Knowledge Essay Portfolio 3

Knowledge Essay Portfolio 3
Introduction
Education’s current era of high stakes testing and accountability puts increased pressure
on educators to teach more content in less time. With this fast pace coverage of a breadth of
standards, students increasingly need to become independent and self-sufficient learners as early
as upper elementary school, but if they have limited literacy skills and strategies they are not able
to learn the content or meet the standards (Lenz, 2005). This, in turn, has raised the expectations
for elementary teachers to accelerate the early literacy learning for all students. The challenge
widens now that a far greater proportion of the population is expected to be literate, and what
constitutes functional literacy involves increasingly higher skill levels (van Kleeck, 2010).
While the public demand for high levels of literacy achievement is now commonplace,
historically very few people learned to read before the Protestant reformation and the invention
of the printing press. When children were expected to read the family was primarily responsible
for teaching them until compulsory schooling at the turn of the century. As McGuffey readers
became associated with certain grade levels and established the first expectations of what a child
should be able to read by a certain age, it was considered the child’s responsibility and not the
teacher’s if they did not learn to read by the expected time (Venezky, 1987). However, today
there is a national dialogue that our schools, and specifically our teachers, are failing our children
since reading comprehension is the linchpin of academic achievement in the application of
content-area reading in science, math, social studies, and other non literary materials (Venezky,
1987).
Now our teachers must be highly skilled when it comes to literacy instruction and
understand the ever evolving definition of literacy as conceptions of literacy are constantly
evolving (Leu, 2000). Also evolving is the role of the federal and state government in education
1
policy that affects literacy instruction. In the 1960s, under Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society there
was increased spending on education programs such as Head Start and the passage of Title I of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) which granted money to school districts to
fund compensatory education programs to supplement reading instruction for disadvantaged
children. The assumption then was that a lack of resources, and not a lack of professional
knowledge in how to close the achievement gap was responsible for the reading difficulties being
experienced by low income children (McGill-Franzen, 2000). However, the achievement gap
persists which leads to questions about teachers’ professional knowledge and how we can add to
it.
With federal funding available more and more stakeholders took an interest in how
reading was being taught, thus sparking the reading wars between phonics and whole language.
We now know the available evidence does not favor predominantly skills-focus environments or
those providing holistic experiences to the exclusion of skills instruction (Presley, 2002). In the
1990s a balanced literacy approach took the best of phonics and whole language and proposed
that skills be taught directly and explicitly during authentic reading activities (Pearson, 2004).
The integration of skills instruction and authentic literacy activities in effective classrooms is
both deliberate and well planned, but less effective teachers fail to integrate the two approaches
in a coherent way, often presenting skills in isolation rather than making meaningful connections
to the text (Metsala, 1997). To be done successfully this requires a depth of knowledge and a
great deal of finesse with pedagogy on the part of the teacher who is charged with selecting the
materials, designing the scope of focus lessons, analyzing data to group children for skill
instruction, and delivering the content in a way that engages students to become authentic
readers. As the demands on the teacher have risen, so, too, have the demands for effective
2
literacy professional development to help teachers improve their practