2010) addresses an additional identity issue that may play a role in how
teachers do and do not take up leadership. Helterbran establishes that, while there have been calls
for teachers to take up roles in leadership since 1991 and the body of research on the subject has
grown, the work of teacher leadership is not commonly visible in schools. Helterbran’s work, as
it applies to this evaluation study, provides evidence that EL teachers who take on teacher
leadership roles must already have the confidence to do so. Teacher leadership requires
eschewing the traditional notion that teachers work independently in their classrooms and move
to a collaborative model of improving instruction for students. This traditional conception of
teaching, as Lortie (1975) would describe it, is the product of the Apprenticeship of Observation.
EL teachers need to embrace the notion of teacher leadership in order to flourish in their
positions. This means both reframing the commonly understood conceptualization of what EL
teachers do, as well as recognizing the unique set of skills and knowledge the EL teacher brings
to the school.
In their 2013 study, de Jong, Harper, and Coady examined what is unique about the skill
set of EL teachers. They conceptualize the expertise of EL teachers as specialized or enhanced
expertise because it encompasses knowledge of the bilingualism and biculturalism of ELs, the
relationship between language and pedagogy, and the skill set needed to facilitate learning in a
variety of contexts within the school setting. Additionally, EL teachers are equipped to learn a
great deal about their students’ linguistic, academic, and social histories in order to bridge
language and content learning, as well as recognize the assets ELs bring to the classroom. Not
only that, but EL teachers have also been trained to leverage the existing language skills of ELs
in order to avoid diluting the rigor of content instruction. Finally, de Jong, Harper, and Coady
(2013) determine EL teachers need to know how to map federal, state, and local policies onto the

33
work they are doing in the classroom, which is a unique skill set among teachers. These
additional skills are rendered explicit by the authors, but the need to develop these skills in all
teachers is one rationale for affording EL teachers the opportunity to step into teacher leadership
roles.
Baecher (2012) provides one of the limited number of empirical studies directly
addressing EL teacher leadership. The purpose of Baecher’s research is to shed light on the
notion that many new EL teachers were already enacting teacher leadership, even as novice
teachers, often in the form of professional development delivery. Even though 22 of the 24
participants in Baecher’s 2012 study led professional development for their colleagues or
participated in other forms of teacher leadership, less than half of those EL teachers referred to
themselves as teacher leaders. Through the participant data, Baecher explored how novice
teachers who enact teacher leadership through the delivery of professional development learned
how to do this work. Apprenticeships with a more experienced leader was one way in which the
author identified how novice teachers learn how to become teacher leaders, which refers to
Lortie’s framework for the Apprenticeship of Observation. In order for this type of mentoring to
happen, however, there needs to be structured and systematic opportunities for EL teacher
leadership development (Cheng & Szeto, 2016), a school and district-wide understanding that EL
teachers have a unique set of knowledge and skills to share with their colleagues (de Jong,
Harper, & Coady, 2013), and well-defined EL teacher identities (Lortie, 1975).
Despite the shortage of literature specifically related to EL teachers fulfilling roles as
teacher leaders, the body of literature on the history (York-Barr & Duke, 2004; Fullan, 2009;
Curtis, 2013) and political influences of leadership (National Education Association, 2011;
Duncan, 2014; TESOL International Association, 2014) mapped alongside the role of distributed

34
leadership structures (Berg, Bosch, & Souvanna, 2013; Cheng & Szeto, 2016; Smylie & Eckert,
2018), roles and expectations of teacher leaders (Margolis, 2012; Jacobs, Gordon, & Solis, 2016;
Wenner & Campbell, 2017), and the need for dedicated time to fulfill teacher leadership
responsibilities (Vannest, et al., 2009; Bruno, Ashby, & Manzo, 2012; Lai & Cheung, 2015)
provide a foundation for understanding EL teacher leaders’ experiences. With an overlay of EL
student demographics (United States Department of Education, n.d.), the lack of preparation for
general education teachers who work with ELs (Helterbran, 2010; Pettit, 2011; Hansen-Thomas,
et al., 2016), and the agency and evolving identities of EL teachers (TESOL International
Association, 2014), these combined bodies of literature demonstrate the need to better
understand how EL teachers conceptualize and enact their work as teacher leaders.
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences Framework
According to Clark and Estes (2008), understanding the gap(s) between goals and
performance includes assessing and analyzing the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors in the space between implementation and achievement. This review of scholarly research
focuses on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences required for teachers at
Prairieville Public Schools to achieve their stakeholder performance goal. The performance goal
for this specified stakeholder group of PreK-12 teachers is to participate in professional
development and peer instructional coaching with a trained English language teacher leader and,
as a result, implement three or more promising practices for academic language development in
their instruction in order to improve access to content area instruction for English learners in
general education classrooms by June of 2020.
Each component of the Clark and Estes (2008) framework is addressed below, with a
specific focus on conceptual and procedural knowledge types, self-efficacy, and utility value.

35
These knowledge and motivation types, along with organizational factors, are needed for English
language teachers to become teacher leaders through non-evaluative peer instructional coaching
and professional development facilitation for student language development. The section begins
with a discussion on the knowledge and skills related to the performance goal. This is followed
by a section on the motivational factors influencing the stakeholders’ work, as well as a section
on the organizational factors influencing the stakeholders’ attainment of the performance goal.
Finally, the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences are analyzed in
Chapter Three’s methodology section.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
In addition to a review of the relevant literature, the following section is designed to build
a rationale for this evaluation study. Through the application of the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO
framework, the section begins by looking at the knowledge influences that play a role in the
successful enactment of EL teacher leadership as it relates to the organizational and stakeholder
goals. Next, the influences associated with EL teacher leaders’ motivation to implement the work
of teacher leadership is examined. Finally, this section outlines the organizational influences that
factor into the work of EL teacher leaders.
Knowledge and Skills
The literature on teacher leadership establishes there are specific skills the EL teacher
leaders participating in this study need in order to serve as effective teacher leaders (Allen, 2018;
Jacobs, Gordon, & Solis, 2016; Gordon, Jacobs, & Solis, 2014). Krathwohl (2002) delineates
knowledge into four types: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. These types
provide a framework for understanding how knowledge and skills apply to the experiences of EL

36
teachers taking up teacher leadership roles. In particular, EL teacher leaders need specific
knowledge and understanding of what teacher leadership is, the role teacher leaders play, and
how teacher leadership relates to the system within which it fits. In addition, they need
knowledge of the interpersonal skills deemed effective for practitioners of peer coaching and
professional development facilitation. Collectively, teacher leaders need certain factual,
conceptual, and procedural knowledge (Table 2).
Knowledge Influences
The knowledge influences in the KMO Model (Clark & Estes, 2008) refer to exploring
whether or not people know how to achieve their goals. Mayer (2011) further explains
knowledge “can be inferred by observing changes in the learner’s behavior” (p. 16). In the
context of this study’s stakeholder group of focus and the stakeholder goal, assessing knowledge
influences and gaps is a critical step in moving toward that end (Rueda, 2011). In this study,
three of four knowledge types are examined as they relate to the stakeholder group: factual,
conceptual, and procedural (Krathwohl, 2002, p. 214). EL teacher leaders, in order to qualify for
their positions, already have expertise in language acquisition, so the knowledge influences
described attend to knowledge specifically needed in order to perform the duties of a non-
evaluative peer instructional coach and facilitator of professional development.
Factual knowledge is considered a basic component or building block for more complex
types of knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). Remembering, understanding, and applying information
are three cognitive process dimensions which activate factual knowledge according to
Krathwohl’s revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy (2002). Krathwohl further describes conceptual
knowledge, explaining that it allows for an understanding of relationships between the building
blocks represented in factual knowledge, as well as those building blocks’ relationship to larger

37
systems. The cognitive process dimensions used for conceptual knowledge allow for the
evaluation of those relationships. Procedural knowledge is increasingly complex and points to
the techniques and skills associated with applying knowledge. It is demonstrated through
cognitive process domains such as applying, analyzing, and evaluating (Krathwohl, 2002). These
three specific forms of knowledge have been identified as influences in the work of EL teacher
leaders.
Knowledge of Teacher Leadership
EL teacher leaders need to have specific factual knowledge related to the extended
leadership role they play, which includes responsibilities related to but extend beyond the direct
instruction they provide to students. This knowledge includes an understanding of the basic
elements of teacher leadership as it pertains to their job expectations (Margolis 2012; Jacobs,
Gordon, and Solis 2016; Wenner & Campbell, 2017). Not only do EL teacher leaders need to
understand the role they play as teacher leaders, they also need to be familiar with the
terminology related to teacher leadership, which is indicative of the factual knowledge
(Krathwohl, 2002) required of the EL teacher leader participants in this study. In other words, in
order to play the role of a teacher leader, a teacher must first understand what teacher leadership
is, at least as it relates to their specific professional context and responsibilities.
Understand the Goals and Purpose of Teacher Leadership
EL teacher leaders need conceptual knowledge of the purpose and goals of teacher
leadership and how they relate to the overarching leadership system in the school and district
(Krathwohl, 2002: Berg, Bosch, & Souvanna, 2013; Denler, et al., 2006). This conceptual
knowledge is dependent on the factual knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002) previously described and
extends beyond it to an understanding of the steps necessary to direct their own professional

38
growth (Allen, 2018), knowledge of curriculum and instructional innovations, and adult learning
theories (Gordon, Jacobs, & Solis, 2014). Within the context of this evaluation study, EL teacher
leaders’ conceptual knowledge also means knowing the basic principles of instructional
coaching, which include understanding how to coach through observations, analyze observation
data, and facilitate reflection on practice (Gordon, Jacobs, & Solis, 2014). Krathwohl (2002)
explains conceptual knowledge also involves understanding the relationship between different
types of less complex knowledge, so EL teacher leaders also need to know how these types of
conceptual knowledge relate and interact with one another.
Interpersonal Skills
The literature establishes that teacher leaders who provide instructional coaching need to
develop interpersonal skills (Gordon, Jacobs, & Solis, 2014), which is a procedural knowledge
type (Krathwohl, 2002) in that it requires EL teacher leaders to learn how to interact effectively
as a non-evaluative peer coach. This knowledge includes knowing how to provide feedback
(Shute, 2008), enact the principles of teacher leadership (Berg, Bosch, & Souvanna, 2013), and
apply knowledge of adult learning theories (Shute, 2008; Gordon, Jacobs, & Solis, 2014). While
procedural in nature, it is worth noting this knowledge interacts with the conceptual (Krathwohl,
2002) influences and does not operate autonomously (see Figure 1, p. 65). EL teacher leaders
who engage in peer instructional coaching must also be able to recall factual knowledge
(Krathwohl, 2002) of the basic elements of formative feedback delivery, such as how to
communicate information that allows for learning (Shute, 2008), in order to attend to the
procedural knowledge demands of engaging in constructive feedback. One key example of the
procedural knowledge on feedback delivery required of the EL teachers is to not only know they
should provide specific information to general education teachers about their instructional

39
strategies rather than generic phrases such as “good job” (Shute, 2008), but also apply this in
practice. This squares with Krathwohl’s description of procedural knowledge as, “knowledge of
criteria for determining when to use appropriate procedure” (2004, Table 2, p. 214).
Procedural knowledge related to this knowledge influence is directly dependent on the
factual and conceptual knowledge described above, in that it refers to stakeholder knowledge of
how to deliver constructive feedback (Shute, 2008). The co-existence of these types of
knowledge is essential to EL teachers being able to fully engage in their roles as teacher leaders
and to achieve their goals related to delivering professional development and non-evaluative peer
instructional coaching to their general education teacher colleagues.
Table 2 provides an overview of the organizational mission, the organizational global
goal, and the stakeholder goal, which are aligned to the knowledge influences that play a role in
goal attainment. Additionally, the table provides information on the knowledge type identified
for each knowledge influence, as well as assessments that capture the stakeholder knowledge for
each of these influences and knowledge types.
Table 2
Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Analysis
Organizational Mission
High quality teaching with a focus on equity.
Organizational Global Goal
By June of 2020, English language teacher leaders will deliver six hours of professional
development on language learning and peer instructional coaching to up to 10 of their general
education teacher colleagues.
Stakeholder Goal
By June of 2020, English language teacher leaders will deliver six hours of professional
development on language learning and peer instructional coaching to up to 10 of their general
education teacher colleagues.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type (i.e.,
declarative (factual or
conceptual), procedural, or
metacognitive)
Knowledge Influence
Assessment

40
EL teacher leaders
1
need
knowledge specific to their
extended roles outside of the
classroom.
Factual Knowledge -
• EL teacher leader
knowledge of the basic
components of teacher
leadership as it pertains to
their job expectations.
Sample Interview Questions:
1. Growing up as students,
we spend a great deal of
time watching and
observing the teachers.
Can you describe the
leadership qualities you
saw in teachers when you
were a K-12 student?
2. Training to become a
teacher also provides us a
more structured
opportunity to observe
teachers and the many
responsibilities they have
in a school, both in and
outside of the classrooms.
How did you see teachers
playing a role in
leadership when you were
a student teacher?
3. What kinds of activities
did you see teacher
leaders participating in
when you were a student
teacher?
EL teacher leaders need to
know the purpose and goals
of their roles as teacher
leaders.
Conceptual knowledge -
● EL teacher leader
knowledge of the
elements of the peer
instructional coaching
model as a form of
teacher leadership and
how it relates to the
overarching leadership
structure of the school.
● EL teacher leader
knowledge of the theory
of adult learning.
Sample Interview Questions:
1. How would you describe
your role as an EL teacher
leader?

Document Review:
• Job descriptions –
evidence of specific
language relating to
teacher leadership duties
• Teacher schedules –
evidence of dedicated
time to fulfill teacher
leadership responsibilities
EL teacher leaders need to
know how to use
interpersonal skills in their
Procedural knowledge -
● EL teacher leader
knowledge of how to
Sample Interview Questions:
1. In your role as an EL
teacher leader, you are

1
EL teacher leaders are state endorsed K-12 English as a Second Language teachers who have existing
expertise in second language acquisition and teaching.

41
work. enact the principles of
mentoring and peer
instructional coaching.
● EL teacher leader
knowledge of how to give
and receive constructive
feedback.
charged with supporting
your mainstream teacher
colleagues as a peer coach
and facilitator of
professional development.
Tell me about the
specialized knowledge
you have that supports
your mainstream teacher
colleagues who work with
ELs in their classrooms

Observations:
• Evidence of interpersonal
skills identified in the
literature as principles of
peer coaching
Motivation
Similar to identifying knowledge influences, understanding stakeholder motivation is key
to the process of thoughtful gap analysis or evaluation of the current state of an organization or
initiative as compared to the desired state (Clark & Estes, 2008). In the context of the stakeholder
goal, the internal mechanisms that drive a person to want to learn take the form of academic
motivation, which refers to the effort a person is willing to put toward understanding new
concepts or material (Mayer, 2011, p. 39). According to Clark and Estes (2008), motivation is
the combined qualities of active choice, persistent work on the task, and mental effort. While
each of these qualities can exist alone, the three are required for motivation. Rueda (2011) notes
motivation is also influenced by cultural contexts, so the school environment in which the key
stakeholders teach likely plays a role in their motivation to achieve a stated goal.
A key influence in EL teacher leader’s success is self-efficacy, which Bandura describes
as people’s sense of what they can accomplish (Bandura, 2000). Bandura (1978) stated in his
earlier research that, “the strength of people’s convictions in their own effectiveness is likely to

42
affect whether they will even try to cope with given situations” (p.141). Pajares (2006), whose
work is based on Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1977), noted an individual’s self-efficacy
has an influence on his or her outcome expectations, which are the individual’s beliefs related to
what they expect will happen as the result of certain behaviors. Pajares further defines four
sources for self-efficacy: mastery experience, vicarious experience, social persuasion, and
physiological reactions (2006). Regardless of the source of self-efficacy, its impact affects a
person’s behaviors, persistence, and resiliency (Pajares, 2006). As Clark & Estes (2008) state,
persistence is a key element in motivation.
A second factor influencing EL teacher leaders’ motivation is the utility value they place
in the tasks associated with their leadership which, in the case of this evaluation study, refers to
their work as facilitators of professional development and non-evaluative peer instructional
coaches for their general education teaching colleagues. According to Rueda (2011), a person’s
belief that a task or goal is important is known as the task or utility value they assign to it (p. 42).
Eccles (2006) describes how utility value in a given task is derived from four, sometimes
overlapping constructs, including the enjoyment one gets out of working on the task, whether or
not the task is consistent with the person’s sense-of-self, whether or not the task moves a person
toward a larger or long-term goal, and what is gained or lost by participating in the task. Clark
and Estes (2008) identify a number of factors can undermine motivation in organizations and
individuals, one of which is vague or constantly changing goals (p. 87). When goals are not well
defined or are altered before completion, it may impact a stakeholder’s utility value related to
their work.

43
EL Teachers’ Belief in Their Own Expertise
English language teachers need to believe they have specialized knowledge to share with
their general education colleagues in order to succeed as teacher leaders who fulfill the role of
non-evaluative peer instructional coaches and professional development facilitators
2
. Allen
(2018) identifies five qualities of teacher leaders: agency, a growth mindset, the ability and
initiative to direct their own professional growth, a dialogic pedagogy, and a strong sense of
teacher/professional identity. In total, Allen’s research emphasizes teacher leaders need to have
self-efficacy in order to realize success in their roles. For EL teacher leaders who participated in
this evaluation study, self-efficacy translates to a belief in the degree to which they hold
specialized knowledge in second language acquisition and pedagogy.
Further underscoring the findings of Allen (2008), as it aligns with the key components
of motivation, Holloway, et al. (2018) conducted a qualitative study on teacher leadership as a
form of distributed leadership and found study participants felt a strong sense of obligation to
fulfill their roles as teacher leaders, even as they struggled with finding time to complete their
work. The study’s additional findings are clues to how self-efficacy might be cultivated in
teacher leaders, as Holloway, et al. observed systemic conditions, resource allocation, and
decision-making authority played a role in teacher leaders’ feelings of success. Additional
studies also indicate teacher leaders must be provided the time and resources to fulfill this role
(Lai & Cheung, 2014) and feel trusted to make decisions (Berg, et al., 2013).
A second consideration that may affect EL teacher leaders’ self-efficacy, as described by
Wenner and Campbell (2017), is the culture of egalitarianism that exists between teachers within
a school and across a district. As the authors noted, the literature on teacher leadership showed

2
All EL teacher leaders in this evaluation study are endorsed by the state teacher licensing body based on
their post-baccalaureate and/or graduate degrees in second language learning and teaching.

44
consistent themes related to the ways in which teacher leaders interacted with teaching
colleagues after taking on leadership roles. “Most often, the changes in relationships were
negative; peers resented teacher leaders because it disrupted the egalitarian norms typically seen
in schools” (Wenner & Campbell, 2017, p. 151). Disruptions in staff culture as the result of
implementing a teacher leadership model further justify the need to consider the role self-
efficacy plays in the experiences of EL teacher leaders.
In his case study on EL teacher experience, which studied three experienced EL teachers
who participated in a reflective group over the course of two years, Farrell (2013) discussed the
varying ways in which expertise is identified in teaching. These may include years of experience
or the ability to perform the job in a way that appears to be “effortless” (p. 1070) but can also be
conceived of as a skill level less tangible or easily defined, particularly in the field of EL
teaching. Farrell’s findings indicate engaging in a reflective practice has a greater impact on the
five identified characteristics of EL teacher expertise than does years of experience. Taken
together, the egalitarian culture of teaching (Wenner & Campbell, 2017), characteristics of EL
teacher expertise (Farrell, 2013), and the findings of Batt (2008), whose mixed-methods study
revealed conditions such as understaffing of EL teachers and added duties such as providing
translation marginalize EL teachers and students, EL teacher leader self-efficacy as it pertains to
believing in their professional expertise is a significant motivational influence.
EL Teacher Leaders’ Belief in the Value of Serving as a Teacher Leader
The literature highlights the need for teachers to believe in the significance that teacher
leadership plays in both professional enrichment at the individual level and as a mechanism for
serving the school at the organizational level. Berry (2015) argues teachers want leadership roles,
but don’t necessarily want to become principals or to follow the more typical leadership

45
trajectories that exist in PreK-12 schools. These steps toward leadership are actually quite limited
in scope and variety within the PreK-12 setting, according to Levin and Schrum (2017).
Traditionally, there are few, if any, options available to lead in schools that formally exist on the
hierarchy between classroom teachers and assistant principal. Levin and Schrum (2017), along
with Berry (2015), go on to establish the case for teacher leadership roles as an answer to this
dilemma. The stakeholder goal of focus in this evaluation study attends to both Levin and
Schrum (2017) and Berry’s (2015) reasoning, yet there is a need to assess how stakeholders
value the utility of enacting teacher leadership given the context of initiatives and changes they
have already faced in their professional lives. In other words, do they find utility value
(Krathwohl, 2002) in serving as EL teacher leaders? Jacobs, Gordon, and Solis (2016), in their
national study of teacher leaders, further establish resistance to change was a barrier to teacher
leadership enactment. This amplifies the need to assess the utility value held by EL teacher
leaders.
Underscoring the challenge of EL teacher leaders’ utility value for their role is research
conducted by Shih in 2016, which studied 38 English language teachers in Taiwanese schools to
examine why they chose their profession. Key findings included prior teaching and learning
experiences, social influences such as having a parent who is a teacher or teaching as one of the
limited professional options available, salary, perceptions they had knowledge in the English
language as a subject and they found it interesting, and that it was a “fallback” career choice.
Given the influence of Lortie’s Apprenticeship of Observation (1975) and the unlikelihood that
EL teacher leaders were able to observe their own teachers working in this role, potential
resistance to change in leadership structures within a school (Jacobs, et al., 2016), Shih’s (2016)
findings where the desire to become leaders was not identified as a reason EL teachers entered

46
the profession, creates conditions where EL teacher leaders need to demonstrate utility value in
the role in order to maintain motivation.
The stakeholder group of focus, EL teacher leaders, are accustomed to new initiatives and
changes. Rueda (2011) provides a detailed list of changes attempted in U.S. PreK-12 schools in
an effort to improve student achievement (p. 5-7) and notes, despite all of these efforts, none
have proven consistently successful in supporting struggling students. Given the number of
initiatives teachers are expected to implement in their teaching and their relative lack of success
in generating systemic improvements in the form of increased student achievement, utility value
in taking on teacher leadership roles is a key motivational influence and warrants attention.
Further, Margolis (2012) found teacher leaders struggled to find time to complete their teacher
leadership responsibilities because they were asked to fill in as substitute teachers, monitor the
halls, and fulfill other unrelated roles. If serving as a teacher leader’s work is not valued by the
system and school administration, the utility value teacher leaders place on their work may be
diminished, particularly if their reasons for becoming EL teachers did not include aspirations for
leadership (Shih, 2016).
Table 3, below, provides additional detail and consideration for motivation influences as
they relate to the key stakeholder group. Self-efficacy and utility value are described, along with
the means by which they are assessment in this evaluation study.

47
Table 3
Motivation Influences, Types, and Assessments for Analysis
Organizational Mission
High quality teaching with a focus on equity.
Organizational Global Goal
By June of 2019, Prairieville School will train two English language teachers to become
teacher leaders who are responsible for delivering six hours of professional development on
language learning and one-on-one instructional coaching to 20 of their general education
teacher colleagues in order to improve access to content area instruction for English learners in
general education classrooms through implementation of promising practices during general
education instruction.
Stakeholder Goal
By June of 2020, English language teacher leaders will deliver six hours of professional
development on language learning and peer instructional coaching to up to 10 of their general
education teacher colleagues.
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivation Influence Assessment
Self-efficacy: EL teacher leaders need to
believe they have specialized knowledge to
share with their general education colleagues.

Interview Questions:
1. Tell me about the specialized knowledge
you have about second language learning
and teaching that supports your
mainstream teacher colleagues who work
with ELs in their classrooms.
2. How are the mainstream teachers
responding to your role as an EL teacher
leader?
3. Can you describe a time when you were
most proud or a success story about your
work as an EL teacher leader?

Utility Value: EL teacher leaders need to see
the importance of taking on teacher leadership
positions.
Interview Questions:
1. How would you describe your role as an
EL teacher leader?
2. I would like to learn more about how you
imagine your role as both a teacher and a
teacher leader. What is your vision for
how EL students are supported in the
mainstream classrooms in your school?
3. Every school is different, even within the
same school district, and I am curious
about your individual experiences. Please
tell me about a time when being an EL
teacher leader was challenging.
4. Can you describe a time when you were
most proud or a success story about your
work as an EL teacher leader?

48
Document Review:
1. Teacher schedule – evidence that time
dedicated to peer coaching and facilitation
of professional development is prioritized
over other secondary duties to teaching.
Organization
Influences related to the organization are the third component of Clark and Estes’ (2008)
KMO framework. In general, organizations are dynamic and embody their own cultures. The
unique culture of an organization needs to be examined in order to accurately identify influences
and gaps in performance (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
Clark and Estes (2008) describe how the organizational type must also be considered alongside
culture. These types include team-based, network or virtual, horizontal, and pulsating
organizations, as well as what are referred to as “skunk” work teams (Clark & Estes, p. 120-122).
While these types of organizations are not explored in this evaluation study, it is worth noting
that each type responds to change differently and, therefore, has different needs reflected in their
culture (Clark & Estes, 2008).
One way to define culture, according to Merriam-Webster, is “the set of shared attitudes,
values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization” (n.d.). Druckman,
Singer, and Van Cott (1997) describes culture as a “collective phenomenon” (p. 67) or construct
that results in similar thinking and behaving among the members of an organization. These
phenomena are composed of both abstract concepts and observable behaviors or responses
(Druckman, Singer, & Van Cott, 1997). Schein (2017) discusses organizational culture through
the lenses of ethnographers, who analyze culture through binaries such as individualistic versus
collectivist, moralism versus pragmatism, and monochronic versus polychronic. Schein further
discusses culture at a macro level through characteristics such as language, proxemics, reality

49
and truth, body language, and levels of relationships. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001)
operationalize this definition within an organizational context by further breaking down the
concept of organizational culture into cultural models and cultural settings. They view these two
components of culture as distinct and too often conflated in the research on organizations. In
order to truly understand organizational culture, they argue, these two components must be seen
as distinct.
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) delineate organizational culture into two constructs:
cultural models and cultural settings, which are useful for analyzing the influences that affect the
implementation of EL teacher leadership. Cultural models are commonly understood by
members of a given organization, though not necessarily articulated as such, and include the
shared perception of events, sense-making processes, rules and expectations for how people
behave and interact, and the implicit patterns of social norms (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
Rueda (2011) notes cultural models are dynamic and can exist at the organizational, department,
small group, and individual levels. In fact, Clark and Estes (2008) point out that the same
individual can belong to many cultural models. Generally, cultural models are useful at any level
because they can help explain why people, groups, and organizations might have different
reactions to the same event or change effort (Schein, 2017; Rueda, 2011; Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001).
Culture exists within contexts, referred to as settings, and those cultural settings identify
the distinct and specific environments in which the cultural model resides. Cultural settings bring
people together, either physically or virtually, in order to accomplish something, complete a task,
or participate in an activity (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Like cultural models, cultural
settings are also dynamic and evolving (Rueda, 2011). Homes, classrooms, government

50
buildings, places of work, sports arenas, and parks are all examples of cultural settings. Within
each of these settings, there are cultural models or norms that dictate how people interact and
participate in the space. According to sociocultural theory, the social context or setting affects or
shapes how people learn, perceive information, and interact (Scott & Palinscar, 2006). As such,
Gallimore and Goldberg (2001) believe it is necessary to isolate and examine cultural settings in
order to better understand behaviors.
Stakeholder Specific Factors
The stakeholder goal in this study points toward distinct cultural models and settings that
play a role in the achievement of the goal within the organization’s context. EL teachers, the
stakeholders of focus, who train to enact teacher leadership through non-evaluative peer
instructional coaching have organization-specific needs in order to be successful (York-Barr &
Duke, 2004; Margolis, 2012; Berg, Bosch, & Souvanna, 2013; Gordon, Jacobs, & Solis, 2014;
Lai & Cheung, 2014; Cheng & Szeto, 2016; Jacobs, Gordon, Solis, 2016; Wenner & Campbell,
2017; Holloway, Nielsen, & Saltmarsh, 2018; Smylie & Eckert, 2018). The organization of
focus, a school district in the upper Midwest region of the U.S. located in a suburban community
that shares a border with a larger city, has dynamic cultural models at play and those manifest in
unique ways within each of the schools or settings within the district. This means the cultural
influences apply to the larger organization, as well as the individual schools within it, which in
turn influences the ability of the stakeholders to meet their goal.
Distributed leadership as a cultural model. Distributed leadership, which is sometimes
referred to as shared leadership, falls under the umbrella of the larger concept of team leadership
according to Bergman, et al. (2012) and Northouse (2016). Bergman et al. describe shared
leadership as multidirectional, in that more than one person can be a leader of a group at any

51
given time and evolving because the task may dictate who the leader will be. In the context of
this evaluation study, distributed leadership is a cultural model that is advantageous because
teacher leadership requires school principals and district-level administrators to share or
distribute leadership responsibilities among those on the team who are most appropriate to lead
given the goal or objective (Berg, Bosch, & Souvanna, 2013; Lai & Cheung, 2014; Cheng &
Szeto, 2016; Wenner & Campbell, 2017; Holloway, Nielsen, & Saltmarsh, 2018).
In the case of the stakeholder goal for this study, shared leadership structures allow EL
teachers to use their specialized knowledge and training related to second language acquisition
and English language teaching strategies in order to support change in general education teacher
instructional practices on behalf of ELs. ELs are students who are acquiring English while
simultaneously being taught content area curriculum in that language, so the specialized
knowledge held by EL teachers is essentially being distributed or diffused throughout the
teaching staff through the stakeholder goal. The literature indicates distributed leadership
structures play a role in the successful enactment of teacher leadership initiatives. In their study
on graduates of the Boston Teacher Leadership program, Berg, Bosch, and Souvanna (2013)
found the success or failure of teacher leaders was partially dependent on the alignment of
leadership roles to include teachers and a shared vision for the teacher leaders’ responsibilities.
They also discovered distributed leadership needed to include decision-making autonomy for the
teacher leader, which implies a willingness to share leadership authority.
Cheng and Szeto’s (2016) research also found a principal’s willingness to allow for
innovation on the part of teacher leaders and make room for their ideas in the building-level
decision making processes was a cultural model that allowed for teacher leadership success.
Underscoring these findings is Sebastian, Allensworth, and Huang’s 2016 study, which found the

52
influence a principal has on the learning climate is filtered through or mediated by teacher
leadership. Teacher leaders, in turn, need to be part of the higher-level decision-making
processes in their schools in order to serve as the bridge between the principal and student
achievement. Conflict or misaligned definitions of leadership can also hamper the successes of
teacher leaders (Holloway, Nielsen, & Saltmarsh, 2018), so a school and district-wide
understanding of shared leadership is needed for EL teacher leaders to be able to fulfill their
responsibilities successfully.
Dedicated time to enact teacher leadership. Scheduled time, or lack thereof, is cited
throughout the literature on teacher leadership (York-Barr & Duke, 2004; Margolis, 2012; Berg,
Bosch, & Souvanna, 2013; Lai & Cheung, 2014; Jacobs, Gordon, & Solis, 2016; Wenner &
Campbell, 2017; Holloway, Nielsen, & Saltmarsh, 2018) and is therefore an identified need for a
cultural setting in this study. The idea that teacher leaders need allocated resources in the form of
time reserved for teacher leadership related work is not new, as it was identified in York-Barr
and Duke’s (2004) seminal research on teacher leadership and was a key finding in Wenner &
Campbell’s 2017 meta-analysis of the literature on teacher leadership. According to Bruno,
Ashby, and Manzo (2012), who did an extensive time study in Chicago Public Schools, teachers
already work well beyond the eight-hour contractual workday so a deliberate reallocation of the
current ways in which teachers use their time is needed. This need interacts with the cultural
model of shared leadership, as organizational leaders need to provide clear job descriptions for
teacher leaders (Margolis, 2012) and teacher leaders need to have the authority to allocate how
they use their time (Berg, Bosch, & Souvanna, 2013). EL teacher leaders who work with their
principal to define the parameters of the leadership responsibilities may experience greater
success as a result of the clarity they are afforded through this collaboration.

53
Table 4 provides an overview of the organizational mission, the organizational global
goal, and the stakeholder goal, which are aligned to the organization’s cultural model and setting
influences. As described above, these organizational influences play an important role in goal
attainment for the stakeholders. The table distinguishes between the cultural model and cultural
setting, though there is a relationship between the two. In the next section, the conceptual
framework describes how the components of the KMO (Clark & Estes, 2008), along with the
stakeholder goal, relate to and exert influence over one another.
Table 4
Organizational Influences on the Stakeholder Goal
Organizational Mission
High quality teaching with a focus on equity.
Organizational Global Goal
By June of 2019, Prairieville Public Schools will send 13 English language (EL) teachers to
teacher leadership training at Midwest University, where they will learn to be teacher leaders
who are responsible for delivering six hours of professional development on language learning
and one-on-one peer instructional coaching for up to 10 of their general education teacher
colleagues related to promising practices for English learners (ELs) during general education
instruction.
Stakeholder Goal
By June of 2020, English language teacher leaders will deliver six hours of professional
development on language learning and peer instructional coaching to up to 10 of their general
education teacher colleagues.
Assumed Organizational Influences Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence: The organization
needs a culture of shared leadership.
Interview Questions:
1. I would like to learn more about how you
imagine your role as both a teacher and a
teacher leader. What is your vision for
how EL students are supported in the
mainstream classrooms in your school?
2. What resources do you need to make that
vision a reality?
3. Every school is different, even within the
same school district, and I’m curious
about your individual experiences. Please
tell me about a time when being an EL
teacher leader was challenging.
4. Can you describe a time when you were
most proud or a success story about your
work as an EL teacher leader?

54
Document Review:
• Job descriptions – evidence of specific
language relating to teacher leadership
duties
Cultural Setting Influence: The organization
needs to provide dedicated time for teacher
leadership to fulfill their responsibilities.
Interview Questions:
1. What resources do you need to make that
vision a reality?
2. What would your workday look like in
this vision?
3. How does dedicated time for the work of
teacher leadership manifest throughout
your work week?
4. Can you walk me through a typical day as
an EL teacher leader?
Document Review:
• Teacher schedules – evidence of dedicated
time to fulfill teacher leadership
responsibilities
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
The conceptual framework guiding this study is distinct from the methodological
approach described, in that it provides the foundation on which the research questions are built
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Rather than describing the system by which data is collected and
interpreted, a conceptual framework describes an orientation or lens used to study particular
phenomena (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Maxwell (2013) further defines a conceptual framework
as a graphical representation of the researcher’s viewpoints, thoughts, and positions related to the
research topic (p. 39). It situates the work within a specific context and explains the theoretical
perspective through which the data is distilled. In the conceptual framework presented in Figure
1 (p. 65), the potential knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences named in this study
are brought together to demonstrate how the researcher believes they interact and influence one
another.

55
The research problem of practice for this dissertation study examines the gap between
initiatives related to teacher leadership that engage EL teachers and the supports that make
successful work of teacher leadership feasible for those teachers. In their 2017 meta-analysis of
the literature on teacher leadership, Wenner and Campbell identify teacher leader knowledge of
role expectations and purpose as a trend in the literature. Given that a lack of clarity related to
job expectations was introduced in York-Barr and Duke’s (2004) seminal research on teacher
leadership demonstrates the need to examine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps
in the enactment of teacher leadership initiatives through a framework such as this. This problem
of practice is reflected in the conceptual framework (Figure 1), which depicts the interaction of
these three concepts as they relate to the stakeholder goal.

56
Figure 1
The Stakeholder Goal’s Effects on Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization in Teacher
Leadership

Figure 1 illustrates the stakeholder goal’s effects on knowledge, motivation, and the
organization, as well as how the elements interact and influence one another. The graphic shows
the stakeholder goals at the center, pushing out against the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences, essentially forcing the gaps in these areas to the surface where they
may otherwise have remained dormant were it not for the teacher leadership initiative that the
goal reflects. The stakeholder goal states Prairieville Public Schools EL teachers who train to
become teacher leaders through non-evaluative peer instructional coaching and facilitation of
professional development will deliver at least six hours of professional development on the topic

57
of promising practices for working with ELs in general education classrooms and will peer coach
up to 10 general education teachers in order to improve practices for ELs throughout the school
day. In order to achieve this goal, the organizational model and setting influences, identified in
the lower left circle, need to be addressed. However, even with the organizational needs met, the
goal may not be realistic if the knowledge and motivation influences are overlooked. This places
the stakeholder goal at the center of this interplay between the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences.
EL teachers, the stakeholders in this study, who enact teacher leadership in the form of
non-evaluative peer instructional coaching and facilitation of professional development, need
interpersonal skills that inform their ability to engage with, listen to, and give feedback to their
colleagues who work with ELs (Shute, 2008; Margolis, 2012; Gordon, Jacobs, & Solis, 2014;
Allen, 2018). These interpersonal skills represent procedural knowledge, or “how to do
something” (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011, p. 214), and work in tandem with the factual
knowledge, or the main components associated with a given field (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda,
2011). In the case of this evaluation study, the factual knowledge identified are EL teachers’
understanding of their role and the purpose and goals related to their teacher leadership
responsibilities (Wenner & Campbell, 2017; York-Barr & Duke, 2004). These forms of
knowledge are influenced by and interact with EL teacher motivation within the organization, as
illustrated by the circular arrows moving through and around the three influences of knowledge,
motivation, and organization.
Stakeholder motivation, as viewed through the lens of the KMO framework developed by
Clark and Estes (2008), also plays a role in the implementation of teacher leadership. Teachers
taking on the role of peer instructional coach as a form of teacher leadership need to embody

58
self-efficacy or a belief in their own expertise in English language pedagogy and acquisition
theory (Allen, 2018). Self-efficacy, as described by Bandura (1986), is an individual’s belief in
and judgement of their own abilities to succeed in a given pursuit. Working in tandem with self-
efficacy is the EL teachers’ utility value, which refers to whether or not the task or work is
considered worthy of pursuit (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Essentially, EL teachers need to value
the goals related to serving as a teacher leader in order to improve instruction for ELs if they are
going to succeed in this work.
The next components of the conceptual framework relate to the organization and its
influences on the problem of practice (Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizational influences are
broken down into two components: cultural models and cultural settings. Cultural models are the
shared interpretation of events and the ways in which people are expected to behave and interact
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural settings are the places or locations in which the
cultural models exist (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). In the case of this study’s problem of
practice and stakeholder goal, the cultural model that needs to be in place is one in which the
organization embodies a culture of collaborative professional learning through shared leadership
(Berg, Bosch, & Souvanna, 2013; Lai & Cheung, 2014; Cheng & Szeto, 2016; Wenner &
Campbell, 2017; Holloway, Nielsen, & Saltmarsh, 2018). The cultural setting that enables the
cultural model is the need for dedicated time during which EL teachers who serve as teacher
leaders are able to fulfill their leadership responsibilities (York-Barr & Duke, 2004; Margolis,
2012; Berg, Bosch, & Souvanna, 2013; Lai & Cheung, 2014; Jacobs, Gordon, & Solis, 2016;
Wenner & Campbell, 2017; Holloway, Nielsen, & Saltmarsh, 2018). The cultural model and
setting, in turn, interact with the knowledge and motivation influences, which are represented by

59
the circular arrows. This evaluation study is guided by the conceptual frame and the role the
KMO Model (Clark & Estes, 2008) plays in the experiences of EL teacher leaders.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the experiences of English language (EL) teacher
leaders as they work toward the goal of delivering six hours of professional development and
peer instructional coach up to 10 general education teachers each in order to improve
instructional practices for ELs. In this chapter, the literature on teacher leadership in the U.S. was
reviewed and included an examination of the history of teacher leadership, as well as the political
influences on teacher leadership in the country. The literature review continued with a look at
distributed leadership, the role of principal support in teacher leaders’ success, EL teacher
agency, and the expectations of teacher leaders. Following the literature review, the assumed
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences (Clark & Estes, 2008) were presented. The
knowledge influences include EL teacher leaders’ need for interpersonal skills, specific
knowledge related to leadership, and knowledge of the purpose and goals of teacher leadership.
The motivation influences include EL teacher leaders’ belief they hold specialized knowledge
and the value they place on teacher leadership. Finally, the organizational influences described in
this chapter focus on the need for a culture of shared learning and dedicated time for teacher
leaders to fulfill their responsibilities. Chapter Three describes the study’s methodology and
approach.

60
Chapter Three: Methods
The purpose of this evaluation study is to examine the degree to which Prairieville Public
Schools is meeting its goal to improve learning for English learners through a teacher leadership
framework where trained EL teachers facilitate professional development at their schools and
serve as non-evaluative peer instructional coaches to their colleagues. The analysis focuses on
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to achieving the organizational
goal using Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO Framework. Rooted in a qualitative study design, this
framework provides the structure with which to examine influences related to knowledge,
motivation, and the organization. This chapter describes the sampling criteria, data collection
protocol and procedures, credibility and trustworthiness, ethical considerations, and limitations
of the study. Guiding question for this evaluation study address knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organization influences for EL teacher leaders. These questions are:
1. To what extent is the organization meeting its goal of improving instruction for ELs
through teacher leadership?
2. What is the EL teacher leaders’ knowledge and motivation related to the organizational
and stakeholder goals?
3. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and the EL teacher
leaders’ knowledge and motivation?
Sampling and Recruitment
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) refer to purposive sampling as “the most common form” (p.
96) of nonprobabilistic sampling. This type of sampling, which is also referred to as purposeful,
is chosen when the ability to answer the research questions of a qualitative study design is reliant
on participants who have experience with and knowledge of the topic. In order to undertake
purposive sampling, criteria first need to be established so those selected to participate are able to
provide information-rich data. In this study, the sampling is unique (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) in
that the participants have completed a specific EL teacher leadership training program in its fifth

61
year of implementation in the region. The following sections describe the stakeholders, sampling
criteria, and sampling rationale.
Contextual Considerations Related to COVID-19
On March 16, 2020, the governor of the state in which Prairieville Public Schools is
located announced schools would close for a minimum of eight days (source withheld to retain
anonymity). The initial eight-day closure resulted in the remainder of the 2019-2020 school year
being held in a distance learning, online format. Data collection for this evaluation study, in the
form of document analysis, interviews, and observations, was scheduled to begin on April 1,
2020 and continue through mid-May. Due to the unexpected school closure, observations were
no longer feasible for a number of reasons. Most importantly, EL teacher leaders were no longer
conducting observations in the online learning environment. The following sections related to
sampling and recruitment reflect the changes made to the original study design as a result of
COVID-19 related school closures.
Participating Stakeholders
EL teacher leaders are the stakeholder group of focus for this evaluation study, as they
are the primary agent of change in instructional practices as it pertains to the organizational goal
of improving instruction for ELs through a teacher leadership framework. EL teacher leaders, as
the stakeholder of focus, have completed a 12-hour, university-based training designed to
prepare them to provide non-evaluative peer instructional coaching and professional
development to their general education teaching colleagues. The participants attended the grant-
funded training during the spring of 2017, 2018, or 2019 through an ongoing district partnership
with a local university and begin their work as EL teacher leaders beginning in the subsequent

62
school year. This training is ultimately intended to improve instruction for ELs in the general
education classroom by leveraging the localized expertise of EL teachers, who provides
sustained, site-based non-evaluative peer coaching and professional development to their general
education teacher colleagues. Over the course of the four year partnership with the local
university, 12 EL teachers have been prepared to be EL teacher leaders in Prairieville Public
Schools, where they work one-on-one with general education teaching colleagues in eight
different schools across the district to support the general education teachers’ use of instructional
strategies that support second language acquisition. These EL teacher leaders are already experts
in second language teaching and learning and are endorsed by the state to work with K-12 ELs,
so the grade levels they serve are dependent on the schools in which they teach.
The trained EL teacher leaders facilitate professional development for their colleagues in
a variety of settings, including but not limited to Professional Learning Communities (PLCs)
(Kofman & Senge, 1993), grade level teams, coteaching settings, and whole staff meetings. The
12 trained EL teacher leaders were invited to attend the university training by the district EL
services coordinator and volunteered to participate, a potential limitation addressed later in this
chapter. Together, they form a district-wide cohort of EL teacher leaders who meet regularly to
participate in book studies related to teacher leadership and to reflect on their work.
In this study, all 12 EL teacher leaders, who work in schools across the district, were
invited to participate in interviews and observations. The researcher sought to include a
representative sample of the group so stakeholders from the elementary and secondary levels
within the school district were included in the data set in order to analyze potential patterns
across divisions. The researcher further pursued interviews with EL teacher leaders who have a
variety of years of teaching and peer coaching experience, to the degree it was possible, in order

63
to analyze the role that experience may play in EL teacher leadership. The researcher also sought
to interview no fewer than three participants on two separate occasions, for a total of two hours
each (Weiss, 1994).
The original study design included observations of the same EL teacher leader
participants engaging in a non-evaluative peer coaching discussion with general education
colleagues. However, as noted above, circumstances related to the global COVID-19 pandemic
and the subsequent move from face-to-face to distance learning in Prairieville Public Schools
eliminated the option to conduct observations, as EL teacher leaders were no longer conducting
peer coaching conversations as they managed the move to online instruction. As such, the
following section explains only the sampling criteria and rationale for the interviews of EL
teacher leaders rather than both interview and observation criteria and rationale.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Qualitative research employs nonprobability sampling, as it is attempting to better
understand behaviors rather than apply findings to the larger population (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Further, a nonprobability, purposive study design allows the researcher to interview
participants who are able to provide information from which the most can be learned (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). A qualitative study was undertaken to gather data from trained EL teacher
leaders in an effort to understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors (Clark &
Estes, 2008) influencing their behaviors. The researcher sought to interview no fewer than three
EL teacher leaders twice during the data collection phase. The following criteria was applied in
the recruitment and sampling of participants in the interviews and observations:

64
Criterion 1: State Licensed EL Teacher
Training specific to second language acquisition is a baseline requirement for participants
in this study, which is measured by whether or not a potential participant holds a current state
endorsement in K-12 Teaching English as a Second Language. Holding a state endorsement in
K-12 English as a Second Language teaching is also a prerequisite for participation in the
university affiliated training program. Extensive schooling in the process of acquiring second
languages provides the background knowledge and expertise necessary for EL teachers to share
their knowledge as non-evaluative peer instructional coaches and facilitators of professional
development for their general education colleagues.
Criterion 2: Training in EL Teacher Leadership
Prairieville Public Schools has 12 trained EL teacher leaders who hold a state
endorsement in K-12 English as a Second Language teaching and completed a grant-funded,
university based, 12-hour intensive EL teacher leadership training in the spring of 2017, 2018, or
2019. In addition to the training, ongoing support for their teacher leadership work is provided
through a cohort support model at the district level so EL teacher leaders are able to extend their
learning beyond this formal training. EL teacher leaders who completed the university-based
training have been provided background knowledge on peer coaching principles, adult learning
theory, and professional development facilitation techniques. They also received professional
development activity materials, which are open-source and designed to be tailored to the needs
of the local school context based on the professional discretion of the EL teacher leader. This
common background experience provides a base on which to examine EL teacher leader
knowledge and motivation.

65
Criterion 3: Current Non-Evaluative Peer Coach and Professional Development Facilitator to
General Education Colleagues
It is possible, of the 12 EL teacher leaders who are both state endorsed and trained, some
Prairieville EL teacher leaders completed their university-based training but may not have begun
the work of non-evaluative peer coaching or facilitation of professional development for their
colleagues during the 2019-2020 school year. Weiss (1994) discusses the limitations of memory
in interviews. In order to attend to the research questions by gathering accurate data that is less
likely to be partial as the result of distant memory, only those who served as non-evaluative peer
instructional coaches and facilitators of professional development during the 2019-2020 school
year were considered for interviews.
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale
This study takes up a nonprobability, purposive design, where participants are selected
intentionally rather than at random (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Invitations for interviews were
sent by email, with a follow-up email, to all 12 of the potential participants. Given teachers were
working from home because of circumstances related to COVID-19, phone calls were not
possible as the researcher did not have access to home phone numbers. In addition to the emails
sent, the district EL services coordinator was copied on email communication in order to ensure
these efforts were transparent at the administrative level. The goal was to conduct at least six
interviews, consisting of two interviews each with at least three participants. The researcher
made efforts to interview trained EL teacher leaders from each of the three division: elementary,
middle, and high school. She also gathered data on years of teaching experience to ensure the
participants did not represent only those who are new to the profession, as this may have played
a role in the data analysis. Finally, the researcher offered to accommodate the schedules of the

66
EL teacher leaders who responded to a request for an interview and demonstrated a willingness
to meet via Zoom video conferencing at a time convenient for the EL teacher leader.
While the researcher is known to the participants, she does not serve in a supervisory
capacity nor does she work for the same organization. However, the fact that the researcher is
known to the participants may have increased the likelihood they responded to requests for an
interview, as well as impacted limitations discussed at the end of this chapter. The researcher
made efforts to schedule interviews with all willing participants as time allowed. Interviews took
place via Zoom during the course of a two-week period between May 14, 2020 and May 28,
2020.
Data Collection
In order to develop a better understanding of the complexity of EL teacher leadership
knowledge and motivation, as well as the organizational influences that affect their work (Clark
& Estes, 2008), a qualitative design was implemented in this evaluation study (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). This complex set of influences were originally designed to be examined
through three qualitative instruments for data collection: document analysis, interviews, and
observations (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). However, due to school
closures related to the COVID-19 crisis, observations were no longer possible. In light of the
circumstances, document analysis and interviews served as the mechanisms by which to examine
the influences. Despite the pandemic related circumstances, the researcher was able to implement
a case study methodology for qualitative research in education (McEwan & McEwan, 2003),
with the researcher focusing on specific knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
and behaviors related to the implementation of an EL teacher leadership model in Prairieville
Public Schools.

67
Qualitative case studies share characteristics with anthropological methods for gathering
data in that they entail the researcher embedding him, her, or their self in the natural setting of
the participants and using descriptive narrative to develop a deep sense of understanding of the
setting and the people, with the end goal being the development of meaning from the descriptive
data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; McEwan & McEwan, 2003). As
such, qualitative case studies, like all qualitative research, is inductive by nature and does not
begin with a hypothesis. Instead, qualitative research allows for the discovery of themes and
patterns (Bogden & Biklen, 2007) through the employment of data gathering instruments such as
those used in this evaluative study (see Table 1).
Through document analysis, the researcher was able to gather key information related to
the organizational model and setting (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001), including the culture of
leadership in Prairieville Public Schools and the ways in which the schools do or do not create
systems that allocate resources in the form of providing time for EL teacher leaders to fulfill their
leadership duties (Vannest, et al., 2009; Ross, et al., 2011; Bruno, et al., 2012; Margolis, 2012;
Berg, Bosch, & Souvanna, 2013; Cheng & Szeto, 2016; Jacobs, Gordon, & Solis, 2016; Wenner
& Campbell, 2017; Smylie & Eckert, 2018). Document analysis, according to Bowen (2009), is
“a systematic procedure for reviewing or evaluating documents - both printed and electronic" (p.
27). The document analysis method helps to corroborate the data gathered in interviews (Bowen,
2009) and helps to provide data related to the organizational model and setting (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001), which was examined through the KMO and conceptual frame (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Interviews are employed in qualitative research as a means for structured data gathering
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) and serve the purpose of gathering information on the participants

68
feelings, thoughts, and ideas, which are difficult to observe. The researcher used a semi-
structured, one-on-one interview protocol (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) to create consistency across
interviews, but also asked probing questions that examined a topic in greater detail when
warranted. As previously mentioned, the researcher was unable to conduct observations of
trained EL teacher leaders who are peer coaching their general education colleagues in the
Prairieville Public Schools because of school closures due to COVID-19. Observations, as
described by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), provide an opportunity to gather data in the natural
setting, including conversations, nonverbal communication, subtle influences on behaviors, and
other contextual factors that may enrich the inductive process of the qualitative research
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). While observations would have surely enriched the data set, the
document analysis and interviews attend to the research questions related to EL teacher leader
knowledge and motivation, as well as the organizational influences (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Interviews
Within the two-week timeframe for interviews, the researcher sought to conduct two,
one-hour interviews with at least three EL teacher leaders, including one elementary, one middle,
and one high school EL teacher leader. All interviews were conducted in English, although the
researcher was prepared to offer translation and other accommodations as needed and
appropriate to the study design. This, however, was not utilized since the teachers who were
interviewed are experts in English language acquisition and pedagogy. Due to COVID-19 related
school closures and the move from face-to-face instruction to distance learning, interviews took
place via Zoom and at times chosen by the participants. The following sections describe the
interview protocol and procedures.

69
Interview Protocol
A semi-structured interview protocol was used by the researcher in this evaluation study.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) describe semi-structured interviews as those that allow for flexibility
in the wording of the questions and the order in which they are asked. Semi-structured
interviews, they continue, also contain a combination of carefully worded questions, as well as
questions that are more open-ended and allow for participant interpretation. Philosophically, the
semi-structured interview protocol was employed by the researcher to align with
phenomenology, where the purpose of the interview is to develop an understanding of the lived
experiences of trained EL teacher leaders so their knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences are better understood (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Unlike the more rigid structured
interview style, the semi-structured interview protocol allowed the researcher flexibility in order
to develop themes (Bogden & Biklen, 2007) that were revealed through prepared questions and
probes which expanded on the description of experiences illustrated by the participants.
Within the framework of the semi-structured interview protocol, the researcher asked
interview participants questions designed to answer the overarching research questions. As such,
open-ended questions that address EL teacher leader behaviors (Patton, 2002) related to the
interpersonal communication skills they employ during one-one-one peer coaching and
professional development delivery were asked. These questions addressed the factual knowledge
influence related to the interpersonal skills teachers need in order to perform their duties
effectively (Gordon, Jacobs, & Solis, 2014). Additional open-ended questions asked participants
to describe their understanding of the role EL teacher leaders play in the school and the goals EL
teacher leaders are meant to pursue, both of which attended to the remaining knowledge
influences identified in the conceptual frame guiding this study.

70
The semi-structured interview also addressed the research questions related to EL teacher
leader motivational influences, including their self-efficacy (Pajares, 2006) and the utility value
(Eccles, 2006) they place in the work of EL teacher leadership. Open-ended questions addressing
the motivational influences were designed to provide participants with the opportunity to
describe not only their experiences, but also their feelings and opinions (Patton, 2002) related to
their leadership roles. The researcher responded to participants with additional probing questions
(Patton, 2002) in order to draw out more descriptive narrative related to the participants
behaviors and experiences. This was done to help establish themes and patterns in the inductive
style of qualitative research utilized in this study (Bogden & Biklen, 2007).
Interview Procedures
Due to the shift in study design as a result of school closures associated with the COVID-
19 pandemic, interviews took place at the same time that document review was completed.
While the original study design intended to conduct document analysis prior to interviews so that
the researcher would have a better understanding of the organizational influences framing the
responses of the participants (Clark & Estes, 2008), this was not feasible given the shift from an
eight-week to a two-week data collection timeframe. Regardless, the document analysis helped
to provide context for the environment in which the EL teacher leaders work.
The researcher aimed to interview at least three EL teacher leaders two times in a school-
space of their choosing, with each interview lasting approximately 60 minutes. Overall, the
researcher intended to spend six to eight hours interviewing at least three EL teacher leader
stakeholders. All interviews were conducted in English and, with the explicit written permission
from participants through a signed google form, the interviews were audio and video recorded on
Zoom’s cloud service and audio recorded via a smart phone application purchased by the

71
researcher, which served as a back-up file. In addition to the audio and video recordings, the
researcher took detailed notes on digital copies of the interview protocol so probes (Patton, 2002)
were recorded for consideration during the analysis phase. Finally, the researcher sent interview
videos, audio recordings, and transcripts to participants as a means of member-checking the
accuracy of data captured (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Documents and Artifacts
The data collection phase included the gathering, review, and analysis of documents
related to EL teacher leadership in Prairieville Public Schools. Document analysis included the
review of individual teacher schedules, school master schedules, and the Prairieville Public
Schools current teacher contract. Teacher and master school schedules, to the degree they were
available, provided information on the EL teacher leader’s weekly schedule prior to COVID-19
based school closures and provided foundational knowledge for understanding how the
organization is addressing the cultural setting influence named in the conceptual frame
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Clark & Estes, 2008). This influence relates to the well-
established need for teacher leaders to have dedicated time in their schedules to fulfill
responsibilities related to their teacher leadership positions (Bruno, et al., 2012; Ross, et al.,
2011; Vannest, et al., 2009). EL teacher leaders’ daily schedules helped to indicate how this time
was or was not provided during the pre-COVID-19 2019-2020 school year, as well as help to
corroborate the contents of one-on-one interviews (Bowen, 2009), where participants were asked
to describe how their time was scheduled during the school day before the move to distance
learning took place in mid-March of 2020. Participating EL teacher leaders were also be asked to
share both their daily schedules and the master school schedules, as they were not available
publicly on the school websites.

72
The researcher further requested access to the union-approved teacher contract, which is
a public document but must be requested from the Prairieville Public Schools Human Resource
department. Along with the schedules, the teacher contract provided additional evidence of the
cultural setting influence (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001) in this study’s conceptual frame
(Clark & Estes, 2008) by demonstrating how the role that EL teacher leadership was or was not
included in the contract EL teacher leaders are held to in their work. The contract also provided
evidence of the cultural model influence (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001) named in the
conceptual frame, which addresses the role distributed leadership structures play in the work of
teacher leaders (Berg, Bosch, & Souvanna, 2013; Cheng & Szeto, 2016; Smylie & Eckert, 2018).
Through analysis of the teacher contract, a better understanding of the formalized job
expectations of EL teachers and EL teacher leaders was developed.
Data Analysis
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016) and Bogden and Biklen (2007), the data
analysis process begins during collection and continues beyond the data collection timeframe. In
this evaluation study, detailed notes included researcher comments taken during each of the
interviews conducted. Researcher comments help to expand critical thinking related to the
research questions and capture ideas about the data in real time (Bogden & Biklen, 2007). These
notes were kept on a separate word document for each interview participant and included the list
of interview questions and were stored on a local hard drive in a password protected folder.
Participant names were not used in these documents to further secure confidentiality, which is
one of the twelve ethical considerations in qualitative research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). When
complete, each interview video was reviewed, and additional notes and/or comments were added
to the word documents.

73
Interviews, according to Creswell and Creswell (2018) are useful tools for research,
particularly when observations cannot be conducted, as was the case with this evaluation study.
While the artificial setting of Zoom video conferencing presents limitations given that it is an
unnatural setting outside of the field (Creswell & Creswell, 2018), it also provides video
documentation, as well as verbatim transcripts of the interviews based on the voice to text
technology offered through a Zoom subscription. After each interview was conducted, the
transcript was stored as a word document on a secure local hard drive and reviewed together with
the video so adjustments could be made to the formatting, accuracy of the transcription, and
punctuation as it pertains to the way the participants expressed themselves. For example,
commas were added to indicate short pauses and new sentences were created to indicate a
change in direction or new thought on the part of the participant. On occasion, bracketed texts
were added to indicate nonverbal behaviors such as eye rolls, notations of sarcasm, or other
forms of communication not expressed in a literal reading of the transcript. This process
provided an opportunity to review the interview transcripts multiple times while “cleaning” the
data (Pell Institute, 2010).
Analysis of the interview data followed steps recommended by Harding (2013),
beginning with careful review of the transcripts to highlight, underline, and make notes about
important information related to the research questions. This step was followed by writing codes
to begin sorting through the data and identifying patterns. As described by Miles et al. (2014),
coding qualitative data assists in the process of creating smaller units of information out of large
data sets, which makes the process of analysis systematized and manageable. Once all of the
transcripts and interview notes were reviewed using the first two steps of the process (Harding,
2013), then the codes were reviewed and revised based on frequency of occurrence in the data

74
set and categorized into codes that captured ideas across participant data. Finally, these codes
were analyzed for themes based on categories aligned with the evaluation study’s research
questions. During this phase, themes in the data set were arrived by analysis of similarities,
differences, and relationships in the codes (Harding, 2013). This inductive process, which
involved multiple readings and review of the data set, assisted in the process of deep analysis
that avoids standard thinking about the data and helps to move beyond assumptions (Corbin &
Strauss, 2008).
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility and trustworthiness are paramount to a well-constructed qualitative research
design (Maxwell, 2013, Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Credibility in qualitative research refers to
the alignment of the research findings to reality (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In the case of this
evaluation study, credibility will be attended to through two forms of member-checking
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), which refers to the process of soliciting feedback
from the participants who were interviewed and recognizes data analysis inherently involves
interpretation on the part of the researcher. Through member-checking, the research addresses
credibility in the study as a means to match the interpretations to the participants’ reality.
Member-checking (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) not only helps to uphold
credibility in qualitative research, but also lends trustworthiness to the design. Trustworthiness
refers to the dependability one can place in the accuracy of the study design and interpretation of
the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Another method that helps to ensure quality research is
expert review (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019), where a researcher asks an experienced
researcher to review the data collection protocol to ensure the methods meet a high standard for

75
credibility and trustworthiness. In this study, several expert checks were conducted, including
but not limited to research faculty review and peer review.
Finally, the researcher originally planned to triangulate the data (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016) by using the three data collection instruments described in the previous sections: document
review, interviews, and observations. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) describe triangulation as one
of the strongest known methods for ensuring credibility and trustworthiness. Due to
circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting school closures, observations
were not feasible during the data collection timeframe. In lieu of observations, the researcher
worked with the faculty and independent external evaluators who train the EL teacher leaders in
Prairieville Public Schools to analyze the interview transcripts to enact triangulated analysis
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Along with member-checking and expert review, triangulation and
triangulated analysis, to the degree it is possible given COVID-19, will provide the credibility
and trustworthiness necessary to create confidence in the findings of this evaluation study.
Ethics
As described in Glesne (2011), researchers have an obligation to obtain informed
consent, which entails guaranteeing volunteers know participation in a study is indeed voluntary,
are made aware of any part of the study that may pose risks, and are fully apprised of the option
to end their participation if and when they see fit (p. 166). Accordingly, EL teacher leaders who
volunteered to participate in interviews were informed of the study’s design in written form via
email and at the beginning of each interview. Given the COVID-19 related school closures and
subsequent move to virtual interviews conducted using Zoom, a research consent letter that
outlined the voluntary nature of their participation, information related to the recording of the
interviews, their choice to stop at any point, and assurances their identities are kept confidential

76
was provided in the form of a google survey and shared via an email confirming participation
and at the beginning of each interview. The researcher walked through the consent form with the
participants and collected digital signatures in lieu of paper consent forms. The spreadsheet
associated with the google form includes these digital signatures, is housed on a secure server,
and will be deleted one-year after the completion of the research study. In addition, this research
study received approval from the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board
(IRB), IRB approval from the university that conducts the EL teacher leader trainings (name
withheld to maintain confidentiality), and IRB approval from Prairieville Public Schools. The
researcher also shared her plan for safely storing recordings and documentation using a two-step
authentication process for Google Drive, a cloud digital storage site. All hard copies are stored in
a locked file cabinet in the researcher’s home and will be shredded one year after completion of
the study.
The researcher does not work at the same organization as the research participants;
however, they do have a professional relationship through the grant funded teacher training
program at a local university that partners with the K-12 public school district serving as the
study site, Prairieville Public Schools. As the director of the project that trains EL teacher
leaders, the researcher spends two days each spring co-facilitating the teacher leadership training.
She also directs the summer conference for EL teacher leaders and serves as a mentor for EL
teacher leaders looking for additional resources or support throughout the school year. The
researcher and her colleague, the primary investigator of the grant project that funds the EL
teacher leader training, present on the work at local and national professional conferences, which
are occasionally attended by the teachers they train. As such, the participants in this study are
known to the researcher and the researcher is known to the participants, but the researcher does

77
not play a supervisory role. Although the EL teacher leader training includes a graduate level
course credit with a culminating assignment, any grading affiliated with the participants in the
research site is completed by the co-facilitator of the training rather than the researcher. Outside
of the trainings that take place at the partner university, the researcher has no experience working
in any of the Prairieville Public Schools. Despite the researcher’s efforts to minimize risk to the
participants, it is important to note the researcher is invested in the work of EL teacher leadership
and has served as a K-12 EL teacher in nearby public-school districts.
While participants are not in a subordinate role and the researcher is not a supervisor,
there is potential the participants have not fully disclosed their thoughts or experiences in order
to avoid disappointing or otherwise hurting the researcher. The researcher took care to clarify for
the participants her role as investigator, as well as the design of the study, which focuses on the
supports they need to be teacher leaders rather than how they have been trained or other ways in
which they might link their feedback directly to the work the researcher does in her role directing
the grant project. Further efforts will be taken to remind participants of the researcher’s role
when she is on site conducting interviews and other forms of data gathering, including document
review. These reminders that participants are being studied will help to clarify roles and avoid
participants feeling deceived in any way (Rubin, 2012).
Given the researcher is also a licensed EL teacher in the state where the study takes place,
there is potential for bias in that the researcher is an advocate (Glesne, 2011) of EL teacher
leadership professionally and is able to empathize with the EL teachers because of her past
experiences. The researcher will work to maintain objectivity through triangulation of data
(McEwan & McEwan, 2003; Creswell & Creswell, 2018), member checking transcripts
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018), to the degree it is possible given circumstances related to COVID-

78
19, and sharing of the results (Rubin, 2012). Another potential source of bias is the demographic
profile of the researcher. As a white, middle-class, cisgender female, and former K-12 teacher,
the researcher demographically represents the majority of teachers in the state (United States
Department of Education, 2016; Loewus, 2017) and is invariably limited by the lenses through
which she views the roles of EL teacher leaders and experiences teaching as part of the majority
group. When interviewing EL teacher leaders, these demographic identities may have made it
easier to blend in yet increased the obligation of the researcher to make her role as investigator
clear (Rubin, 2012).
Limitations and Delimitations
Maxwell (2013) provides several reasons for collecting data using multiple methods in
qualitative studies, including triangulation and gaining insights into more than one aspect of the
behaviors or phenomena being analyzed (p. 102). Though this study employs member-checking
and triangulation, there are still limitations and delimitations that must be named and considered.
The first of these limitations is researcher bias (Maxwell, 2013). This evaluation study takes
place in a district where the researcher is known to the EL teacher leaders, the EL district
services coordinator, and some of the school principals because she is employed at the university
with which the district partners and serves as a director for the teacher leadership training. As
such, the researcher is professionally invested in EL teacher leadership success, which introduces
the possibility of researcher bias toward presenting EL teacher leader knowledge and motivation
in a favorable way. A second limitation of the study relates to participant truthfulness. Although
not serving in a supervisory position of any kind, there is still a possibility that participants
monitored their interview responses so as to avoid offending or to please the researcher (Weiss,
1994).

79
Participation in this study is voluntary and, like the limitation of participant honesty, may
be affected by the professional relationship already established between the researcher and the
EL teacher leaders. It is possible the 12 participants who were invited to be interviewed and
observed felt varying degrees of pressure to do so because of this professional relationship. The
researcher offered and provided gift cards in a nominal amount but also made it clear in the
invitation there are no repercussions for choosing not to participate. For those who did choose to
participate, member checking was used in order to manage limitations related to both researcher
bias and participant honesty (Maxwell, 2013).
A clear delimitation of the study is time. Extensive time in the field helps to mitigate the
possibility of inaccurate analyses and interpretations (Maxwell, 2013). Sufficient time was
dedicated in order to gather rich data (Maxwell, 2013) that attends to the research questions, but
additional questions will surely arise in the process of data analysis. Time would also assist in
the process of mitigating the restrictions due to COVID-19 and its effect on the researcher’s
ability to conduct all aspects of the planned data collection, particularly observations. These
questions will be addressed in Chapter Five, following Chapter Four, which includes an analysis
of the data.

80
Chapter 4: Results and Findings
The purpose of this evaluation study is to examine the degree to which the organization is
meeting its organizational goal. The analysis focuses on knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences related to achieving the organizational goals using Clark and Estes’
2008 Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization (KMO) Framework. This framework is designed
to better understand the gap between an organization’s actual performance and its vision for how
it should be performing by examining the influences related to knowledge, motivation, and the
organization or systems within which the work is happening. Guiding questions for this
evaluation study address knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization influences for
teachers. These questions are:
1. What is the EL teacher leaders’ knowledge and motivation related to the organizational
and stakeholder goals?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and the EL teacher
leaders’ knowledge and motivation?
3. To what extent is the organization meeting its goal of improving learning for ELs through
teacher leadership?
Participating Stakeholders
In total, five of the 12 trained EL teacher leaders from Prairieville Public Schools
participated in interviews and provided documentation of their teaching schedules, master school
schedules, and teacher contract for document analysis. Collectively, the five interview
participants contributed to 4:53 hours of interview data (Table 6). Three of the five participants
have been serving as EL teacher leaders since 2017 and two began their work as EL teacher
leaders in 2018 after attending the university-sponsored teacher leadership training. Two of the
five EL teacher leader participants work in the same school building, so teachers from four total
district schools were included in the interviews, with one middle school and three elementary
schools. All five of the participants identify as white women and have more than five years of EL

81
teaching experience. The lack of gender, racial, and ethnic diversity is reflective of the district
teaching staff demographics and is acknowledged as a limitation in this study, as the following
findings may have been different with a more diverse group of interview part]icipants. Table 5
provides an overview of each of the five participants, including pseudonyms, division, and year
of teacher leadership training. Table 6 provides additional information related to the number and
length of interviews for each participant.
Table 5
Participant Demographics
Pseudonym Division Year of EL Teacher
Leadership Training
Aurora Elementary 2017
Dierdre Middle School 2017
Gemma Elementary 2018
Leah Elementary 2017
Savannah Elementary 2018

Table 6
Participant Interview Details
Pseudonym Number of Interviews Length of Interview(s)
Aurora 1 1:02 hour
Dierdre 2 38:11 minutes
28:45 minutes
Gemma 2 35:43 minutes
28:53 minutes
Leah 1 48:10 minutes
Savannah 1 52:56 minutes

Findings
The data presented in the following sections begins with the research question and
provides related details based on the KMO influences (Clark & Estes, 2008) identified and
described in Chapter Two of this evaluation study. While the original study design included
document analysis, interviews, and observations of EL teacher leader coaching conversations,

82
circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting school closures eliminated the
ability to conduct observations during the data gathering timeframe. In lieu of school-site based
data collection, 4:53 hours of interviews were recorded via Zoom and detailed interview notes
were taken using Microsoft Word. The documents reviewed included daily and weekly teaching
schedules, master school schedules, and the teacher employment contract. The researcher, who
participated in the creation of the EL teacher leader training curriculum and delivery, also
considered training materials in the findings related to the identified KMO influences (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Teacher and school master schedules were used to develop a sense of the context in
which the EL teacher leaders work, as well as a data points for research question number three,
which examines the organizational influences related to the attainment of Prairieville Public
Schools’ goal for improving EL academic success through the implementation of EL teacher
leadership. The EL teacher leadership training curriculum, in addition to providing context,
provided data related to the EL teacher leaders’ knowledge and motivation expectations tied to
the training objectives.
EL Teacher Leaders’ Knowledge and Motivation in Relation to the Organizational and
Stakeholder Goals
A thorough review of the literature influenced the identified EL teacher leaders’
knowledge and motivation needs, which are detailed in Tables 2 and 3. The knowledge
influences are both declarative and procedural in nature (Krathwohl, 2002). The motivation
needs are based on Clark and Estes’ (2008) identification of three essential components of
motivation: active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Two necessary motivation influence
were identified and are described based on Bandura’s (2000) work around self-efficacy and
Eccles (2006) scholarship related to utility value. Self-efficacy, as described by Bandura, is how

83
a person perceives their own ability to accomplish a given task or job. Utility value, according to
Eccles, attends to whether or not the individual performing the task or job believes what they are
doing is valuable and worthwhile. Taken together, findings are presented based on the
knowledge and motivation influences in order to provide a better understanding of the extent to
which the stakeholder goal is being met.
Knowledge Results
Several interview questions were designed to draw out the participants’ knowledge as
they related to the identified influences (Table 2), which included their understanding of non-
evaluative peer instructional coaching and its relationship to the overarching leadership structure
of the school (declarative-factual), comprehension of job-related expectations for EL teacher
leaders (declarative-conceptual), and ability to enact the principles of EL teacher leadership,
including the use of interpersonal skills (procedural). Table 2 shows each of the identified
knowledge influences and provides a summary of the document analysis and interview findings.
These findings are further detailed in subsequent sections.
Table 7
EL Teacher Leader Knowledge Needs
Assumed Needs Document Analysis Interview Data
EL teacher leaders need
knowledge specific to
their extended roles
outside of the
classroom.
Training curriculum includes
information on the extended role
but does not assess EL teacher
leaders’ knowledge of their
extended roles outside of the
classroom.
All were able to articulate an
understanding that their
extended roles outside of the
classroom included both
professional development
facilitation and non-evaluative
peer instructional coaching.
EL teacher leaders need
to know the purpose and
goals of their roles as
teacher leaders.

Training curriculum includes
information on the extended role
but does not assess EL teacher
leaders’ knowledge of the
purpose and goals of EL teacher
leadership.
Inconsistent descriptions of
what the purpose and goals of
an EL teacher leader is across
all five interviews.

84
EL teacher leaders need
to know how to enact
the principles of non-
evaluative peer
instructional coaching,
including the use of use
interpersonal skills, in
their work.
Training curriculum includes
information on and practice
using the principles of non-
evaluative peer instructional
coaching but does not assess EL
teacher leaders’ knowledge of
enacting non-evaluative peer
instructional coaching or the use
of interpersonal skills in their
work.
All of the participants
demonstrated factual
knowledge of peer instructional
coaching principles, but three
out of five struggled to enact
this knowledge procedurally
unless they already had a strong
relationship with their general
education colleague.

Knowledge of Teacher Leadership
A document review of the training curriculum helped to contextualize the interview data
as they relate to the knowledge influences because it provides information about the learning
outcomes expected of EL teacher leaders who participated in the training. The training
curriculum indicates approximately three of the 12-hour instruction are dedicated to training that
describes peer instructional coaching in the form of explanations, modeling, and practice.
Interview findings indicate four out of the five interview participants make a clear distinction
between their knowledge of the professional development facilitation and the non-evaluative
peer instructional coaching which comprises their role as EL teacher leaders. Whereas
professional development was facilitated in small to medium sized groups, instructional coaching
took place in a one-on-one setting with the EL teacher leader and a general education teacher
colleague who volunteered to participate in the coaching. EL teacher leaders delineated between
these two components of their work and demonstrated a more consistent knowledge of the
professional development work over the peer coaching work. Participants’ knowledge of the
professional development component of teacher leadership was underscored by where they chose
to focus the majority of their EL teacher leadership efforts. When asked about her non-evaluative
peer coaching work, Gemma said,

85
The coaching part really is the piece that I feel the most insecure about and I feel like I
am putting “coaching” in quotation marks. I don’t even know if it was worthy enough to
have quotation marks on it.

In this exchange, Gemma’s description of the work she did serving as a non-evaluative peer
instructional coach indicates that she has some awareness that this is part of her role as an EL
teacher leader, but that there is a need for a more well developed understanding of how to enact
this portion of her job, which attends to the third of the three identified knowledge influences in
this evaluation. It also points toward the way her lack of procedural knowledge (Krathwohl,
2002) may affect her self-efficacy (Bandura, 2000), which is a motivation influence identified in
this study.
While Gemma demonstrated the connection between knowledge and motivation in the
form of self-efficacy (Bandura, 2000), Savannah drew a tie between non-evaluative peer
instructional coaching and prior conceptions of what instructional coaches do. Savannah stated,
“I feel sometimes like a failed coaching, because I’m not able to do what I think a real coaching
position would look like.” Although the training curriculum is designed to teach what EL teacher
leadership is and how it is conceptualized through the responsibilities of facilitating professional
development and non-evaluative peer coaching, it does not account for prior knowledge of
coaching, which may be interfering with the EL teachers’ leaders knowledge of their specific
roles. In their study on how existing knowledge influences the validation or rejection of false
information, Richter et al. (2009) found that participants who were presented with inaccurate
information were able to efficiently reject it as false based on their existing knowledge. It is also
possible, therefore, that despite being trained on the roles and responsibilities of EL teacher
leadership and being able to identify what the role entails, existing knowledge of instructional

86
coaching interferes with EL teacher leaders’ learning about how non-evaluative peer
instructional coaching is conducted as an EL teacher leader.
When asked probing questions about what would make the implementation of non-
evaluative peer instructional coaching feasible, Savannah expressed an EL teacher leadership
position would need to be a full-time job rather a split between teaching and leadership
responsibilities and based that on the large number of ELs in her school. This indicates a gap in
her knowledge of the role an EL teacher leader plays, where peer instructional coaches maintain
some of their direct instruction of students, but also spend a portion of their time fulfilling the
responsibilities of EL teacher leadership using collaborative discourse to co-construct learning in
order to better serve ELs in the general education classroom setting (Wells, 1999). Savannah’s
description that an EL teacher leadership position should not include the direct instruction of
students indicates that her knowledge of EL teacher leadership, as it is defined in the context of
Prairieville Public Schools and the training curriculum at the partner university, is incomplete.
This limitation may be exacerbated by previous and varying conceptions of instructional
coaching, where teacher leadership positions did not include direct instruction of students.
In her interview, Aurora accurately demonstrated her knowledge of EL teacher leadership
by describing her role as one where she works “with her colleagues to provide professional
development and coaching conversations around how to integrate academic language
development for their EL students.” This description is in keeping with the training curriculum’s
description of EL teacher leadership and reveals Aurora’s clear understanding of her extended
role as an EL teacher leader. However, she also provided additional background on how
established notions of instructional coaching in Prairieville Public Schools may be interfering
with some EL teacher leaders’ knowledge of what the work of teacher leadership entails,

87
especially as it relates to the non-evaluative peer instructional coaching work. When discussing
how she imagined the coaching work fitting into her schedule, Aurora indicated it was difficult
to imagine district leadership would be willing to dedicate even a small portion of time for non-
evaluative peer instructional coaching because the special education department had just
eliminated its instructional coaching positions, which were full-time and did not include direct
instruction of students. She shared that
In an ideal world, I think that there should be FTE [full-time equivalent] devoted to both
things [EL teacher leadership and direct instruction of students]. And so that would mean
there would have to be more EL teachers hired in the district, because if there are
coaches, they can't commit all their time to being the teacher and they need to have some
portion of their time committed to being able to do the work of being a coach. And I
unfortunately don't see that that is going to happen anytime soon.

Aurora went on to say the special education coaches,
…didn’t do any coaching and so now they have eliminated those jobs and they are now
also telling us that we can’t call ourselves coaches because they don’t want us to be seen
in the same bucket as the coaches that weren’t working.

Aurora’s explanation of Prairieville Public School’s prior experiences with instructional
coaching has implications for the organizational influences in KMO analysis (Clark & Estes,
2008) and provides insights into both Gemma’s description of non-evaluative peer instructional
coaching and her lack of comfort with it, perhaps because she is conflating previous conceptions
of teacher leadership with the role of EL teacher leaders. In addition, Aurora shed light on
Savannah’s understanding that coaching, in order to be effective, needs to be a full-time job. The
issue of dedicated time for teacher leadership is revisited in the organizational influences section,
but demonstrations of knowledge clearly intersect and overlap with a number of the identified
influences in the KMO Framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) used for this study. As it pertains to
the knowledge influences, Aurora was able to fully and accurately describe her understanding of
her role and responsibilities as an EL teacher leader, while Gemma and Savannah appeared to

88
conflate past knowledge about instructional coaching with EL teacher leadership (Richter et al.,
2009).
In order to address the professional development facilitation portion of her role, Dierdre
set up small groups of colleagues and facilitated topical professional development based on the
specific knowledge needs of those colleagues, The way in which Dierdre organized the
professional development around content that is relevant to her colleagues demonstrates her
understanding of effective professional development techniques (Darling-Hammond, et al.,
2017) and that portion of her role as an EL teacher leader. In coaching, however, she indicated
that “the actual coaching part is not something that you get a lot of training on and it can be
really kind of uncomfortable.” While potentially uncomfortable, Diedre knew that, in addition to
professional development facilitation, her role also included the responsibility of providing non-
evaluative peer coaching.
Like the other EL teacher leader participants in this study, Leah was also able to name
professional development facilitation and non-evaluative peer instructional coaching as the two
key roles she plays outside of her classroom teaching responsibilities. However, in much the
same way as the other participants, professional development facilitation took precedence over
the non-evaluative peer instructional coaching. Based on the interview data, the participants in
this study can name the two primary tasks with which they are charged as EL teacher leaders, but
at least three participants indicated that the role of non-evaluative peer instructional coach is
hampered by previous conception of this work. Chapter five provides recommendations for
addressing this knowledge gap.

89
Understanding of the Goals and Purposes of Teacher Leadership
A document review of Prairieville Public School’s university-partner training curriculum
focused on the declarative knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002) related to what EL teacher leadership
entails confirmed that approximately one of the 12-hour training is spent focusing on the goals
and purposes of teacher leadership. The curriculum first attends to distributed leadership by
defining it and demonstrating its benefits, then goes on to explain teacher leadership as an
expression of distributed leadership. This portion of the training curriculum concludes with the
goals of EL teacher leadership more specifically, and includes information on dialogic, or
inquiry-based, instructional coaching that cites Knight’s work in this area (2016). While the
training curriculum also includes information related to the flexibility of the design so that
implementation is site-based rather than generic, which aligns with research on effective in-
service teacher professional development (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2017), triangulation of the
data reveals the participants’ retention and interpretation of this declarative knowledge varies by
individual.
Each interview participant described the goals and purpose of their work as EL teacher
leaders in distinct and somewhat inconsistent ways. Savannah understands the purpose and goals
of EL teacher leaders as similar to the purpose and goals of an EL teacher who has not taken on
any additional responsibilities. She said “so, like, me being an [EL teacher leader] doesn’t
change how often we’re meeting or collaborating or planning and co-teaching lessons [with
general education colleagues].” Given previous conceptions of instructional coaching in the
district, it is possible that Leah does not see EL teacher leadership differently because it still

90
includes direct instruction of students. Leah made a slightly more specific distinction between
her knowledge of what an EL teacher leader does and what all EL teachers do when she
described her role in relation to the EL students she served.
Well I, I guess I support teachers in giving their - delivering their mainstream instruction
by coaching and I help them design lessons and kind of coach them in ways of thinking
about the structures of their lessons and the supports and the scaffolds that they have
within their lessons that help the EL students be successful.

This description demonstrates that Leah has some understanding of the purpose and goals of EL
teacher leadership, but primarily as it relates to Prairieville Public School’s global goal rather
than the stakeholder goal. Leah also expresses her understanding of EL teacher leadership at an
individual rather than a systemic level.
While Leah’s description is not incorrect, the same interview question regarding the role
EL teacher leaders play yielded a different response from the other participants. Dierdre stated
that, “[EL teacher leadership] was totally on the side. It wasn't part of the, the whole school.”
This stands in contrast to the description provided by Aurora, who discussed the district EL
coordinator’s role in advocating for EL teacher leadership and the fact that school principals had
written the work of EL teacher leaders into many of their school improvement plans.
I think that more and more people are beginning to see that it is something worthwhile to
support. So, it's been a slow process. But I think that at the district level there will be
stronger support for it. At the building level principals have definitely included [EL
teacher leadership] as part of their school improvement plan and so on paper, it supports
what we do and by - and by, you know, agreeing to the fact that there are [EL teacher
leaders] in the buildings.

Aurora’s description indicates school-level implementation rather than something that is
periphery to the goals of the school and district. Aurora also provides a rich description of the
goal and purpose of EL teacher leadership when she states,

91
The goal of being an [EL teacher leader] is twofold: to partner with a gen ed teacher to
support their journey of strengthening their own teaching craft toward culturally-
responsive practices for English learners, and to provide another avenue of advocacy for
English learners, language-as-asset, and academic language instruction.

Aurora, who describes language teaching experts as those who can share with their colleagues
how to “make those formalities of language that are needed for academic settings obvious and
practicable and attainable,” demonstrates a more comprehensive knowledge of the purpose and
goals of EL teacher leadership. Unlike Leah, Aurora also ties the work of EL teacher leaders to
district level systems by focusing on “the world of education” rather than a single school, which
indicates her understanding of both the district global goal and the stakeholder goal.
Gemma, on the other hand, describes the purpose of her work as an EL teacher leader as
one where she serves as an advocate for the EL teacher leadership initiative itself so more of the
general education teachers participate in the non-evaluative peer instructional coaching, stating
that “[EL teachers are] eager to be advocates through leadership and through deeper
conversations with their classroom teaching colleagues.” Much like Aurora, Gemma’s
knowledge of the purpose and goals of EL teacher leadership is framed through how she situates
it within the larger community of EL teachers within Prairieville Public Schools, which indicates
she knows the systemic level goal of her work as an EL teacher leader.
Of the five participants, each appear to have taken away different messages from the
university-based training on the purpose and goals of EL teacher leadership. Cheng and Szeto
(2016) recommended, based on their case study of teacher leadership, that the purpose of teacher
leadership be incorporated into teacher preparation programs, so it is introduced prior to full-time
in-service teaching. Holloway, et al. (2018) found there were competing definitions of leadership
in the schools where the teacher leader participants in their study worked. A lack of background

92
knowledge related to teacher leadership and unique leadership structures in each of the schools
where the EL teacher leader participants work may influence what was (and was not) retained
from the EL teacher leadership training by each individual.
Ability to Enact Principles of EL Teacher Leadership through the Use of Interpersonal Skills
In their study on key qualities of effective instructional coaches, White et al. (2015)
found strong interpersonal skills are an important factor in a coach’s ability to build relationships
with colleagues. Of the five EL teacher leaders interviewed, all demonstrated factual knowledge
of peer instructional coaching principles, such as engaging in question asking (Knight, 2016;
Hudson & Pletcher, 2020), but three out of five struggled to enact this knowledge procedurally
unless they already had a strong relationship with their general education colleague. In addition,
four EL teacher leader participants expressed that their ability to apply their factual knowledge of
the principles of EL teacher leadership was easier with general education teachers with whom the
EL teacher leaders already had a positive professional relationship. In her description of how she
applies her knowledge of the principles of EL teacher leadership, Savannah said
I might say what, you know, what did you notice or what did you notice about a
particular student if this was a student that had been come up before? Or I may, if we're
looking at the data and maybe there was a student that wasn't engaged or didn't talk the
entire time. I might say, oh, look at this. Like why - tell me more about the student
because it could be a student, I don't know. There's a lot of exit year one and exit year
two students that aren't EL anymore, so I don't know them as a student. And if they're not
in a class I’m co-teaching in I don't know this child. So, I might say, oh, tell me about so
and so. Tell me more about this. It looks like in the data he or she didn't talk the entire
time. And then they'll tell me about the student and maybe they're like, oh, he’s really
quiet or just kind of more information.

This description demonstrates how Savannah is applying the principles of EL teacher leadership
and interpersonal skills in her non-evaluative instructional coaching conversations. Savannah
further described her use of questions to guide her conversations in the manner of dialogic
coaching (Wells, 1999; Knight, 2016; Allen, 2018), which Knight (n.d.) defined as a partnership

93
rooted in inquiry, in order to strengthen relational trust. Savannah said she began her meetings
with “small talk check ins – maybe a social and emotional connection” as a means to maintaining
the relationships she already had with co-teachers. Savannah’s understanding that non-evaluative
peer instructional coaching is relationship-based underscores of her knowledge of the principles
of EL teacher leadership as it is described in the curriculum she received through her training at
the district’s partner university.
Aurora also reported her experiences working as an EL teacher leader were easier in one-
on-one settings with colleagues she already knew well, which she explained made it easier to
enact her knowledge of the principles of EL teacher leadership because there was an established
rapport. During her first year serving as an EL teacher leader, Aurora’s existing job became a
half time position and, as a result, she taught EL at two schools within the district. She described
that experience in the following way,
I wasn’t in the same school as people who I had relationships with and so while the
coaching relationship could have been really good, it wasn’t because I didn’t have the
easy interaction with them [teacher colleagues at her original school] anymore because I
wasn’t in the building. And then, on the other hand, I was new to the building. And while
I knew a lot of people in the new building, I had not built up any sort of rapport of who I
am as an EL teacher leader.

She went on to describe the challenge of working as a non-evaluative peer coach for her new
colleagues at the same time she was getting to know them professionally.
They just have a kind of an arm's length respect for you and vice versa. I don't - I didn't
know them, either as teachers. And so, I couldn't, you know, speak toward oh, I know
that in the past, this has been a challenge for you because we've talked about it before you
know. So I didn't have that.

Despite her move to a new school where she lacked professional relationships, Aurora was able
to provide descriptive evidence of her use of interpersonal skills to enact the principles of EL
teacher leadership. She shared a story to demonstrate how she enacted her knowledge with a

94
general education colleague who she described as initially “stoic” and caused Aurora to wonder
“what is she even listening to right now?” during her coaching sessions. As Aurora continued to
implement EL teacher leadership principles, such as use of questions, interpersonal skills, and
ensuring that the content is relevant to the teacher, the non-evaluative peer coaching relationship
evolved.
Towards the end of that first year she [the general education teacher] said that she wanted
to take a look at how to incorporate genre language instruction for their writing
curriculum because she had not been happy with how their writing curriculum was
going…So, we talked a lot about those things. And so, she said, I'd like to kind of look at
this next unit that I'm planning and see how we can redesign it. So, we started to do that
together and then it became a weekly collaboration meeting and I call it collaboration
because it really was the conversation of, okay, what would you do for this and how
would you change it? Oh, that's a really good idea. Thanks for bringing that up. Oh, yes,
we need to have that for sure as the content. You know, it was both of us having the
interaction in a very meaningful way.

Aurora succinctly summed up her thoughts on what it means to establish a relationship through
the use of interpersonal skills before serving as an EL teacher leader by stating “you can’t be a
coach from afar.” During her second year of EL teacher leadership, eager to learn more about
enacting coaching principles, Aurora began working on and completed her Master of Arts degree
in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), during which time she
researched and wrote her thesis on instructional coaching conversations. Aurora was able to
demonstrate a deep knowledge and understanding of peer coaching principles, including the
value of interpersonal skills, but recognized how the procedural (Krathwohl, 2002) aspects of
that knowledge was more challenging when working with colleagues with whom she did not
have a strong relationship already.
Like Savannah and Aurora, Leah and Dierdre expressed a clear preference for enacting
EL teacher leader principles through the use of interpersonal skills. Dierdre also began teaching
in a new school in 2017 when she trained to be an EL teacher leader. She described the need to

95
be more measured in how she enacted EL teacher leadership principles and described the role
that existing relationships play in the use of interpersonal skills, stating “you just have to be
really careful about not seeming accusatory and judgmental.” As the other EL teacher leaders
who expressed similar sentiments and experiences, Dierdre and Leah both indicated that starting
their coaching conversations by asking questions rather than relaying what they had observed in
the general education classroom proved the most comfortable way to have one-on-one
discussions about teaching practices. This is consistent with Knight’s (2016) description of
dialogic coaching, where coaching conversations are rooted in question asking. The technique of
question asking was revealed in the document analysis of the university led training for EL
teacher leaders, where question asking was described, modeled, and practiced during a portion of
the 12 hours of instruction. Through their descriptions of question asking during one-on-one peer
instructional coaching conversations, all five participants demonstrated factual knowledge of
how to enact interpersonal skills, but the degree to which they were able to apply knowledge of
EL teacher leadership principles varied by individual colleague and was tied to the existing
professional relationships they did or did not have.
Like the other participants, Gemma was able to describe her use of interpersonal skills
through dialogic coaching (Knight, 2016), but her interview indicated the opposite experience as
it related to enacting EL teacher leadership principles with colleagues who are both trusted and
well known. Gemma described how the school in which she teaches was her first teaching job
after college and, due to the fact there was very little attrition in the teaching staff, she still felt
like a new teacher even after 10 years working in the building. So while Gemma had earned her
Master of Arts in TESOL and was able to accurately display factual knowledge about the roles,
purpose, and goals of an EL teacher leader, the procedural enactment of EL teacher leadership

96
principles, particularly as they relate to interpersonal skills and parity (Knight, 2016) between
peers, was a struggle for her because she felt “inexperienced” and young as compared to her
colleagues. She described her use of interpersonal skills in non-evaluative peer coaching
conversations by saying “I usually try to just connect in a way that's not about the observation
itself, but just more of that like friendly connection just keeping it like light,” which is consistent
with the principles for EL teacher leadership. However, she also included, “so there is a part of
me that is like, well, who am I to give this veteran brilliant teacher any kind of constructive
feedback?” Although Gemma’s perspective is an outlier in the group as it relates to using
interpersonal skills to enact principles of EL teacher leadership, it is noteworthy and points
toward the role self-efficacy (Bandura, 2000) plays in even very experienced and knowledgeable
EL teacher leaders’ experiences.
Motivation Results
Interview participants were asked to describe their areas of expertise, responsibilities as
EL teacher leaders, and the roles they play in their school’s learning community. These questions
were designed to elicit an understanding of what motivates EL teacher leaders to take on
leadership responsibilities above and beyond their EL teaching duties. In particular, the
researcher sought to gain an understanding of EL teacher leaders’ self-efficacy (Bandura, 2000)
and the utility value (Eccles, 2006) they place in their leadership work, as these two components
of motivation provide insights into how participants perceive their own abilities and the
importance they place in what they have been charged to do in their leadership work. Table 8
provides an overview of the findings related to the assumed motivational needs for EL teacher
leaders, as identified through the literature review described in Chapter Two. The subsequent
sections include details about these findings.

97
Table 8
EL Teacher Leader Motivation Needs
Assumed Needs Interview Data
Self-efficacy: EL teacher leaders
need to believe they have
specialized knowledge to share
with their general education
colleagues.
Four out of five EL teacher leaders demonstrated
inconsistent self-efficacy in providing non-evaluative peer
instructional coaching. All five participants expressed
self-efficacy in facilitating professional development for
general education colleagues.
Utility Value: EL teacher leaders
need to see the importance of
taking on teacher leadership
positions.
Successful experiences working as an EL teacher leader
serve to reinforce the utility value of EL teacher
leadership.

EL Teacher Leaders’ Belief in Their Own Expertise
While all five of the participants were able to describe their belief in their own expertise
as it relates to second language theory and pedagogy, including Savannah who referred to herself
and the other EL teacher leaders as “language experts,” only one of the EL teacher leaders
interviewed was able to provide a detailed account of her belief in her own ability, or self-
efficacy (Bandura, 2000), to fulfill the full scope of duties assigned to EL teacher leaders in
Prairieville Public Schools. That particular participant, Aurora, had recently completed her
Master of Arts degree in TESOL and focused her thesis topic on instructional coaching methods,
so her training in the topic far exceeded what the others experienced. In relation to her ability to
provide non-evaluative peer instructional coaching, Aurora stated
I think that I am continually gaining the skills and knowledge to coach my colleagues
with each new colleague that is willing to partner with me. I don't always think that I
know exactly how it's going to work, or what would be the best approach, but with each
conversation, reflection, and collaboration, I become more confident that I can come
alongside my colleagues as a coach.

While the other participants expressed some degree of confidence in their work as EL teacher
leaders, Aurora was the only participant who did not actively question her skills and abilities to
perform all of the duties of an EL teacher leader, especially non-evaluative peer instructional

98
coaching. In addition to a deep understanding of her role, described as “I as an [EL teacher
leader] I have worked with my colleagues to provide professional development and coaching
conversations around how to integrate academic language development for their language
students,” Aurora was also able to describe significant successes that occurred because of the
non-evaluative peer instructional coaching she provided. Aurora said “there's one teacher that
I'm still blown away with by the, by what she has done and changing her instruction” because of
the instructional coaching she provided. She followed up by saying “I have become confident in
the fact that the experience and gained knowledge that I have in teaching academic English and
in working with English learners can support gen ed teachers to add to their repertoire of
instruction.” These descriptions indicate that Aurora has developed a healthy sense of self-
efficacy or belief in her ability to successfully provide non-evaluative peer coaching that leads to
change in instruction for ELs.
Aurora goes on the describe the monthly meetings that she facilitates for all of the EL
teacher leaders in the district as a place where self-efficacy is built. She described these meetings
as a time when they
focused on a variety of topics from coaching practices and topics for professional
development and sometimes simply SEL stuff for our coaches that are just in need of an
ear to hear what is going on in their coaching world.

By Aurora’s estimation, the opportunity to come together and share ideas for professional
development and non-evaluative peer instructional coaching is a source of self-efficacy
(Bandura, 2000) for the EL teacher leaders.

99
I think just the fact that they have this cohort of people that they can lean into and get
ideas from and also know that, like other people are doing the same things. I think that's
given these teachers a huge boost of confidence, and I think that they have stepped up in
leadership in vastly different ways in their schools. And so, I would say that, like if there
is change happening in schools, it's because of the [EL teacher leaders] that are saying,
enough is enough and this is what needs to happen. And I think that's a difference that I
have not - that I don't think EL teachers have been able to make before.

These team meetings have become part of the organizational support structure for the group of
teachers who are typically isolated from one another in schools across the district. However, the
data shows the self-efficacy (Bandura, 2000) that may be derived from a supportive team of EL
teacher leaders, as Aurora describes, may not apply equally to all tasks required by the job.
To some degree, there is data to support Aurora’s belief that the team meetings were a
valuable way in which to build EL teacher leader self-efficacy (Bandura, 2000) for the other four
study participants, but primarily as it relates to the facilitation of professional development. The
literature establishes that ongoing support mechanisms play a role in building and sustaining
teacher self-efficacy. In their study on the support offered through a Facebook group designed
for teachers, Chung and Chen (2018) found, through their survey of 584 teacher members of the
group, teacher self-efficacy could be predicted based on the support offered, even when years of
experience and group membership effects were taken into account. This research suggests that
the support offered by bringing together trained EL teacher leaders may directly impact their
feelings of self-efficacy. Leah described working with her colleagues, including Aurora and the
district EL coordinator who
…had also helped me during my first year of coaching when I was designing some of my
professional developments. She kind of helped me kind of get that together, get the ideas
together in my brain because it was kind of something different for me to be designing
professional developments, just the packaging of it, you know, and you know, like
getting participants to not just be watching something but be actively involved. She
helped me with some of those things.

100
When Leah said her general education colleagues “have more of a knowledge of English
language, English learning- the process of learning the English language” and was asked what
she attributed it to, she replied that “I would say probably the PD more than my coaching with
them on a personal level just because of what I put into the PD.” The support that Leah received
from her colleagues appears to play a role in her self-efficacy (Bandura, 2000) tied to her work
as a developer and facilitator of professional development, but she did not mention its effect on
her self-efficacy as it relates to non-evaluative peer instructional coaching. In fact, Leah created
professional development modules as her capstone project for her master’s degree in TESOL.
Savannah, Gemma, and Dierdre also described their self-efficacy (Bandura, 2000) in
terms that made distinctions between the two primary tasks for EL teacher leaders in Prairieville
Public Schools: facilitation of professional development and providing non-evaluative peer
instructional coaching. Savannah described her self-identity as a leader in the following way:
I might personally feel, oh, I'm not a leader. Like, I don't know how to be a leader. But
my colleagues don't make me feel like that. The classroom teachers don't make me feel
like that. It's just my own insecurities.

She went on to describe how hearing from the other EL teacher leaders in the district helped her
to better understand the variety of ways in which they could fulfill their duties. Savannah’s
description of deriving confidence or sense of self-efficacy (Bandura, 2000) from the district
wide EL teacher leader team meetings is supported by Gemma, who shared that the team
meetings are a source for sharing professional development materials that have been effectively
used with general education colleagues. The team of EL teacher leaders, as a result, have created
a shared google drive folder with a variety of vetted resources they can draw from rather than
recreate materials on their own. Gemma, in describing professional development delivery which
she co-facilitated with Savannah, said

101
She and I bring different strengths to the PD and we've kind of talked about that before,
between the two of us. And she's super in tune with like making things interactive and
engaging and I feel like one of the strengths I can bring is kind of just like the
information piece, like how to look at word, sentence, discourse level. Um, and I think
part of that is having taught a few courses at [a local university] now. That has like given
me a lot of confidence to be able to speak to my colleagues. So I think just that that blend
of, you know, she's really good with like leading the interactive strategies which I would
be like, oh, like that looks exhausting to me and she's like, oh, I would love to do that if
you can explain like this linguistic-y stuff. Like yes, please let me do that. So, I think we
kind of feed off of each other and complement each other's skill sets.

Gemma’s account of both the benefits of the district level EL teacher leaders’ meetings and the
collaborative facilitation of professional development underscore Chung and Chen’s (2018)
findings that self-efficacy (Bandura, 2000) is tied to collegial support. In fact, a word count
(Appendix A) revealed three of the five EL teacher leaders used the words “collaborate” and/or
“collaboration” 11 times over the course of their interviews in order to describe their work style
and preference for how to enact EL teacher leadership. Given these preferences, it can be
inferred that district team meetings would be well received by the EL teacher leaders and play a
role in their self-efficacy (Bandura, 2000).
EL Teacher Leaders’ Belief in the Value of Serving as a Teacher Leader
The interviews indicated EL teacher leaders volunteered to be trained through the
university partnership but were initially skeptical about the value and reality of the initiative.
However, all five of the EL teacher leaders were able to describe an increase in the utility value
(Eccles, 2006) they placed in their new roles through the general education teacher’s
incorporation of EL teaching methods into their regular instruction. These descriptions were
often tied to working with general education colleagues who may have initially presented as
indifferent about teaching but were actually quite committed to EL student success through the
collaborative relationships offered by the EL teacher leaders. Dierdre described one of her
colleagues, who “wasn’t great at getting to the PD [professional development] and following

102
through with things” but was still willing to participate in dialogic coaching sessions (Wells,
1999; Knight, 2016) with Dierdre. She described his reaction to a strategy using sentence starters
for academic conversations that she had suggested he try with his students. Dierdre described his
reaction in the following way:
At the end of our lesson the reflection he was like, this is the first reflection that I've had
where I could really see an instant difference, you know, in what I had done, and usually
like when you do [district instructional coaching] it's just a general like what are you
going to do, like, there's no advice given. But he had asked, you know, like, what do you
think I should do for my EL students? And so, having that little piece of advice I can see
that he respects what I do more, even if he doesn't particularly use it all the time. But as
an EL teacher I feel like he's got more respect for me as a teacher, just in general.

Liggett’s (2010) study on the marginalization of EL teachers and their students underscores the
impact that collaborative experiences such as the one described by Dierdre have on how valued
EL teacher leaders feel and the significance they place in their work.
Working with colleagues who are also passionate about engaging in a co-learning
relationship is valued by teacher leaders (Carver, 2016). General education teachers’
instructional successes that can be directly tied to the work of EL teacher leaders’ also generated
a sense of utility value (Eccles, 2006) for Aurora, who worked with a sixth grade teacher who
was initially “stoic” and difficult to read in terms of her receptivity to the non-evaluative peer
coaching work Aurora was offering to her. This particular colleague shared, after they
collaborated on scaffolding the writing curriculum for ELs, she “cannot believe the difference in
what students are turning in compared with what they’ve turned in in the past when we’ve done
the same unit in previous years.” Aurora summed up this experience, and the value she places in
her work as an EL teacher leader, in this way: “I’m so proud of the work that she [the sixth grade
teacher] has done and the work that we’ve done together to be able to make changes for the

103
entire sixth grade.” For Aurora, the value she places in her work as an EL teacher leader directly
ties to the district mission and global goal, where high quality instruction is provided to all
learners, including ELs.
Gemma’s interview also revealed a connection between the value she placed in her work
as an EL teacher leader and the successes she realized while fulfilling those responsibilities,
although her successes are tied to professional development facilitation rather than non-
evaluative peer instructional coaching. She described it this way:
I would say that the professional development sessions that my co- [EL teacher leader]
and I have created have probably hands down been the most successful I’ve ever felt in
my entire career. I feel like I’m in my zone when I am leading the professional
development.

Gemma shared she has collected feedback on the professional development sessions she co-led
with the other EL teacher leader in her school, which is “super positive” even though the work
itself is “exhausting but exhilarating.” In her study on the marginalization of EL teachers,
Liggett’s (2010) conclusion that positive collaborative relationships between general education
and EL teachers can help build parity between these colleagues sheds light on the role Gemma’s
experiences delivering professional development have on the utility value she places in her
leadership work. Given Gemma also identified her area of expertise as indispensable because she
believes that “language acquisition is largely misunderstood,” these collaboration-based
professional development successes may help to reinforce the value of the work she is doing as
an EL teacher leader. Gemma’s summary of what is needed in terms of understanding language
acquisition also highlights its important role in achieving the district mission and global goal, as
well as the stakeholder goal.

104
Interaction Between Organizational Culture and Context and The EL Teacher Leaders’
Knowledge and Motivation
EL teacher leaders work within multiple organizational cultures. First, they are part of the
Prairieville Public School district, which operates as an autonomous public-school system with
its own culture and procedures but is also obligated to adhere to the policies and decision making
that occurs at the federal and state levels. Within the district itself, each school has its own
unique organizational culture. Participants in this evaluation study represent three of the eight
elementary schools and one of the two schools that serve secondary students. As a result, the
professional experiences of teachers within the same district can vary greatly, even when they
are enacting the same initiatives. The following sections seek to develop an understanding of
how the organizational culture and context interact with and influence EL teacher leaders’
knowledge and motivation as they relate to their leadership role within each of their schools.
Organizational Results
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) offer a lens through which to examine organizational
culture by breaking down the concept of culture into two essential components: cultural models
and cultural settings. Cultural models include the rules, expectations, and behavioral norms that
exist within an organization. These cultural models are often internalized and difficult to
articulate, despite the fact they frequently dictate the perceptions and actions of the people who
are members the organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural settings, on the other
hand, are the physical spaces within which a cultural model exists. It is worth noting these can
also be virtual settings, such as meetings conducted through virtual conferencing programs. In
short, the cultural settings are spaces where members of an organization gather to accomplish
their work (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Table 9 provides an overview of the cultural model

105
and setting findings for this evaluation study and the following sections provide detail on those
findings.
Table 9
Organizational Needs
Assumed Needs Document Analysis Interview Data
Cultural Model Influence: The
organization needs a culture of
shared leadership.
Shared leadership is represented
in the teacher contract through
formal options for teacher
leadership
Some evidence of shared
leadership systems being
utilized but there is a lack
of consistency across
schools within the district
Cultural Setting Influence:
The organization needs to
provide dedicated time for
teacher leadership to fulfill
their responsibilities.
Substitute teacher and class
cancellation options for
professional development; no
evidence of dedicated time for
EL teacher leadership in teacher
schedules
Some evidence of
resource support for EL
teacher leadership in the
form of dedicated time

Distributed Leadership as a Cultural Model
Although a cultural model is described as the behavioral expectations and set of rules
followed by the members of a given organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001), the
document analysis of the Prairieville Public Schools teacher contract reveals that provisions,
although vague, do exist for the implementation of distributed or shared leadership. Under
Article IV Compensation, Section 18, Subdivision 2. addresses supplemental compensation for
licensed teaching staff who provide additional leadership to their school or district in the form of
program development and staff leadership, among other activities (Prairieville Public Schools
2018-2019 teacher contract, withheld to retain confidentiality). This would suggest that
mechanisms for systems of distributed leadership structures formally exist within the larger
cultural model of the organization. Under Article X, Section 3, the contract further describes
staff development and collaboration as examples of approved work activities for licensed
teachers. In light of the role collaboration plays in EL teacher leaders’ motivation (see Appendix

106
A), it is structurally feasible that the existing teacher contract already includes the necessary
language to support the use of distributed leadership models across the district and that EL
teacher leadership is a legitimate use of time in terms of contractual provisions (Prairieville
Public Schools 2018-2019 teacher contract).
Each of the teachers interviewed indicated they felt their work as EL teacher leaders was
supported, albeit to varying degrees, by the school and district leadership. All five of the
interview participants discussed the role the district EL coordinator played in advocating for their
leadership. Dierdre stated the EL coordinator, “probably was the biggest person involved” in
bring EL teacher leadership as a model of shared leadership to the district but said that “at the
school level, nothing was set up to support [EL teacher leadership] really except that the
principal knew and she was supportive of people participating” and that “it’d be nice if we had
something more structured.” Dierdre’s explanation indicates a lack of clarity around the role of
an EL teacher leader beyond the EL teacher leaders themselves and school administrators. As
Berg et al. (2013) indicate, a shared vision and shared leadership creates the clarity around roles.
Based on Dierdre’s description, a full application of distributed leadership is not yet in place or
part of the culture at her school.
Aurora also spoke at length about the advocacy provided by the EL coordinator, in
particular, saying that she “has really fought tooth and nail to provide for us. And that doesn't -
that hasn't always translated into the district doing anything about it, but she supports us in any
way possible.” She went on to say that the district EL coordinator
has really worked to create an environment that is not just about each of us being isolated
in our own sites, but that we have the ability to collaborate and move forward together,
which I think speaks volumes to both the shared vision of the [EL teacher leaders] that
are doing it, but also for our leader in her wanting to help push us forward in this area.

107
Aurora continued by explaining the significance of the advocacy provided by the district EL
coordinator which, to some degree, minimized the impact of less robust support provided by
other district leaders. She describes the role of the EL coordinator in the following way:
I would say that she is such significant support that it kind of overshadows the less
significant support that we get from other areas, you know, the fact that we don't have
any [time] committed to being able to do this work and up until this last year, we have
not been given stipends for doing the work either. And that's been something that [the EL
coordinator] has really fought for but that I - because of how coaches have operated in the
past in the district, there hasn't necessarily been a lot of excitement around supporting
more coaches.

Aurora’s interview provides evidence that efforts to move toward a system of distributed
leadership are underway, but that these efforts are inconsistent and dependent on advocacy from
individual leaders rather than systemic level direction.
Principals in the schools where each of the five EL teacher leaders teach were also
described as supportive of their roles, which the literature has demonstrated to be influential in
the success of teacher leaders (Berg, Bosch, & Souvanna, 2013; Cheng & Szeto, 2016; Smylie &
Eckert, 2018). Savannah described her school’s use of distributed leadership in the following
way:
my [EL teacher leader] colleague and I have been the decision makers and we propose
we come up with our schedule, we get the list of teachers we come up with our plan of
action for the year, propose it to our principal and then our principal last year and this
year was like okay, sounds great.

Savannah explained her principal said, “do whatever you need to make it work.” Leah’s principal
provided a list of general education teachers she thought would be a good fit for the one-on-one
non-evaluative peer coaching. Both Savannah and Leah explained that their principals were
largely responsible for making sure they were able to facilitate professional development during
the school day rather than outside of contractual hours. However, Aurora modified her

108
description of that support by stating, “even though they have it [EL teacher leadership] as a
piece of what our schools stands for and how we provide instruction for students, that’s the
extent of the support.”
In her exploratory study of elementary principals’ backing of teacher leadership, Mangin
(2007) found there is a link between the degree to which principals understood the roles of
teacher leadership and the ways in which they supported teacher leadership efforts. Each of the
five participants provided descriptions of how leadership was shared in their schools by
principals and the district EL coordinator. These descriptions reveal that, while elements of
distributed leadership are understood and used in their schools and the district at large, there is
inconsistent implementation and understanding of how to engage in distributed leadership across
schools in the district. The literature indicates distributed leadership models support teacher
leadership initiatives (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996; National
Education Association’s Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium, 2011; Holloway, et al.,
2018), so establishing a cultural model (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001) that utilizes distributed
leadership may impact the success of EL teacher leaders, thereby increasing the likelihood of
achieving the stakeholder and global goals. The participants in this study have realized a number
of successes related to their work as EL teacher leaders, particularly in their facilitation of
professional development, but their ability to achieve their full potential as EL teacher leaders
may be hampered by the inconsistent application of distributed leadership in the district’s
schools.
Dedicated Time as a Resources to Enact Teacher Leadership
As a measure of the cultural setting (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001) in which the EL
teacher leaders work, it is clear that time rises to the surface as a concern for fulfilling the

109
obligations related to their leadership roles. In fact, each participant spoke in detail about the
time they believe they need in order to fulfill their duties. The need for scheduled time for EL
teacher leadership is also well supported by the literature on teacher leadership, where dedicated
time was named as a critical need for responding to the implementation of teacher leadership
models in schools throughout the United States (Holloway, et al., 2018; Smylie & Eckert, 2018;
Jacobs, Gordon, & Solis, 2016; Gordon, Jacobs, & Solis, 2014; Lai & Cheung, 2014; Berg,
Bosch, & Souvanna, 2013; Margolis, 2012).
Through document analysis of the teacher contract, time and compensation for teacher
time, in particular, are the focus of Articles VI (Compensation), VIII (Reimbursement of
Approved Expenses), X (Hours of Employment), and XI (Additional Activities). Article VI,
Sections 10 and 11 describes teacher compensation for out of school time teaching and staff
development, which Dierdre referred to as “time carding,” where she and her colleagues could
submit for reimbursement at a rate of $24.00 per hour when they engaged in professional
development beyond the contractual work day. Aurora also referred to “time carding” for the
same purposes. Gemma and Savannah were given time during the contractual day, along with
substitute teacher coverage for the general education teachers, for professional development.
In a review of the teacher schedules provided by the participants in this evaluation study,
none of the EL teacher leaders had a block of time exclusively dedicated to EL teacher
leadership. While all teachers had preparation time built into their schedules, as required by the
teacher contract (Prairieville Public Schools 2018-2019 teacher contract), those blocks of time
ranged from 10 to 30 consecutive minutes. Two teacher schedules included a prep time that was

110
55 consecutive minutes, but for one of the teachers this time was designated for an additional
role she was assigned above and beyond the EL teacher leadership duties. The other teacher’s
55-minute timeframe was a combined lunch and preparation block.
Overall, each of the interview participants felt the time they were provided in the form of
either additional pay, which they referred to as “time carding,” or the provisions of substitute
teachers to cover classrooms while providing and attending professional development was
useful. Dierdre described the time carding process as one she and her colleagues used. “If they
[general education teachers] were doing PD with me, then they could get the curriculum rate of
pay.” She further explained this was because the time they spent in professional development
went “above and beyond their duty day,” thereby confirming the EL teacher leadership tasks
were fulfilled in addition to regular duties rather than incorporated into the official job
description. This points to the literature that established the importance of teacher leaders
knowing their roles and expectations (Margolis, 2012; York-Barr & Duke, 2004; Jacobs,
Gordon, & Solis, 2016), as well as the need for time to accomplish these tasks (Holloway,
Neilsen, & Saltmarsh, 2018; Smylie & Eckert, 2018; Jacobs, Gordon, & Solis, 2016; Gordon,
Jacobs, & Solis, 2014; Lai & Cheung, 2014; Berg, Bosch, & Souvanna, 2013; Margolis, 2012).
Given the lack of dedicated time provided for the EL teacher leadership activities during the duty
day, particularly the work associated with non-evaluative peer coaching, the additional pay may
also serve as a surrogate for feeling respected and appreciated (Margolis & Deuel, 2009).
Gemma described how a stipend may incentivize participation in EL teacher leadership by
comparing it to the typical compensation in the form of continuing education units (CEUs).

111
I feel like CEUs are like bitcoin, like what is this? We all have too many of them. We
don't really need something besides just CEUs. I don't know if like a stipend would be…I
don't know, maybe a stipend. Because if they are basically taking on this additional
expertise then maybe they get some kind of financial incentive because finances are real
incentives.

According to Gemma, paying teachers to participate in EL teacher leadership appears to be a
way for the district to demonstrate the commitment they are making to the work. She asked
rhetorically “are we are going to set aside money for this program and EL teachers and are we
going to incentivize classroom teachers to do this project and become better leaders with
language learners?” Financial incentives in the form of stipends and time appear to be ways in
which Gemma believes the district could invest in the vision of EL teacher leadership.
In addition to substitute teacher coverage and supplemental pay for work outside of the
regular duty day, EL teacher leaders were also given the option to cancel student groups in order
to perform their non-evaluative peer instructional coaching duties. Aurora said her principal and
the district EL coordinator gave her the decision-making power to cancel her EL student groups
on occasion so she could observe and meet with general education colleagues one-on-one. She
said,
As an [EL teacher leader] I have the opportunity to cancel classes when I need to so that I
can provide time to do observations or plan for professional development and - or to
timecard the extra time that I put into it, or the ability to collaborate with other [EL
teacher leaders] around what they're doing.

Savannah noted, however, that even though she had permission to do this,
I don’t feel okay doing that because groups are cancelled so much as it is for lots of other
reasons that are beyond anybody’s control. So, for me to be canceling groups and not
seeing students to do coaching sessions I doing think is best practice for me.

Cancelling group meetings with students who are pulled out of their general education
classrooms for language support also presented a conflict of interest for Savannah and her
colleagues. Leah also had the option to cancel her direct support of students because she “didn't

112
get a sub. I just cancelled my group and did that. So, in that way I, I felt supported by the district
that I wasn't having to make up [teaching time], but I didn't receive any time for prepping.” As a
result, she agreed with reluctance to meet with general education teachers during a time that
worked well for her colleagues but required student groups to be cancelled. Given the global goal
and mission both attend to serving students with excellence and improving instruction for ELs,
the EL teacher leaders felt conflicted about their dual roles as EL teachers and EL teacher
leaders. This is underscored in the literature on teacher leadership, where duties that present a
more immediate need take precedence over teacher leadership tasks when dedicated time is not
provided (Jacobs, et al., 2016).
The theme of dedicated time for teacher leadership as a critical resource for providing a
cultural setting (Eccles, 2006) that supports the work of EL teacher leaders continued in the
interviews when each of the participants were asked to describe their ideal EL teacher leadership
scenario. All five of the participants noted dedicated time would be an important component of
their weekly schedule. Leah said, “doing PD was nice, you know, you get time to prepare” and
that
It would be great to have like a half an hour a day or something dedicated to [EL teacher
leadership] so I could fit in an observation there. Or I could even like think about a grade
level that I could help you know go and watch and see what's going on. Visit the
classroom and see what how the kids were doing in the classroom in a content area and,
yeah, half an hour a day would be really nice.

According to Leah, even as little as 30 minutes a day of focused time dedicated to non-evaluative
peer instructional coaching would be useful and make the work more realistic. Like all of the
other participants, Leah cited the funding, budget, and monetary needs multiple times as a barrier
to getting additional time but noted that even just a small amount of time would “make all the
difference in the world.”

113
The literature addresses the need for dedicated time to fulfill the non-evaluative peer
instructional coaching duties (Holloway, Neilsen, & Saltmarsh, 2018; Smylie & Eckert, 2018;
Jacobs, Gordon, & Solis, 2016; Gordon, Jacobs, & Solis, 2014; Lai & Cheung, 2014; Berg,
Bosch, & Souvanna, 2013; Margolis, 2012) and supports the participants’ desire for a small
amount of dedicated time for EL teacher leadership in their schedules in two primary ways. First,
it recognizes teacher leaders who did not had dedicated time in their schedules for teacher
leadership duties found the work unrealistic, despite the fact they believed in the goals they were
trying to achieve. Second, the literature on teacher leadership consistently demonstrates the
conflict between wanting to be a successful teacher leader without sacrificing direct instruction
of ELs. Dedicated time where EL teacher leaders are released from having to choose between
supporting colleagues and serving students may create an environment where EL teacher
leadership can be implemented with fidelity.
Summary
Although observations of non-evaluative peer instructional coaching discussions due to
COVID-19 school closures presents a limitation in this study, the document analysis, interview
data, and interview notes provided substantial evidence of the role the identified KMO influences
(Clark & Estes, 2008) played in the experiences of trained EL teacher leaders in Prairieville
Public Schools. Participants provided rich data related to their declarative and procedural
knowledge as it pertains to their roles, expectations, and enactment of EL teacher leadership, as
well as evidence of the role self-efficacy (Bandura, 2000) and utility value (Eccles, 2006) play in
their fulfillment of those roles and responsibilities. Participants also provided rich descriptions of
the function the district EL coordinator, principals, and school district leaders attended to
distributed leadership and provided resources for EL teacher leadership. Chapter five will

114
address the third and final research questions, provide findings-based recommendations that
address each of the KMO influences, revisit limitations, delimitations, strengths, and weaknesses
of the approach taken, and provide recommendations for future research.

115
Chapter 5: Solutions and Recommendations
There is evidence to confirm Prairieville Public Schools’ has partially addressed the final
research question of this evaluation study, which addresses the extent to which the organization
is meeting its goal of improving learning for ELs through teacher leadership. The school
district’s goal of improving learning for ELs through teacher leadership has been partly met, as
measured by the work of EL teacher leaders who were charged with delivering six hours of
professional development on language learning and peer instructional coaching to up to 10 of
their general education teacher colleagues by June of 2020. Table 1 provides an overview of the
KMO influences (Clark & Estes, 2008) as they relate to the organizational goal.
Table 8
KMO Evidence Supporting the Organizational Goal
Goal Component Knowledge Motivation Organization
Deliver six hours of
professional
development on
language learning to
general education
colleagues
All teacher leaders
demonstrated an
understanding of their
roles and
responsibilities as it
relates to professional
development
facilitation.
All EL teacher
leaders’ interviews
provided evidence of
self-efficacy and
utility value as they
relate to delivering
EL-focused
professional
development to
general education
colleagues.
All EL teacher
leaders described
district level support
for their professional
development design
and facilitation.
Provide one-on-one
non-evaluative peer
instructional
coaching to up to 10
general education
colleagues
All EL teacher
leaders demonstrated
an understanding of
their roles and
responsibilities as
one-on-one
instructional coaches.
Four out of five of the
EL teacher leader
participants expressed
a lack of self-efficacy
in peer coaching. All
EL teacher leaders
expressed utility
value for peer
coaching contingent
on organizational
support in the form of
dedicated time.
All EL teacher
leaders described
elements of
distributed leadership
enactment in their
schools and district.
All EL teacher
leaders expressed a
lack of time to fulfill
peer coaching duties.

116
The following sections present recommendations for the stakeholders of focus, EL
teacher leaders in Prairieville Public Schools, based on the Clark and Estes KMO Framework
(2008) and the related findings described in Chapter Four. The knowledge recommendations
utilize modeling, practice, feedback, and the use of visuals as methods to ensure EL teacher
leaders have the necessary knowledge to serve as non-evaluative peer instructional coaching and
professional development facilitators. The motivation recommendations focus on EL teacher
leader self-efficacy (Bandura, 1978) and utility value (Eccles, 2006) and rely on such techniques
as role-play and providing feedback in order to develop these qualities. Finally, the
organizational influences are addressed through research-based effective practices for leadership,
including training on distributed leadership models for EL teacher leaders, general education
teachers, and school administrators, as well as the alignment of resources to support and sustain
the work of EL teacher leaders.
Implementation of these recommendations, which utilizes the New World Kirkpatrick
Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), are detailed after the KMO (Clark & Estes) influences
are addressed and include organization-wide efforts to ensure EL teacher leadership is successful
in Prairieville Public Schools. Taking the findings described in Chapter Four alongside the New
World Kirkpatrick Model, the implementation of recommendations begins by identifying the
goals and means by which efforts will be evaluated. It continues with descriptions of behavior
indicators and reactions to the recommended solutions. According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick
(2016), planning with the end in mind by focusing first on the goals and evaluation will help to
ensure the plan is both successful and sustainable.

117
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
An EL teacher leader’s ability to be effective in their role is dependent on their
knowledge of specific skills and how to enact them (Allen, 2018; Jacobs, Gordon, & Solis, 2016;
Gordon, Jacobs, & Solis, 2014). According to Krathwohl (2002), there are four types of
knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. These knowledge types create a
system for examining what EL teachers need in order to successfully fulfill their duties as a
teacher leader. In addition, the literature on teacher leadership provides information on the role
teacher leaders play and how teacher leadership relates to and interacts with other types of
leadership in a school setting. EL teacher leaders, as indicated in the literature, also need to know
how to use interpersonal skills to successfully engage in peer coaching and professional
development facilitation. Collectively, teacher leaders need specific types of declarative and
procedural knowledge (Table 2).
Table 9
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence

Validated
as a Gap?
Yes, High
Probability
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes,
No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
EL teacher leaders
need to know the
elements of the
peer instructional
coaching model as
a form of teacher
leadership and
how it relates to
the overarching
leadership
HP Y • How individuals
organize
knowledge
influences how
they learn and
apply what they
know (Schraw &
McCrudden,
2006).
• Provide training that
helps EL teacher
leaders make sense of
the peer instructional
coaching model
rather than just focus
on memorization.
• Within the training
curriculum, include
visual representations

118
structure of the
school. (D)
• Integrating
auditory and
visual
information
maximizes
working memory
capacity (Mayer,
2011).
that demonstrate how
EL teacher leadership
fits into the overall
leadership structure
of the school and
district in order to
capitalize on EL
teacher leaders’
working memory.
EL teacher leaders
need knowledge
of the basic
components of
teacher leadership
as it pertains to
their job
expectations. (D)
HP Y Information learned
meaningfully and
connected with prior
knowledge is stored
more quickly and
remembered
more accurately
because it is
elaborated with prior
learning (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006)
Help EL teacher leaders
identify and understand
important components of
their job expectations by
providing information
that helps to bridge their
understanding of
leadership and their role.
EL teacher leaders
need to know how
to enact the
principles of non-
evaluative peer
instructional
coaching,
including the use
of use
interpersonal
skills, in their
work. (P)
HP Y To develop mastery,
individuals must
acquire component
skills, practice
integrating them,
and know when to
apply what they
have learned
(Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
Provide experiences such
as role playing that help
EL teacher leaders
practice and make sense
of the principles of
mentoring and peer
instructional coaching
rather than just focus on
memorization.

Increasing EL Teacher Leaders’ Knowledge About the Peer Instructional Coaching Model
The results and findings of this study indicate four of the five EL teacher leaders
interviewed indicated they need to know more about the elements of the peer instructional
coaching model as a form of teacher leadership, as well as how it relates to the overarching
leadership structure of the school, in order to feel comfortable fulfilling their responsibilities as
non-evaluative peer instructional coaches. A recommendation rooted in the information

119
processing systems theory (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006) is proposed to close this declarative
knowledge gap. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) found that the way in which individuals
organize knowledge influences how they learn and apply what they know. Mayer (2011) also
found integrating auditory and visual information maximizes working memory capacity. This
would suggest that additional training is needed in order to provide EL teacher leaders with the
knowledge required in order to understand the peer instructional coaching model and its place
within the larger constructs of leadership in the school. The recommendation then is to provide
training that helps EL teacher leaders make sense of the peer instructional coaching model rather
than just focus on memorization. Within the training curriculum, including visual representations
to demonstrate how EL teacher leadership fits into the overall leadership structure of the school
and district is further recommended in order to capitalize on the EL teacher leaders’ working
memories.
The empirical literature reviewed in Wenner and Campbell’s (2017) meta-analysis
demonstrated teacher leaders were frequently placed in their new roles without sufficient
training, nor were their colleagues aware of their additional responsibilities. Implications for how
to develop this training come from research conducted by Schraw and McCrudden (2006), which
concluded information relevant and germane to the goals of individuals is helpful to the learning
process. In order to establish relevance and link the information that needs to be learned, Mayer
(2011) states it should be broken into segments or parts and include pre-training in order to
familiarize learners with key concepts and vocabulary, which can be accomplished through
visual representations that connect to existing schemata in long-term memory (Low, et al., 2013;
Mayer, 2013). As such, intentionally designed training that provides opportunities for
participants to organize information about EL teacher leadership within their existing knowledge

120
base about leadership and non-evaluative peer coaching will help to ensure this declarative
knowledge is understood rather than simply memorized. Embedding visuals within the training
will assist in the process of learning for EL teacher leaders.
Increasing EL Teacher Leaders’ Knowledge About Teacher Leadership’s Role in a School
A second declarative knowledge influence indicated in this study is EL teacher leaders’
need to know the basic components of teacher leadership as they pertain to their job
expectations, which plays an important role in EL teacher leaders' experiences. In fact, each of
the five participants in this study described their role differently, which indicates they would
benefit from strengthening their declarative knowledge in this area. As a result, an additional
recommendation rooted in the information processing systems theory (Schraw & McCrudden,
2006) is offered to address and close this declarative knowledge gap. Schraw and McCrudden
(2006) further suggest information learned meaningfully and connected with prior knowledge is
stored more quickly and remembered more accurately because it is elaborated with prior
learning. This implies EL teacher leaders will benefit from organizing new information about
teacher leadership in relation to their existing knowledge of school leadership. The
recommendation then is to help EL teacher leaders identify and understand important
components of their job expectations by providing information, such as a detailed review of job
descriptions and responsibilities, that helps to bridge their understanding or prior knowledge of
school leadership and their role within it.
Krathwohl (2002) revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956) and described how remembering,
understanding, and applying information activate factual knowledge. In order for this activation
to take place, it is useful to connect the learning materials to prior knowledge. Mayer wrote,
“during meaningful learning, prior knowledge is activated in long-term memory and transferred

121
to working memory where it is integrated with incoming information” (p. 58). Training for EL
teacher leaders should, therefore, ensure it includes opportunities for participants to connect what
they are learning about their roles as EL teacher leaders to their current understanding of their
roles as EL teachers. Training designed in such a way will help to ensure EL teacher leaders
take part in learning activities that create meaningful ways to understand what activities they are
responsible for completing.
Increasing EL Teacher Leaders’ Ability to Enact the Principles of Non-Evaluative Peer
Instructional Coaching, Including the use of Interpersonal Skills
Further results and findings of this study indicate that four of the five EL teacher leaders
interviewed expressed they are not comfortable enacting the principles of mentoring and peer
instructional coaching. A recommendation grounded in information processing systems theory
(Schraw & McCrudden, 2016) is proposed to close this procedural knowledge gap. Schraw and
McCrudden (2016) posit that, in order to develop mastery, individuals must acquire component
skills, practice integrating them, and know when to apply what they have learned. This would
indicate EL teacher leaders should be given multiple opportunities to take new information
related to how to use mentoring and peer instructional coaching principles in practice. As a
result, the recommendation is to provide experiences, such as role playing, that help EL teacher
leaders practice and make sense of the principles of mentoring and peer instructional coaching
rather than just focus on memorization.
Clark and Estes (2008) established that training is used when employees need
demonstrations, guided practice, and feedback to perfect a new procedure (p. 62). This finding is
underscored by the work of Denzler and Wolters (2006) who, in their work on social cognitive
theory, found people learn through observation in the form of live demonstrations. EL teacher

122
leaders need to receive feedback on their practice, as well as provide feedback (Shute, 2008) to
other teachers while enacting peer instructional coaching is also necessary. As Krathwohl (2004)
describes, this is more than simply understanding what feedback is and requires the ability to
enact the most appropriate form of feedback for a given peer instructional coaching situation.
Providing EL teacher leaders with models in the form of demonstrations, such as viewing taped
non-evaluative peer coaching sessions, practicing how to give and receive feedback through role-
play, and receiving feedback on the practice sessions will allow EL teacher leaders to develop a
procedural understanding of the mentoring and peer instructional coaching knowledge required
in their work.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction
Clark and Estes (2008) identify motivation as choice, persistence, and effort combined to
create the conditions for being motivated to pursue and achieve a goal. Embedded in this
framework of motivation are the concepts of self-efficacy, or an individual’s belief in their
ability to accomplish something (Bandura, 2000), and utility value, or an individual’s belief that
a task or goal is worthwhile (Eccles, 2006). EL teacher leaders, therefore, need to believe they
have special knowledge to share with their general education teaching colleagues about language
learning and teaching. In addition, they must believe the task of non-evaluative peer instructional
coaching, which is part of their responsibility as an EL teacher leader, is worthy of effort and
pursuit. Table 3 provides a summary of the motivation influences prioritized in this evaluation
study.

123
Table 10
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Motivation
Influence*

Validated as
a Gap
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
EL teacher
leaders need to
believe they
have
specialized
knowledge to
share with
their general
education
colleagues
(SE).
HP Y • Learning and
motivation are
enhanced when
learners have
positive
expectancies for
success (Pajares,
2006).
• Feedback and
modeling
increase self-
efficacy (Pajares,
2006).

• Make it clear EL
teacher leaders are
capable of learning
what is being taught or
are capable of
performing a task.
• Provide opportunities
to observe a credible,
similar model
engaging in non-
evaluative peer
instructional coaching
behavior that has
functional value
• Provide detailed
feedback that balances
comments about
strengths and
challenges to increase
EL teacher leaders’
sense they are capable
of performing the
tasks of a non-
evaluative peer coach
and facilitator of
professional
development.
EL teacher
leaders need to
see the
importance of
taking on
teacher
leadership
positions
(UV).
HP Y • Learning and
motivation are
enhanced if the
learner values the
task (Eccles,
2006).
• Rationales
include a
discussion of the
importance and
utility value of
Engage in discussions that
include rationales about
the importance and utility
value of the non-
evaluative peer
instructional coaching
work performed by EL
teacher leaders.

124
the work or
learning can help
learners develop
positive values
(Eccles, 2006;
Pintrich, 2003).

Increasing Self-efficacy of EL Teacher Leaders as Experts in Language Instruction
The majority (four out of five) of EL teacher leader participants in this study expressed
an understanding of the discrete skills set they bring to teaching as it relates to language
acquisition, but shared a lack of confidence in their ability to share their knowledge of language
instruction with general education teacher colleagues through non-evaluative peer instructional
coaching. A recommendation based on self-efficacy theory provides a grounding for a means by
which to close this motivation gap. Pajares (2006) concluded high self-efficacy can positively
influence motivation and that feedback and modeling increase self-efficacy. This would suggest
EL teacher leaders would benefit from modeling of non-evaluative peer instructional coaching
and feedback that increase their sense of expertise in second language pedagogy, so they
effectively coach general education teaching peers in those methods. The recommendation,
therefore, is to make it clear EL teacher leaders are capable of learning what is being taught or
are capable of performing a task and provide opportunities to observe a model engaging in non-
evaluative peer instructional coaching behavior that has functional value by building self-
efficacy. It is also recommended that detailed feedback balancing comments about strengths and
challenges is provided in order to increase EL teacher leaders’ belief they are capable of
performing the tasks of a non-evaluative peer coach and facilitator of professional development.

125
Clark and Estes (2008) provide a description of motivation that establishes it as a mixture
of choice, persistence, and effort rather than any one of those qualities alone. Self-efficacy,
defined by Bandura (2000) as an individual’s belief in what they are capable of doing and
achieving, is an essential element for motivation. In his research, Bandura (2005) found self-
efficacy is important to how people approach and consciously change their circumstances while
working with people who developed coping skills to deal with their fears. Rueda (2011) also
noted cultural contexts are influential in an individual’s motivation, so the school environment
may also be a factor in EL teacher leaders’ motivation and, more specifically, demonstration of
self-efficacy. However, Bandura (2005) found a strong sense of self-efficacy is valuable in any
cultural context and, through his research helping people with fears develop coping mechanisms,
learned that it can be cultivated through practices such as guided mastery, where therapists
model strategies for confronting and allaying fears. The egalitarian culture of teachers identified
in Wenner and Campbell (2017), where teachers are discouraged to stand out as knowing more
than other teachers, further highlights the need to cultivate self-efficacy in EL teacher leaders.
Through explicit discussion of EL teacher leaders’ knowledge and capabilities, as well as
constructive feedback, the self-efficacy of EL teacher leaders’ can be enhanced.
Increasing the Value Ascribed to EL Teacher Leadership
Of the EL teacher leaders interviewed, three out of five expressed a priority for direct
instruction of ELs over their work as EL teacher leaders, particularly when they had to cancel
student groups in order to perform their leadership duties. A recommendation based on utility
value theory has been chosen as a base for closing this motivation gap. Eccles (2006) established
learning and motivation are enhanced if the learner values the task. In addition, both Pintrich
(2003) and Eccles (2006) stated rationales including a discussion of the importance and utility

126
value of the work or learning can help learners develop positive values. As such, a focus should
be placed on helping EL teacher leaders understand the value and long-range impact of their
work as it relates to the ELs in their classrooms and schools. It is recommended that training of
EL teacher leaders includes rationales about the importance and utility value of the non-
evaluative peer instructional coaching work performed by EL teacher leaders.
Utility value is described as the importance an individual ascribes to a given task
(Krathwohl, 2002) and plays a role in the choice, persistence, and effort that make up motivation
(Clark & Estes, 2008). High levels of value in a given task thereby motivate people to learn,
according to Pintrich’s (2003) research. However, research on teacher leadership conducted by
Jacobs, et al. (2016) found teacher leaders experienced resistance to change in their work. The
impact this resistance has on the utility value held by EL teacher leaders indicates that attention
must be paid to the systemic impact their work has on affecting change for the benefit of ELs.
Training that includes rationales related to the work of EL teacher leadership is a means by
which utility value can be enhanced (Pintrich, 2003; Eccles, 2006).
Organization Recommendations
Introduction
According to Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001), organizational culture can be analyzed
through the lens of two distinct constructs: cultural models and cultural settings. Shared ways of
thinking and perceiving the organization and its rules and expectations makes up the cultural
model. Members of an organization understand the cultural model of their organization, although
they may not always be able to describe the patterns and norms they follow as participants in the
cultural model (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Culture exists within contexts, referred to as
settings, and those cultural settings identify the distinct and specific environments in which the

127
cultural model resides. Cultural settings bring people together, either physically or virtually, in
order to accomplish something, complete a task, or participate in an activity (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural settings, in the context of this evaluation study, are the public school
district, schools within the district, classrooms, and even the staff lounge where EL teacher
leaders work and interact with school and district leadership, as well as general education
teachers to whom they are providing professional development and one-on-one non-evaluative
peer instructional coaching. The cultural setting influences the ways in which members of the
organization interact and learn through giving and receiving information (Scott & Palinscar,
2006). Table 4 identifies essential cultural model and cultural setting (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001) influences as they relate to supporting the work of EL teacher leadership.
Table 11
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence*

Validated
as a Gap
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes,
No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
The organization
needs a culture
of shared
leadership
(Cultural
Model).
HP Y • Effective leaders
share power
appropriately. They
consider equity in
the process of
allocating resources
(Johnson, 2006).
• Organizational
effectiveness
increases when
leaders facilitate
creative and
collaborative
problem solving
(Fidishun, 2000).
School districts need
to:
• cultivate EL teacher
leaders’ leadership
skills and consult
them about how to
implement a model
of professional
development and
non-evaluative peer
instructional
coaching more than
telling them how to
implement these
initiatives,
• provide training on
shared leadership
models for

128
principals, district
leaders, and
teachers.
The organization
needs to provide
dedicated time
for teacher
leadership to
fulfill their
responsibilities
(Cultural
Setting).
HP Y • Organizational
effectiveness
increases when
leaders ensure
employees have the
resources needed to
achieve the
organization’s goals
(Waters, Marzano
& McNulty, 2003).
• Effective change
efforts ensure
everyone has the
resources
(equipment,
personnel, time,
etc.) needed to do
their job, and that if
there are resource
shortages, then
resources are
aligned with
organizational
priorities (Clark and
Estes, 2008).

Schools and districts
need to:
• Align resources,
such as finances
and teacher time
through scheduling,
with the goals of
improving
instruction for ELs
through EL teacher
leadership.
• Align the allocation
of resources,
including between
.1 full-time
equivalent (FTE)
and .3 FTE
dedicated time for
fulfilling the
responsibilities of
EL teacher
leadership, with the
goals and priorities
of the organization.

Creating a Culture of Shared Leadership
All of the participants felt the school and district leaders supported their work as EL
teacher leaders but did not necessarily fully understand their role, nor did they collaborate or
consult with them as instructional leaders. A recommendation rooted in research on leadership
has been selected to close this organizational gap. Johnson (2006) found effective leaders share
power appropriately and consider equity in the process of allocating resources. Fidishun (2000)
also found organizational effectiveness increases when leaders facilitate creative and
collaborative problem solving. This suggests schools that appoint trained EL teacher leaders

129
need to be led by principals and district leaders who understand and enact a distributed
leadership model in schools. The two-part recommendation is for schools and districts to:
cultivate EL teacher leaders’ leadership skills and consult them about how to implement a model
of professional development and non-evaluative peer instructional coaching more than telling
them how to implement these initiatives; and to provide training on distributed leadership models
for principals, district leaders, and teachers.
Northouse (2016) describes the concept of power sharing as the willingness of a group to
share power unequally. It refers to the hierarchies in place and the degree to which those
hierarchies dictate the amount of power individuals have within the organization (p. 432). High
power distance cultures of leadership are ones where authority and decision making are reserved
for the higher levels of leadership and low power distance cultures give greater degrees of power
to all levels on the hierarchy. Kezar (2000) described how models where power is concentrated
at the top of the hierarchy are falling out of favor and being replaced by models where power is
distributed more equally, or those with low power distance, in order to diversify the voices that
contribute to the organization. Finally, Bolman and Deal (2013), in their description of the
evolution of leadership, described how it is often necessary to distribute leadership across an
organization rather than concentrate it at the top of the hierarchy. The literature, therefore,
suggests schools with a culture of shared leadership will be able to fully realize the benefits of
having EL teacher leaders serve as facilitators of professional development and non-evaluative
peer instructional coaches for their general education colleagues.
Providing Dedicated Time for EL Teacher Leadership Work
Of the five study participants who were interviewed, each of the participants reported
they were provided substitute teachers for their time facilitating professional development but

130
none of the EL teacher leaders interviewed were provided for the non-evaluative peer
instructional coaching work they were required to complete. Instead, they were given the option
to cancel student groups in order to fulfill their non-evaluative peer instructional coaching
responsibilities. A recommendation rooted in research on leadership has been selected to close
this organizational gap. Organizational effectiveness increases when leaders ensure employees
have the resources needed to achieve the organization’s goals (Waters, et al., 2003) and effective
change efforts ensure everyone has the resources needed to do their job, and that if there are
resource shortages, then resources are aligned with organizational priorities (Clark & Estes,
2008). The research of Waters, et al. (2003) and Clark and Estes (2008) suggest district and
school leaders need to provide dedicated time for EL teacher leaders to fulfill their
responsibilities. Therefore, the recommendation is for schools and districts to: align resources,
such as finances and teacher time through scheduling, with the goals of improving instruction for
ELs through EL teacher leadership; and to align the allocation of resources, including between .1
full-time equivalent (FTE) and .3 FTE dedicated time for fulfilling the responsibilities of EL
teacher leadership, with the goals and priorities of the organization.
Gill’s (2002) research on poor versus effective leadership found change initiatives often
lack the resources needed in order to ensure successful implementation. These resources include
budgetary items such as the allocation of time. Gill recommends a new model for leading
change, such as the work of EL teacher leaders, that empowers people within the organization
with the resources they need to manage themselves and be accountable. Lakos and Phipps (2004)
studied the U.S. library system, which is experiencing shrinking budgets due to advances in
technology. They found, with scarce resources, libraries need to prioritize their use of resources

131
in order to maximize accountability. As such, the literature suggests schools and districts need to
allocate the appropriate resources, primarily in the form of dedicated time, if EL teacher
leadership is established as a priority for improving instructions for ELs.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), which is based on
the work of Don Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of training evaluation laid out in his dissertation and
a series of articles in 1959, guides this evaluation study and its recommendations. The New
World Kirkpatrick Model takes the framework set out in the original four levels (reactions,
learning, behavior, and results) and reverses them, thereby beginning with results so the focus on
outcomes is central to the training initiative and assessment is woven throughout the typically
non-linear implementation. Level Four leading indicators (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016),
which are defined as “short-term observations and measurement that suggest that critical
behaviors are on track to create a positive impact on the desired results” (p. 13), serve as the
means by which the New World Kirkpatrick Model assesses throughout implementation rather
than solely at the end of a training cycle. Level Three examines critical behaviors, which are the
key behaviors a group will need to “consistently perform on the job to bring about the targeted
outcomes” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 14). Level Two focuses on learning and the
degree to which training participants embody through skills, attitude, and confidence, the
behaviors related to the intended outcomes. Finally, Level One homes in on the reactions that
participants have to the training so that the necessary adjustments can be made in order to ensure

132
the training goal is met. Following the four levels in reverse both corrects for misapplication of
the original Four Levels and further ensures success (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The mission of Prairieville Public Schools prioritizes excellence in teaching with a focus
on equity. As it relates to this evaluation study, the school district’s goal is to improve learning
for English learners through EL teacher leadership. The stakeholder goal further attends to the
larger district goal and states that, by June of 2020, EL teacher leaders will deliver six hours of
professional development on language learning and peer instructional coaching to up to 10 of
their general education teacher colleagues. This goal is relevant because at the same time the EL
student population grew by 47.6% in Prairieville Public Schools (United States Department of
Education, n.d.), proficiency for ELs on state exams have decreased from 20% of ELs testing as
proficient in 2016 to 16.7% meeting proficiency in 2018 (2019 State Department of Education
District Report Card, not named to retain confidentiality). The goal to increase academic
achievement of ELs in Prairieville Public Schools is directly aligned with the district’s focus on
excellence in teaching and equity. EL teacher leaders’ knowledge and motivation, as well as the
organizational model and setting needs are examined in this study. The proposed solutions,
which include training to address EL teacher leader knowledge and motivation through training
and sustained support, as well as recommendations for organizational structures attending to
successful leadership models and allocation of resources, will help to ensure the organizational
goal is achieved.

133
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 5 provides information regarding the Level Four metrics and measures for both
internal and external outcomes related to successful EL teacher leadership in Prairieville Public
Schools. These short-term measurements are designed to indicate whether or not Prairieville
Public Schools are making progress toward the organizational goal.
Table 12
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increase EL academic
achievement in
content area (math,
science, social studies,
and English Language
Arts) classrooms.
• Percentage of EL students
who increased their scores
on the annual state math
exam.
• Percentage of EL students
who increased their scores
on the annual state
reading exam.
• Percentage of EL students
who increased their scores
on the annual state science
exam.
Review publicly available state test
scores in aggregate; solicit
disaggregated student math data for
ELs; compare EL math, reading,
and science achievement in
classrooms with teachers who
worked with a non-evaluative peer
coach/EL teacher leader to those
who did not; to the degree possible,
do a one-to-one match of ELs on
key characteristics, particularly
WIDA language levels and
grade/age

Internal Outcomes

Content area teachers
are more confident in
their ability to
effectively teach ELs
• Percentage of content area
teachers who worked with
an EL teacher leader who
report they are better able
to meet the academic
needs of EL students in
the content area
classroom.
• Percentage of content area
teachers who worked with
an EL teacher leader who
report they know more
about second language
acquisition.
• Percentage of content area
teachers who worked with
• Survey for all teachers
• Focus groups
• Interviews

134
an EL teacher leader who
recognize they are
responsible for teaching
the language of their
content area.
EL teacher leaders
and content area
teachers work
collaboratively to
serve ELs.
• Percentage of EL teacher
leaders who report having
stronger collaborative
relationships with content
area teachers.
• Percentage 90% of
content area teachers who
worked in a non-
evaluative peer coaching
relationship with an EL
teacher leader report
having stronger
collaborative relationships
with EL teacher leaders.
• Survey
• Focus group with EL teacher
leaders
• Focus group with content area
teachers who worked with an
EL teacher leader in a non-
evaluative peer coaching
relationship

Schools with EL
teacher leaders
demonstrate the use of
a distributed
leadership model.
• Percentage of principals
who report they work
collaboratively with EL
teacher leaders to make
decisions related to
supporting ELs.
• Percentage of principals
who report they support
collaborative teaching for
EL and content area
teachers.
• Percentage of principals
who report EL teacher
leaders have scheduled,
dedicated time to fulfill
their teacher leadership
duties.
• Survey
• Interviews
• Document review (teacher
leader schedules)

EL teacher leaders are
confident in their
ability to fulfill the
duties associated with
their role.
• Percentage of EL teacher
leaders who can describe
what teacher leadership is
and how it fits into the
leadership framework of
their school.
• Percentage of EL teacher
leaders who demonstrate
principles of mentoring
• Survey
• Focus groups
• Bi-annual observations of
coaching conversations
conducted by district EL
director
• Interviews

135
and peer instructional
coaching during their one-
on-one non-evaluative
peer coaching sessions.
• Percentage of EL teacher
leaders who can describe
the responsibilities they
have as EL teacher leaders
in their schools.
• Percentage of EL teacher
leaders who report feeling
confident in their ability
to serve as a one-on-one
non-evaluative peer
coach.
• Percentage of EL teacher
leaders who report they
have been provided the
resources they need to
successfully fulfill their
duties.

EL teacher leaders
achieve the goals
stated in their action
plans for non-
evaluative peer
coaching and
professional
development
facilitation.
Percentage of EL teacher
leaders who achieve their
action plan for coaching goals
over the course of a given
school year.
Evaluation of S.M.A.R.T. goal
achievement

Level 3: Behavior
Critical Behaviors
Critical behaviors, according to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), refer to the ways in
which the learning that took place during training is applied in practice or on the job. In other
words, Level Three behaviors delineate what needs to be done on the job as a result of training.
Investing resources in identified, on-the-job, critical behaviors is essential to a successful training
initiative, although this has been historically overlooked in traditional training efforts that focus

136
most of the resources on the training itself (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 6 includes
information regarding Level Three critical behaviors EL teacher leaders need to exhibit in order
to achieve the stated outcomes.
Table 13
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. Conduct EL
teacher leader
district meeting
each academic
year to document
work progress
and potential
areas for action.
• The number of
non-evaluative
observations
conducted by
each EL teacher
leader
• The number of
non-evaluative
one-on-one
coaching
sessions
facilitated by
each EL teacher
leader
• The number of
professional
development
sessions led by
EL teacher
leaders
A spreadsheet will be
created to capture:
• the number of
observations
conducted between
meetings;
• the number of one-
on-one coaching
sessions facilitated
with content area
teachers between
meetings;
• the number and
topic of
professional
development
sessions facilitated
by EL teacher
leaders between
meetings.
• Six meetings
spread evenly
across the school
year;
• Spreadsheet will
capture the
number of
observations
conducted
between
meetings

2. EL teacher
leaders
demonstrate the
use of
interpersonal
skills.
The number of
behaviors that
indicate use of
effective peer
coaching behaviors
EL teacher leaders will
video record two peer
coaching sessions and
one professional
development session
to be reviewed and
analyzed at EL teacher
leader district
meetings
EL teacher leaders
will share one of
three videos at three
of the meetings

3. Principals and
district
administrators
provide resources
to support the
work of EL
teacher leaders.
The number of EL
teacher leaders who
have dedicated time
in their weekly
schedules for
fulfilling their
Through document
review, EL teacher
leaders’ weekly
schedules will be
reviewed by the EL
director for Prairieville
Public Schools to
Secondary level:
during the summer
when teaching
schedules are
developed.

137
leadership
responsibilities.
ensure time is allotted
for their leadership
work.
Elementary level:
during the first 30
days of the school
year as EL teacher
leader schedules are
being developed in
the elementary level.

October: Final
review to confirm
the allotment of time
for EL teacher
leadership in all EL
teacher leader
weekly schedules.

Required Drivers
Although EL teacher leaders have agency (Brooks, Adams, & Morita-Mullaney, 2010)
related to how they enact their duties as EL teacher leaders, their work is more likely to be
successful when supported by school principals and district administration with formal, systemic
policies and practices (Cheng & Szeto, 2016; Smylie & Eckert, 2018; Berg, Bosch, & Souvanna,
2013). Methods of recognition for exhibiting critical behaviors should be put in place in order to
support the critical behaviors listed in Table 6. These required drivers of critical behaviors are
listed and described below in Table 7.
Table 14
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing

Training on how EL teacher
leadership applies in practice and
relates to the overarching leadership
structure of the school and district
12-hour course completed over two
weeks; bi-monthly follow meetings
with trainers
1, 2, 3

138
Visual representations of the peer
instructional coaching model
embedded within the school’s
leadership structure
Ongoing 1, 3
Role-playing experiences: model
behaviors, practice, give and receive
feedback
12-hour course completed over two
weeks; bi-monthly follow meetings
with trainers
1, 2, 3
Observation of EL teacher leaders Two times per academic year 1, 2, 3
Encouraging

Conduct observations of practicing
EL teacher leaders conducting non-
evaluative peer coaching sessions
with general education colleagues
12-hour course completed over two
weeks; two additional observations
over the course of the academic year
1, 2
Conduct six, district wide EL teacher
leader team meetings during the
academic year
90-minute meetings, six times per
academic year
1, 2, 3
Provide constructive feedback on EL
teacher leadership observations
two times per academic year 1, 2, 3
Rewarding

On-going discussion groups for EL
teacher leaders
90-minute meetings, six times per
academic year
1, 2, 3
Public acknowledgments of EL
teacher leader/general education
collaborative teams in district-wide
newsletters
Four times per academic year 1, 2, 3
Monitoring

EL director and EL teacher leadership
team observations of EL teacher
leaders
Two observations per EL teacher
leader per academic year
1, 2, 3
Principal meeting check-ins Standing agenda item on monthly
district principal meetings to spot-
check use of resources to support EL
teacher leaders and application of
distributed leadership
1, 2, 3

Organizational Support
Sufficient allocation of resources, in particular the resource of time (Holloway, Neilsen,
& Saltmarsh, 2018; Smylie & Eckert, 2018; Jacobs, Gordon, & Solis, 2016; Gordon, Jacobs, &
Solis, 2014; Lai & Cheung, 2014; Berg, Bosch, & Souvanna, 2013; Margolis, 2012). Principals
play an important role in supporting the work of EL teacher leaders in two ways: through the

139
allocation of resources and the application of distributed leadership (Cheng & Szeto, 2016;
Smylie & Eckert, 2018; Berg, Bosch, & Souvanna, 2013). As such, principals and district
administrators will be surveyed and interviewed by external evaluators, in coordination with the
EL director, after training and feedback is provided. In addition, document analysis of EL
teacher leader weekly schedules will provide information regarding the support they are
receiving as it relates to dedicated time to fulfill their duties. In turn, the EL director and district
wide EL teacher leadership team will conduct peer review sessions of recorded observations of
EL teacher leaders working with general education colleagues two times per academic year in
order to provide feedback and modeling.
Level 2: Learning
Learning Goals
With the implementation of the recommended solutions, EL teacher leaders, the
stakeholders of focus, will be able to:
1. Describe what non-evaluative peer instructional coaching is (K-D);
2. Explain how EL teacher leadership fits into the overarching model of leadership
at the EL teacher leader’s school site and within Prairieville Public School District
(K-D);
3. Summarize the components of EL teacher leadership as it pertains to context of
their school site (K-D);
4. Recognize the similarities and differences between the pedagogy employed to
teach K-12 students and the andragogy used when coaching adults (K-D);
5. Differentiate between principles of peer mentoring and non-evaluative peer
instructional coaching (K-P);
6. Implement promising practices for providing and receiving constructive feedback
during non-evaluative peer instructional coaching sessions (K-P);
7. Identify their own second language teaching expertise and (M-SE);
8. Describe the important role EL teacher leadership plays in schools as they seek to
serve ELs (M-SE).

140
Program
The stakeholder’s learning goals will be achieved through four primary modes of
instruction and support: 12 hours of in-person or live synchronous training over the course of
two weeks; six hours of online synchronous, statewide EL teacher leader meetings that take
place across the school year; six hours of online asynchronous training modules to be completed
during the course of the school year; and nine hours of district-level EL teacher leader meetings
led by the district EL coordinator over the course of the school year. EL teacher leaders who
participate will receive two grant-funded graduate credits in return for their time. Taken together,
EL teacher leaders will receive no less than 33 hours of training and support. In addition, one-on-
one support will be offered by university faculty and Prairieville Public School’s EL coordinator
as needed.
The 12 hours of training will take place at the partner university, online, or in
combination depending on circumstances related to COVID-19 at the time of implementation.
This time will serve as an introduction to EL teacher leadership for the Prairieville Public
Schools EL teachers who volunteer to participate. The training will begin with reflection
exercises, such as guided imagery, that provide opportunities for EL teachers to reflect on their
own expertise. The training will continue with information on distributed leadership models used
in schools and provide details on what teacher leadership is and how it fits into the broader
framework of school leadership. Visual representations will be provided in order to support EL
teacher leader learning. This training will also introduce the components of non-evaluative peer
instructional coaching and provide opportunities for participants to act out their learning through
role plays and simulations of coaching conversations after viewing videos of EL teacher leaders
participating in instructional coaching conversations. The training will continue with

141
professional development demonstrations and practice sessions in small groups. Finally, school
principals will be invited to attend the last three hours of the training so they can work with the
EL teacher leaders from their school buildings to create an action plan for the school year.
During the school year, when EL teacher leaders are implementing their action plans, six
hours of live, synchronous online sessions will be designed and facilitated by the partner
university faculty and staff. These sessions will be structured in such a way that EL teacher
leaders are provided time to collaborate in small groups to discuss non-evaluative peer coaching
successes and challenges, be presented with new professional development training materials
they can use to train their own colleagues, and check in on observation progress. The primary
focus of these synchronous, online sessions is to reinforce the learning from the 12 hours of
coursework already completed and extend that information in order to go deeper into the topics
of distributed leadership, teacher leadership, and non-evaluative peer coaching principles and
methods. They are also opportunities for EL teacher leaders across organizations to share ideas
for implementation.
In addition to the six hours of synchronous training, EL teacher leaders will also
participate in six hours of online asynchronous training focused on professional development
delivery for content area teaching colleagues. The partner university faculty create PD plans,
which are structured like lesson plans, for the EL teacher leaders to use at their school sites. The
PD plans can be modified based on the discretion of the EL teacher leader and their knowledge
of the learning needs at their particular school. During these asynchronous modules, the
university faculty will present and demonstrate the PD plans, as well as show videos of groups

142
participating in the activities. EL teacher leaders will be provided all necessary materials to
facilitate these PD plans and will be asked to reflect on their PD sessions by filling out an end-of-
year survey.
The Prairieville Public Schools EL coordinator and EL teacher on special assignment
currently facilitate six 1.5-hour meetings during the school year, where EL teacher leaders from
the district participate in book studies focused on leadership styles, pedagogy related to ELs, and
other topics pertaining to their roles. Per this evaluation study’s recommendations, a portion of
this time will also be spent viewing and discussing video observations of EL teacher leaders
enacting non-evaluative peer instructional coaching during one-on-one coaching conversations
with a content area colleague who volunteers to participate. The video observations will provide
opportunities to reflect on practice, observe others modeling effective instructional coaching
behaviors, and provide opportunities to both give and receive constructive feedback.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
Table 15 provides information on the evaluation methods and activities that will assist in
evaluating EL teacher leaders’ acquisition of critical knowledge. This information is important in
that it will help to direct, and redirect if necessary, the training efforts. In turn, this will help to
sustain motivation and provide opportunities for EL teacher leaders to demonstrate their newly
acquired knowledge.
Table 15
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”

Knowledge checks using small group
discussions
12-hour university-based training
Knowledge checks through pair discussions on
visuals
12-hour university-based training
Knowledge checks during synchronous online
trainings in the form of polls
six-hours of synchronous online trainings

143
Knowledge checks in the end of year survey In the final asynchronous online training
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”

Knowledge checks through role-play 12-hour university-based training
Observations of non-evaluative peer coaching
conversations
Six-hours of district based EL teacher
leader team meetings
Open-ended questions on the end of year survey In the final asynchronous online training
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”

University faculty observations of EL teacher
leaders in training
12-hour university-based training
Discussions on the value of EL teacher
leadership
12-hour university-based training
Written reflection on personal expertise in EL
teaching
12-hour university-based training
University faculty observations of EL teacher
leaders in training
six-hour synchronous training
Discussions on the value of EL teacher
leadership
six-hour synchronous training
EL coordinator observations of EL teacher
leaders in training
six-hour district based EL teacher leader
team meetings
Discussions on the value of EL teacher
leadership
six-hour district based EL teacher leader
team meetings
Focus groups and interviews conducted by
external evaluators
At the end of the school year
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”

Pre/Post surveys At the beginning and end of the 12-hour
university-based training
Discussions Throughout all training activities
End of year survey In the final asynchronous online training
Focus groups and interviews conducted by
external evaluators
At the end of the school year
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”

Create an action plan for EL teacher leadership At the end of the 12-hour university-based
training
Pre/Post surveys At the beginning and end of the 12-hour
university-based training
Discussions in small groups Throughout the 12-hour university-based
training
Level 1: Reaction
Table 16 delineates the methods by which the participants’ reactions to the EL teacher
leadership training will be measured. Clark and Estes (2008) describe evaluation as essential in
training so assumptions about how training is being received are not made. In addition,

144
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s New World Model (2016) starts with evaluation in order to
emphasize it needs to be conducted from the beginning and throughout training rather than as an
afterthought when the training is complete, as has been the case historically.
Table 16
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement

Pre/Post surveys At the beginning and end of the 12-hour
university-based training
Surveys At the end of each synchronous and
asynchronous online session
Focus groups and interviews conducted by
external evaluators
At the end of the school year
Open-ended questions on the end of year
survey
In the final asynchronous online training
Relevance

Pre/Post surveys At the beginning and end of the 12-hour
university-based training
Surveys At the end of each synchronous and
asynchronous online session
Focus groups and interviews conducted by
external evaluators
At the end of the school year
Open-ended questions on the end of year
survey
In the final asynchronous online training
Customer Satisfaction

Surveys At the end of each synchronous and
asynchronous online session
Open-ended questions on the end of year
survey
In the final asynchronous online training
Evaluation Tools
Immediately Following the Program Implementation
Upon arrival to the first day of training, participants in the EL teacher leadership training
will complete a pre-training survey (Appendix A) designed to measure their feelings of
preparedness related to performing the duties of facilitating professional development for their
colleagues and providing non-evaluative peer instructional coaching. Given all participants hold

145
state credentials in teaching English as a Second Language, the pre-survey is meant to gather
data on the readiness of participants to share their expertise with content area teaching colleagues
rather than gauge their comfort with EL theory and pedagogy. This distinction is captured
through specific wording in the questions, which assumes expertise and focuses on the
preparedness of the participant to train their colleagues.
Immediately after completion of the training, participants will complete a complementary
post-training survey (Appendix B), so change from pre- to post-training can be measured and
analyzed at the aggregate and disaggregated levels. In addition, each participant will complete an
action plan for EL teacher leadership (Appendix C), which will be completed in cooperation with
the school principal, reviewed by university faculty, and used as a guide for EL teacher
leadership implementation each school year. The goals created in the action plan will serve as
local measures for the effectiveness of training and project implementation at the school level.
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
In January, which represents the approximate midpoint of the school year and
implementation of EL teacher leadership, a mid-year check in survey (Appendix D) will be
administered to all participants in the previous spring’s EL teacher leadership training. These
surveys are administered by partner university staff and faculty via phone or video conferencing,
depending on the preference of the EL teacher leader being surveyed. This survey informs both
the synchronous and asynchronous online school-year training. In addition, it provides
opportunities to communicate with progress with school administrators and troubleshoot if action
plans are behind schedule.

146
Data Analysis and Reporting
During the summer after EL teacher leadership school year implementation, interviews
and focus groups will be conducted by the federal grant’s required external evaluators. The
cumulative data from surveys, interviews, focus groups, and observations will be analyzed by the
external evaluators of the grant in conjunction with the university’s faculty and staff who oversee
the grant’s implementation in partner school districts. Pre- and post-surveys of EL teacher
leaders are presented in summarized narrative form for the open-ended items and pie charts are
used to illustrate the percentage of change between pre- and post-training self-evaluation of
knowledge and preparedness. Appendix E provides examples of the pie charts used to report
finding.
Pre- and post-observations of general education teachers who work one-on-one with a
trained EL teacher leader use an assigned point value system so a statistical analysis of the
change from pre- to post-observation can be conducted for reporting purposes. Results are
reported as mean, median, and range for various items. Statistical significance in change between
pre- and post-observation is also reported in table form. In addition, a narrative analysis is
provided to describe whether or not change represents statistical significance. Appendix F
provides a sample of how findings will be reported to this evaluation study’s stakeholders, the
federal grant officers, and partner district stakeholders.
Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) provides three key
questions for evaluating the effectiveness of a change initiative such as the one presented in this
evaluation study. The first question asks whether or not the efforts to affect change in the
organization meets expectations (p. 122). Given the stakeholder goals, the analysis of data

147
detailed in chapter four, and the KMO recommendations laid out in this chapter, Prairieville
Public Schools is poised to answer this question positively. The second question posed by
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) asks why expectations have not been met, if that is the case
(p. 123). The New World Kirkpatrick Model provides a series of probing questions to help
analyze where the implementation fell short of expectations and gather the necessary data to
adjust the plan. If expectations were met, then the third question asks why that is so (p. 124). It is
important to analyze what worked well so the process can be recreated in the future and
celebrated accordingly. As EL teacher leadership is examined and refined in Prairieville Public
Schools, using the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) will serve
as a guide for other schools and districts interested in developing similar initiatives in order to
improve instruction for ELs.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
While the KMO Framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) proved to be a valuable tool for
organizing and analyzing the knowledge and motivational influences affecting the stakeholder
group, it may not account for the outsized impact the organization played in the participants’
experiences, nor does it explicitly consider the role historical marginalization plays in the lives of
ELs in the same way that using a critical race theoretical lens would. The EL teacher leaders
have very little decision-making power, even with their expanded leadership roles, so the
interaction between the knowledge, motivation, and organization are not evenly influential as the
model may imply by paying equal attention to the three. It is possible alternative study design
models may yield similar results if the stakeholder group is the same, but given the role that race,
culture, ethnicity, and issues related to immigration play in the lives of ELs, the KMO
framework is limited.

148
Overall, the KMO Framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) served its purpose in answering the
research questions in this evaluation study and furthered the understanding of how EL teacher
leadership can be utilized to disseminate pedagogy for ELs across the general education teacher
population. In general, the KMO Framework is efficient and does not rely on significant
resources in order to be reliable and valid. As such, examining the relatively understudied
concept of EL teacher leadership through the lens of the KMO Framework (Clark & Estes, 2008)
provides one of many valuable means by which to evaluate the EL teacher leadership model
being implemented in Prairieville Public Schools.
Limitations and Delimitations
As in all research, there are limitations and delimitations that need to be considered. In
the case of this evaluation study, several exist. First, the current circumstances related to the
COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting school closures eliminated the option to conduction
observations of EL teacher leaders’ coaching conversations with their general education
colleagues. The observations were designed to provide a more complete picture of the EL
teacher leaders’ work in the field and would have likely provided understandings of the
stakeholders’ experiences. Additional limitations and delimitations include, but are not limited
to, the following:
• English language instruction and English as lingua franca is fraught with direct and
indirect implications of colonizing forces and destruction of people and their cultures. EL
teaching requires the negotiation between these colonizing histories with the desire to
help ELs reach their learning potential in an English-dominant society. This study is
inherently limited by these opposing ideas.
• EL teacher leaders volunteered to participate in the university-sponsored training, which
may have skewed the findings relating to their motivation, in particular.
• The researcher, although not a colleague or supervisor to the stakeholders, is known to
the participants, which may have affected their truthfulness in answering the interview
questions.

149
• The study design only included one school district partner of the university based EL
teacher leadership program. The findings, by virtue of the qualitative design and this fact,
are therefore not generalizable.
• The data collection timeframe was relatively short and occurred during emergency
distance learning teaching taking place because of COVID-19 mandated school closures.
It is possible this timing affected the findings.
• Two of the five participants decided to pursue their master’s degree in TESOL, where
they focused on instructional coaching and professional development facilitation for adult
learners. Their schooling provided additional background knowledge the other
participants did not have.
• All of the participants and the researcher identify as female, white, licensed ESL teachers
in the state where they reside and work. This lack of diversity is a weakness in the study
that indicates a limited perspective is represented.
• Interview questions were designed to address the KMO influences (Clark & Estes, 2008),
but may not have adequately elicited the data to the fullest extent possible.

There are a number of ways this study could be improved upon. First, a diverse group of
EL teacher leaders as participants in a similar study would provide critical understanding of how
racial, linguistic, gender identity, and cultural diversity may play a role in EL teacher leaders’
experiences. Second, a larger scale study that includes multiple school district partners is
necessary in order to better understand if the recommendations for Prairieville Public Schools are
appropriate for other settings. Finally, a more comprehensive review of the school schedule,
budget, and legal requirements for serving ELs in preK-12 public schools would provide a more
holistic understanding of what is feasible in terms of resource allocation to support EL teacher
leaders.
Recommendations for Future Research
This qualitative evaluation study sought to better understand the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences affecting the implementation of an EL teacher leadership initiative
in Prairieville Public Schools. The ultimate goal of EL teacher leadership is to improve
instruction for students who are still working toward proficiency in English language so that
content materials, which are taught using English as the primary or only linguistic medium, are

150
more accessible. With linguistically accessible content instruction delivered through effective
teaching methodology, ELs stand to achieve at higher rates. This study focused on the
experiences of the EL teacher leaders, but future research on EL student outcomes is needed in
order to fully understand if the professional development facilitation and non-evaluative peer
instructional coaching described in this study result in student achievement results.
In order to fully understand the impact EL teacher leadership has on the practices of
general education teachers in relation to their instructional practices for ELs, research that holds
the general education teachers as the stakeholders of focus will complement the findings of this
study and provide insight into how the work of EL teacher leaders is received by their
colleagues. In addition or as part of the same study, including school principals and district
administrators in the stakeholder group may shed additional light on the organizational influence
at play in the implementation of EL teacher leadership in Prairieville Public Schools and,
perhaps, across a number of school districts who are partners with the university sponsored EL
teacher leader training project. Given the significant role of organizational influences in this
study, a separate evaluation of how time and use of resources play a role in EL teacher leadership
may also be necessary.
Finally, EL teaching involves working with students from myriad linguistic, racial,
ethnic, and religious backgrounds, yet this evaluation study only included stakeholders who were
white and female, in large part because of their disproportionate representation in the profession.
It is imperative that the field of EL teaching and EL teacher leadership give voice to the
experiences of teachers who reflect the student populations they serve. The teachers who share
histories with immigrant and refugee students, in particular, have important insights to share

151
about how instruction for ELs can be improved across all K-12 classrooms. Future research that
considers how multicultural and multilingual EL teachers enact EL teacher leadership would be
an asset to the field and give voice to those whose voices are not represented in this study.
Conclusion
The purpose of this evaluation study was to better understand the effects that an EL
teacher leadership project implementation had on the instructional practices used to serve ELs in
Prairieville Public Schools. ELs are one of the largest growing subpopulations of students across
the nation and in the upper midwestern state in which this study took place (U.S. Department of
Education, n.d.), yet data on their academic achievement indicates their learning needs are not
being adequately met through content area instruction because of inconsistencies in teacher
preparation. While EL teachers are important sources for effective language instruction, they
only spend a fraction of the school day with their students, thereby making it essential that all
general education teachers are equipped to teach ELs through a second language acquisition
perspective. EL teacher leaders served as the stakeholder group of focus in this study because
they are the primary vehicle for change in general education instructional practices that facilitate
learning for ELs. In essence, they serve as the bridge between the lack of preparation for
teaching ELs in teacher education programs and the dispositions, knowledge, and skills general
education teachers need as a result.
The utilization of the KMO Framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) was an effective method
by which to examine the gaps in this initiative’s implementation, in that it served to identify
where there is distance between the goal of Prairieville Public Schools and the current practices
of EL teacher leaders. The findings provide confirmation that gaps in EL teacher leaders’
knowledge and motivation do indeed exist, as do the organizational structures to support their

152
work. In short, EL teacher leaders need a firm understanding of the roles they play as members
of both the teaching staff and as instructional leaders. This knowledge requirement is
underscored by their need to believe in their own ability to provide instructional support to their
colleagues and there is value in this work. This knowledge and motivation on the part of EL
teacher leaders is incomplete, however, without the decision-making power that comes with
distributed leadership and the resources necessary to fulfill their duties. These components can
be requested and endorsed by EL teacher leaders, but the organizational leadership has the sole
power to afford them.
The findings of this study provide insights into the research-based recommendations set
forth in this chapter, which are designed to close the gaps in knowledge, motivation, and the
organization with respect to the learning needs and resources of the EL teacher leaders who
served as participants in the interviews. The implications of the findings and recommendations
are important to the broader field of preK-12 EL education and teacher education, as teacher
leadership efforts have grown in popularity as a means by which to improve student outcomes.
This study also draws attention to the role EL teachers play in their schools and the significance
their expertise represents in light of a growing EL student population. It begs the question, what
is the most effective way for EL teachers to serve their students when resources to hire more EL
teachers are scarce or nonexistent? It is the hope of the researcher that this study contributes to
the body of scholarship that elevates teacher expertise. Moreover, this research ultimately seeks
to evaluate innovative ways to equitably serve ELs so their linguistic and cultural gifts are
celebrated, they fully realize their academic and social potential as they define it, live out the
dreams they were promised, and ultimately enrich our society even more than they already do.

153
References
Ajayi, L. (2011). How ESL teachers’ sociocultural identities mediate their teacher role identities
in a diverse urban school setting. The Urban Review, 43(5), 654-680. https://doi-
org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1007/s11256-010-0161-y
Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Reynolds, R. E. (2009). What is learning anyway? A
topographical perspective considered. Educational Psychologist, 44, 176 - 192.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903029006
Allen, L.Q. (2018). Teacher leadership and the advancement of teacher agency. Foreign
Language Annals 5(1), 240-250. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12311
Aspen Institute, The. (2013). Finding a new way: Leveraging teacher leadership to meet
unprecedented demands. Washington DC: Curtis, R. www.aspeninstitute.org/education
Baecher, L. (2012). Pathways to teacher leadership among English-as-a-second-language
teachers: Professional development by and for emerging teacher leaders. Professional
Development in Education, 38(2), 317-330. DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2012.657877
Ballantyne, K., Sanderman, A., & Levy, J. (2008). Educating English language learners:
Building teacher capacity. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English
Language Acquisition. http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/practice/mainstream_teachers.htm
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1978). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Advances in
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1(4), 139-161.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive perspective.
Prentice Hall.

154
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. DOI:10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great Minds in Management (pp. 9–35). Oxford University Press.
Bangs, J. & MacBeath, J. (2012). Collective leadership: The role of teacher unions in
encouraging teachers to take the lead in their own learning and in teacher policy.
Professional Development in Education, 38(2), 331-343.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2012.657879
Benegas, M. & Stolpestad, A. (2020). Teacher leadership for school-wide English learning.
TESOL Press.
Berg, J.H., Bosch, C.A., & Souvanna, P. (2013). Critical conditions: What teacher leaders need
to be effective in school. Journal of Staff Development, 34(6), 26-29.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1468675288?accountid=14749
Berry, B. (2015). Teacherpreneurs: Cultivating and scaling up a bold brand of teacher leadership.
The New Educator, 11(2), 146-160.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1547688X.2015.1026786
Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers
and Teaching, 21(6), 624-640. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044325
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain.
David McKay Co Inc.

155
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Chapter 5: Data analysis and interpretation. In
Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.),
159-172. Allyn and Bacon.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (5th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Bowen, G.A. (2009). Document analysis as a research method. Qualitative Research Journal,
9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Brooks, K., Adams, S., & Morita-Mullaney, T. (2010). Creating inclusive communities for ELL
students: Transforming school principals' perspectives. Theory into Practice, 49(2), 145–
151. https:/doi.org/10.1080/00405841003641501
Bruno, R., Ashby, S., Manzo, F. IV. (2012). Beyond the classroom: An analysis of a Chicago
public school teacher’s actual workday. Labor Education Program, School of Labor and
Employment Relations. University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign.
https://ler.illinois.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Teachers-Activity-Time-Study-2012-
1-Final.pdf
Carver, C. L. (2016). Transforming identities: The transition from teacher to leader during
teacher leader preparation. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 11(2), 158-
180.
Celic, C. & Seltzer, K. (2013). Translanguaging: A CUNY-NYSIEB guide for educators. CUNY-
NYSIEB. The Graduate Center, The City University of New York: NY.
https://www.cuny-nysieb.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Translanguaging-Guide-
March-2013.pdf

156
Cheng, A. Y., & Szeto, E. (2016). Teacher leadership development and principal facilitation:
Novice teachers’ perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 140-148.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.003
Chung, T-Y. & Chen, Y-L. (2018). Exchanging social support on online teacher groups: Relation
to teacher self-efficacy. Telematics and Informatics, 35, 1542–1552.
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Common Core Standards Initiative: Preparing America’s Students for College and Career. (n.d.).
http://www.corestandards.org/
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Chapter 4: Strategies for qualitative data analysis. In
Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3
rd
ed.) (pp. 65-86). SAGE.
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Criswell, B.A., Rushton, G.T., Nachtigall, D., Staggs, S., Alemdar, M., & Capelli, C. (2018).
Strengthening the vision: Examining the understanding of a framework for teacher
leadership development by experienced science teachers. Science Education, 102, p.
1265-1287. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21472
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy
evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1-44.
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v8n1.2000
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., Gardner, M. (2017). Effective Teacher Professional
Development. Learning Policy Institute.

157
de Jong, E.J., Harper, C.A., & Coady, M.R. (2013). Enhanced knowledge and skills for
elementary general education teachers of English language learners. Theory into Practice,
52(2), 89-97. DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2013.770326
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory.
https://project542.weebly.com/uploads/1/7/1/0/17108470/social_cognitive_theory__educ
ation.com.pdf
Duncan, A. (2014) Teach to lead: Advancing teacher leadership. Teaching and Learning
Conference. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.
http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/teach-lead-advancing-teacher-leadership
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., & Midgley,
C. (1983). Expectancies, Values, and Academic Behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.),
Achievement and Achievement Motivation (pp. 75-146). W. H. Freeman.
Education Commission of the States. (November 2014). 50-State Comparison. What ELL
training, if any, is required of general classroom teachers?
http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/mbquestNB2?rep=ELL1415
Fidishun, D. (2000). Andragogy and technology: Integrating adult learning theory as we teach
with technology. Penn State Great Valley School of Graduate Professional Studies.
https://scholarsphere.psu.edu/downloads/3xs55m9505
Fullan, M. (2009). Large-scale reform comes of age. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2-3),
101-113. DOI: http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1007/s10833-009-9108-z

158
Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56. DOI: 10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Gill, R. (2002). Change management - or change leadership? Journal of Change Management,
3(4), 307-318, DOI: 10.1080/714023845
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 162-183). Pearson.
Gordon, S.P., Jacobs, J., & Solis, R. (2014). Top 10 learning needs for teacher leaders. Journal
of Staff Development, 35(6), 48-52. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-
proquest-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1628379519?accountid=14749
Guskey, T.R. & Yoon, K.S. (March 2009). What works in professional development? Phi Delta
Kappan, 90, 495-500. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F003172170909000709
Hansen-Thomas, H., Richins, L.G., Kakkar, K., & Okeyo, C. (2016). I do not feel I am properly
trained to help them! Rural teachers’ perceptions of challenges and needs with English-
language learners. Professional Development in Education, 42(2), 308-324.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.973528
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. SAGE.
Harris, D.N. & Sass, T.R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement.
Journal of Public Economics, 95, 798-812.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509656.pdf

159
Helterbran, V.R. (2010). Teacher leadership: Overcoming “I am just a teacher” syndrome.
Education, 131(2), 363-371. https://link-gale-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/apps/doc/A251534611/AONE?u=usocal_main&sid=AONE&xid=
336ce3b
Holloway, J., Nielsen, A., & Saltmarsh, S. (2018). Prescribed distributed leadership in the era of
accountability. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(4), 538-555.
https://doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1177%2F1741143216688469
Hudson, A.K. & Pletcher, B.C. (2020). The art of asking questions: Unlocking the power of a
coach’s language. The Reading Teacher, 74(1), 96-100. https://doi-
org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1002/trtr.1911
Jacobs, J., Gordon, S.P., Solis, R. (2016). Critical issues in teacher leadership: A national look at
teachers’ perception. Journal of School Leadership 26(3), 374-406. https://link-gale-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/apps/doc/A481518969/AONE?u=usocal_main&sid=AONE&xid=
f7eb3717
Johnson, L. (2006). Rethinking successful school leadership in challenging u.s. schools:
Culturally responsive practices in school community relationships. International Studies
in Educational Administration, 35, 49-57.
Kezar, A. (2000). Pluralistic leadership: Bringing diverse voices to the table. About Campus.
Kirkpatrick, J.D. & Kirkpatrick, W.K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
ATD Press.

160
Klein, E.J., Taylor, M., Munakata, M., Trobona, K., Rahman, Z., & McManus, J. (2018).
Navigating teacher leaders’ complex relationships using a distributed leadership
framework. Teacher Education Quarterly, Spring.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/2045242559?accountid=14749
Knight, J. (n.d.). The Impact Cycle. Instructional Coaching Group.
https://www.instructionalcoaching.com/downloads/pdfs/Impact-Cycle-Handout.pdf
Knight, J. (2016). Better conversations: coaching ourselves and each other to be more credible,
caring, and connected. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, A Sage Company.
Kofman, F., & Senge, P.M. (1993). Communities of commitment: The heart of learning
organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 5-23. https://link-gale-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/apps/doc/A14606094/AONE?u=usocal_main&sid=AONE&xid=1
b607fbf
Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A revision of bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Lai, E., & Cheung, D. (2014). Enacting teacher leadership. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 43(5), 673-692. doi:10.1177/1741143214535742
Lakos, A., & Phipps, S. (2004). Creating a culture of assessment: A catalyst for organizational
change. Libraries and the Academy, 4(3), 345-361.
Lau v. Nichols, (1974). 414 U.S. 563. Supreme Court of the United States.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/414/563.html

161
Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Strauss, T., Sacks, R., Memon, N., & Yashkina, A. (2007).
Distributing leadership to make schools smarter: Taking the ego out of the system.
Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 37-67. DOI: 10.1080/15700760601091267
Levin, B., & Schrum, L. (2017). Every teacher a leader: Developing the needed dispositions,
knowledge, and skills for teacher leadership. Corwin.
Liggett, T. (2010). ‘A little bit marginalized’: The structural marginalization of English language
teachers in urban and rural public schools. Teaching Education, 21(3), 217-232. DOI:
10.1080/10476211003695514
Loewus, L. (15 August 2017). The nation's teaching force is still mostly white and female.
Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/08/15/the-nations-teaching-
force-is-still-mostly.html?r=1674953961
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Low, R., Jin, P., & Sweller, J. (2013). Some instructional consequences of logical relations
between multiple sources of information. In Schraw, G., McCrudden, M.T., & Robinson,
D. (Eds.), Learning through visual displays (pp. 47-73). Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Lucas, T., Strom, K., Bratkovich, M., & Wnuk, J. (2018). Inservice preparation for general
education teachers of English language learners: A review of the empirical literature. The
Educational Forum, 82(2), 156-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2018.1420852
Mangin, M.M. (2007). Facilitating elementary principals’ support for instructional teacher
leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(3), 319-357. DOI:
10.1177/0013161X07299438

162
Margolis, J. (2012). Hybrid teacher leaders and the new professional development ecology.
Professional Development in Education, 38(2), 291-315. DOI:
10.1080/194152572012657874
Margolis, J. & Deuel, A. (2009). Teacher leaders in action: Motivation, morality, and money.
Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(3), 264-286. DOI: 10.1080/15700760802416115
Martin, A.D. (2019) Teacher identities and English learners in general education classrooms: A
discourse analysis. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 16(2), 130-151.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2018.1471693
Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage Publications,
Inc.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson Education.
Mayer, R.E. (2013). Fostering learning with visual displays. In Schraw, G., McCrudden, M.T., &
Robinson, D. (Eds.), Learning through visual displays (pp. 47-73). Information Age
Publishing, Inc.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. Sage Publications.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Chapter 4: Fundamentals of qualitative
data analysis. Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3
rd
ed.) (pp. 93-100).
SAGE.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, National Education Association, & Center
for Teaching Quality (2014). The teacher leadership competencies.
http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/AZK1408_TLC_FINAL.pdf

163
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching
for America’s future. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED395931
National Education Association, Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium. (2011). Teacher
Leader Model Standards.
http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/TeacherLeaderModelStandards2011.pdf
Northouse, P. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice. (7th ed.) SAGE.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory.
https://project542.weebly.com/uploads/1/7/1/0/17108470/social_cognitive_theory__educ
ation.com.pdf
Patton, M. Q. (1987). Chapter 4: Fieldwork and Observation. In How to use qualitative methods
in observation. SAGE.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Interviewing. In Qualitative research & evaluation methods
(3rd ed.). SAGE.
Pell Institute (2010). Enter, organize, and clean data. http://toolkit.pellinstitute.org/evaluation-
guide/analyze/enter-organize-clean-data/
Pettit, S.K. (2011). Teachers' beliefs about English language learners in the general education
classroom: A review of the literature. International Multilingual Research Journal, 5(2),
123-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2011.594357
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667

164
Richter, T., Schroeder, S., & Wöhrmann, B. (2009). You don’t have to believe everything you
read: Background knowledge permits fast and efficient validation of information. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 538–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014038
Robinson, S.B. & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. SAGE.
Ross, D., Adams, A., Bondy, E., Dana, N., Dodman, S., & Swain, C. (2011). Preparing teacher
leaders: Perceptions of the impact of a cohort-based, job embedded, blended teacher
leadership program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(8), 1213-1222.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.06.005
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative
interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.) (pp. 85-92). SAGE.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. Teachers College Press.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory.
https://project542.weebly.com/uploads/1/7/1/0/17108470/information_processing_theory
__education.com.pdf
Scott, S. & Palinscar, A. (2006). Sociocultural theory.
http://drhatfield.com/theorists/resources/sociocultural_theory.pdf
Sebastian, J., Allensworth, E., & Huang, H. (2016). The Role of Teacher Leadership in How
Principals Influence Classroom Instruction and Student Learning. American Journal of
Education, 123(1), 69-108. https://doi.org/10.1086/688169
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189.
https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0034654307313795

165
Slavin, R. (2008). Effective whole-school teaching for English learners. In Calderon, M. (Ed.),
Breaking through: Effective instruction & assessment for reaching English learners (27-
37). https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Smylie, M.A. & Eckert, J. (2018). Beyond superheroes and advocacy: The pathway of teacher
leadership development. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 46(4),
556-577. DOI: 10.1177/1741143217694893
Taylor, M., Goeke, J., Klein, E., Onore, C., & Geist, K. (2010). Changing leadership: Teachers
lead the way for schools that learn. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 920-929.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.03.003
Teach to Lead, (n.d.). About teach to lead. http://teachtolead.org/about/
TESOL International Association. (March 2014). Changes in the expertise of ESL professionals:
Knowledge and action in an era of new standards. Alexandria, VA: Valdes, G., Kibler,
A., & Walqui, A. https://www.tesol.org/docs/default-source/papers-and-
briefs/professional-paper-26-march-2014.pdf
Turner, J.C., Christensen, A., Kackar-Cam, H.Z., Fulmer, S.M., & Trucano, M. (2018). The
development of professional learning communities and their teacher leaders: An activity
systems analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(1), 49-88.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1381962
United States Department of Education (2015, July 27). Fact sheet: Teach to lead.
https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/fact-sheet-teach-lead
United States Department of Education (n.d.). Our nation’s English learners: What are the
characteristics? https://www2.ed.gov/datastory/el-characteristics/index.html#four

166
United States Department of Education. (2016). The state of racial diversity in the educator
workforce. Policy and Program Studies Service Office of Planning, Evaluation and
Policy Development. https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/racial-diversity/state-
racial-diversity-workforce.pdf
Vannest, K.J., Soares, D.A., Harrison, J.R., Brown, L., & Parker, R.I. (2009). Changing Teacher
Time. Preventing School Failure, 54(2), 86-98.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10459880903217739
Wahlstrom, K., York-Barr, J., Jackson, D., & Von Frank, V. (2011). Leadership: Support and
structures make the difference for educators and students. Journal of Staff Development,
32(4), p.22-25, 32. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/886992666?accountid=14749
Waters, T.W., Marzano, R.J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. McREL.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. The Free Press.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education.
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605895
Wenner, J. A., & Campbell, T. (2017). The Theoretical and Empirical Basis of Teacher
Leadership. Review of Educational Research, 87(1), 134-171. https://doi-
org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.3102%2F0034654316653478
White, A.S., Smith, M.H., Kunz, G.M., & Nugent, G.C. (2015). Active ingredients of
instructional coaching: Developing a conceptual framework. National Center for
Research on Rural Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED571818.pdf

167
York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from
two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255-316.
https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543074003255

168
Appendix A
Interview Word Count
Word Counts
Word Frequency # of Participants
advocate/advocacy 10 3
collaborate/collaboration 11 3
money 13 4
budget 5 3
fund/funding 4 2
time
3
76 5

3
References to time included in the word count represent occasions when interview participants were
referring to the time it took for them to fulfill the duties associated with EL teacher leadership, time they
did and/or did not receive to fulfill those duties, and time they believe they need in order to fulfill their
duties.

169
Appendix B
Interview Questions
1. How would you describe the role that you play in your school as an ELM coach?
[Knowledge Influence: EL teacher leaders know the purpose and goals of their roles.]
2. How does your organization support your work as an ELM coach by providing time to do
the work, if at all? Please describe. [Organizational Influence: The organization needs to
provide dedicated time for teacher leaders to fulfill their responsibilities.]
a. Through training, mentorship, scheduling, etc.?
3. Has your school and/or district made any changes in the last year to support your ELM
coaching? Please describe. [Organizational Influence: The organization needs to provide
dedicated time for teacher leaders to fulfill their responsibilities.]
a. Who was involved in making those changes? [Organizational Influence: The
organization needs a culture of shared leadership.]
b. How did your colleagues respond to the support the school gives you so that you
can serve as an ELM coach?
4. In your role as an ELM coach, you are charged with supporting your general education
teacher colleagues as a peer coach and facilitator of professional development. Tell me
about the specialized language teaching knowledge you have that supports your
mainstream teacher colleagues who work with ELs in their classrooms. [Knowledge
influence: EL teacher leaders need knowledge specific to their extended roles outside the
classroom; Motivation influence: EL teacher leaders need to believe they have
specialized knowledge to share with their general education colleagues.]
5. Are there any changes in the way that general education teachers respond to you as an
ELM coach, as compared to before you were an ELM coach? Please describe an example
of a change. [Knowledge influence: EL teacher leaders know the purpose and goals of
their roles; motivation influence: believe they have specialized knowledge to share, see
the importance of taking on teacher leadership positions.]
6. How would you describe the role that the principal or other senior leaders you report to
plays in your work as an ELM coach? [Organization influence: the organization needs a
culture of shared leadership.]
7. Please describe how you begin a non-evaluative peer coaching session with one of your
general education colleagues. [knowledge influence: EL teacher leaders need
interpersonal skills.]
a. Where do you usually meet?
b. What kind of questions do you ask?
c. Describe the kinds of things you do so that your colleague feels comfortable.
d. Do you provide constructive feedback to the colleague you peer coach? If so, how
do you do this?
e. Can you describe an example of something you might say?
8. Every school is different, even within the same school district and I’m curious about your
individual experiences. Please tell me about a challenge your school or district has faced
in the last year. [Potential to address any/all of the identified KMOs.]
a. How has that challenge affected your work as an ELM coach?

170
9. Can you describe a time when being an ELM coach was challenging? [Potential to
address any/all of the identified KMOs.]
10. Please tell me about a time when you were most proud of your work as an ELM coach.
[Potential to address any/all of the identified KMOs.]
11. I would like to learn more about how you imagine your role as both a teacher and a
teacher leader. In an ideal scenario, how do you envision EL students being supported in
the mainstream classrooms in your school? [Organizational influence: the organization
needs a culture of shared leadership; the organization needs to provide dedicated time for
teacher leaders to fulfill their responsibilities.]
12. What changes need to be made or resources do you need to make that vision a reality?
[Organizational influence: the organization needs a culture of shared leadership; the
organization needs to provide dedicated time for teacher leaders to fulfill their
responsibilities; potential to address knowledge and motivation influences as well.]
13. What would your workday look like in this vision? [Organizational influence: the
organization needs a culture of shared leadership; the organization needs to provide
dedicated time for teacher leaders to fulfill their responsibilities; potential to address
knowledge and motivation influences as well.]
14. How does dedicated time for the work of teacher leadership manifest throughout your
work week? [Organizational influence: the organization needs a culture of shared
leadership; the organization needs to provide dedicated time for teacher leaders to fulfill
their responsibilities; potential to address knowledge and motivation influences as well.]

171
Appendix C
Pre-Training Survey Items
1. I am well prepared to lead my general education colleagues in writing, teaching, and
assessing language objectives.
2. I am well prepared to lead my general education colleagues in the implementation of
culturally relevant pedagogy.
3. I am well prepared in peer coaching techniques.
4. What do you hope to learn in this EL teacher leadership training?

172
Appendix D
Post-Training Survey Items
1. Because of my participation in the EL teacher leader training, I am better prepared to lead
my general education colleagues in writing academic language objectives.
2. Because of my participation in the EL teacher leader training, I am better prepared to lead
my general education colleagues in teaching with academic language objectives.
3. Because of my participation in the EL teacher leader training, I am better prepared to lead
my general education colleagues in assessing academic language objectives.
4. Because of my participation in the EL teacher leader training, I am better prepared to lead
my general education colleagues in the implementation of culturally relevant pedagogy.
5. Because of my participation in the EL teacher leader training, I am better prepared in peer
instructional coaching techniques.
6. What were the most valuable parts of the EL teacher leader training for you?
7. What improvements can be made to the EL teacher leader training?

173
Appendix E
Action Plan for EL Teacher Leaders
4

Needs Analysis Explain: 1) A description of the EL language backgrounds, language levels,
types of ELs (highly skilled newcomers, long term English learners, students with limited or
interrupted education), 2) the unique needs of your EL populations, and 3) the challenges that
your mainstream teacher colleagues encounter.

SMART Goals State SMART (Specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-bound) goals.
What would you like to see happen or change in mainstream teacher practices over the
academic year?

EL Teacher Leadership Implementation Process What steps do you have to take to reach your
goal/s? How will you deliver professional development to your colleagues? How will you
structure coaching over the upcoming academic year?

Supports: Identify who you anticipate will be in support of your EL teacher leadership at your
school and in your district. How might you capitalize on their support? In addition, identify
any systems, policies, or norms that will support the implementation of EL teacher leadership
at your school over the next year.

Concerns/Obstacles Identify any concerns or obstacles that you anticipate might present
themselves over the coming year. How might you overcome and/or work around them?

Resources: Consider the professional development coaching content and coaching tools. What
resources do you have to support your action plan implementation at your school? What
resources do you still need?

4
Adapted from Benegas, M. & Stolpestad, A. (2020). Teacher Leadership for School-Wide English
Learning. TESOL Press.

174
To-Do List: All trained EL teacher leaders will be required to submit school administrator
approval with the action plan. Other possible items on your to-do list might be: consult with
other stakeholders in your school; schedule space for professional development; identity
general education teacher colleagues who will participate.

Timeline: Identify tentative dates when you will carry out the items on your action plan.

Administrator Approval*
Signature: _______________________________________________ Date: ____________

*Please send a signed version - PDF if that is best - along with a word or google doc version so
that comments and feedback can be embedded within the action plan.

175
Appendix F
Delayed Mid-Year Phone Survey of EL Teacher Leaders
1. Please describe the role that your school's administration has played in your EL teacher
leadership and non-evaluative peer coaching so far this school year?
2. Please describe the role that your school's Teacher on Special Assignment (TOSA) or
district EL coordinator has played in your EL teacher leadership so far this school year?
3. How many teachers are you peer coaching this school year?
4. How many pre-observations of the general education teachers you are peer coaching have
you completed to date?
5. Have you completed any post-observations yet? [This is not expected.]
6. How many professional development sessions have you facilitated?
7. What topics did you address in your professional development session(s)?
8. How many general education teachers attended the PD session(s) you facilitated?
9. Please describe some of the successes you and your colleagues experienced as a result of
your peer coaching and professional development session(s) so far?
10. Please describe any struggles or challenges you and your colleagues experienced as a
result of your peer coaching and professional development session(s) so far?
11. What are your remaining action plan items for the school year?
12. Are there any ways in which the university faculty and staff can help you with your EL
teacher leadership?
13. Is there anything else you would like us to know about your experiences as an EL teacher
leader?

176
Appendix G
Sample Reporting Items: Pre- and Post-Training
Pre-Survey Response: I am well prepared to lead my general education colleagues in
writing, teaching, and assessing language objectives.

Post-Survey Response: Because of my participation in the EL teacher leader training, I
am better prepared to lead my general education colleagues in writing academic language
objectives.

Pre-Survey Response: I am well prepared in peer coaching techniques.

177
Post-Survey Response: Because of my participation in the EL teacher leader training, I
am better prepared in peer instructional coaching techniques.

178
Appendix H
Sample Reporting Items: Pre- and Post-Teacher Observations
Number of General Education Teachers Observed by Type
Observation
Type
N Mean Median Range
Pre and Post 114 4.38 8 0 – 17
Pre-Only 63 2.42 4 0 – 10
Post Only 22 0.88 1 0 – 8

Descriptive Statistics for the Observations of General Education Teachers

Number Mean Standard Deviation t Sig.
Pre Post Pre Post
Access 109 10.26 10.55 3.55 3.25 0.65 .520
Language 114 3.44 3.53 1.80 1.61 0.73 .463
Interaction 111 7.64 7.78 2.55 2.51 0.34 .733
Total 102 21.18 22.14 7.02 6.42 0.92 .360

Abstract (if available)

Abstract English language learners (ELs) represent nearly 10% of the U.S. student body, yet they struggle academically in content area classrooms, where they spend the vast majority of the school day with teachers who have little, if any, training in second language acquisition. Teacher leadership, a growing trend in U.S. preK-12 public schools, utilizes the skills of teachers to distribute leadership responsibilities across school personnel. This qualitative evaluation study used document analysis and interviews to examine an initiative to train Prairieville Public Schools English language (EL) teachers to become teacher leaders who support their content area teaching colleagues in professional development related to teaching ELs and to support them as non-evaluative, peer instructional coaches. The Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Gap Analysis Framework provided a structure to identify existing qualities of trained EL teacher leaders in Prairieville Public Schools and find gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors in the EL teacher leadership initiative. Findings reveal that, while trained EL teacher leaders in Prairieville Public Schools demonstrated components of the required knowledge and motivation needed to fulfill their responsibilities, development of EL teacher leader’s understanding of non-evaluative peer instructional coaching and self-efficacy is needed. Further, organizational factors such as scheduling and leadership practices indicate there are systemic gaps related to supporting the work of EL teacher leaders. It is recommended that preK-12 schools and districts with EL teacher leaders ensure ongoing training related to peer coaching is provided and that reallocation of resources in the form of dedicated time be considered to ensure success. In addition, research is needed in order to better understand the general education teachers’ and administrators’ perspectives related to EL teacher leadership.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Effective coaching of teachers to support learning for English language learners

PDF

Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study

PDF

Learning the language of math: supporting students who are learning English in acquiring math proficiency through language development

PDF

Implementing standards-based grading in the era of common standards: an evaluation study

PDF

Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model

PDF

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

PDF

Approaches to teaching for twenty-first century learners in South Korea: An evaluation study of GSS

PDF

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

PDF

Influencing teacher retention: an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

Preparing students for the global society: sustaining a dual language immersion program

PDF

A gap analysis of the community school: an evaluation of the implementation of self-directed learning

PDF

Teacher role in reducing the achievement gap: an evaluation study

PDF

Maximizing English learners' success in higher education with differentiated instruction

PDF

The intersection of teacher knowledge and motivation with organizational culture on implementing positive psychology interventions through a character education curriculum

PDF

The interaction of teacher knowledge and motivation with organizational influences on the implementation of a hybrid reading intervention model taught in elementary grades

PDF

Foreign-language teachers' needs to achieve better results: the role of differentiated instruction

PDF

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

PDF

Teacher perception on positive behavior interventions and supports’ (PBIS) cultivation for positive teacher-student relationships in high schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Sustained mentoring of early childhood education teachers: an innovation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Stolpestad, Amy O'Connor (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 11/01/2020

Defense Date 09/25/2020

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

Tag distributed leadership,EL,EL teacher leadership,EL teachers,ELD,ELL,English learners,OAI-PMH Harvest,teacher leadership,tesol

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Min, Emmy (committee chair), Mardirosian, Mary (committee member), Samkian, Artineh (committee member)

Creator Email amystolpestad@gmail.com,stolpest@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-387900

Unique identifier UC11666539

Identifier etd-Stolpestad-9086.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-387900 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Stolpestad-9086.pdf

Dmrecord 387900

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Stolpestad, Amy O'Connor

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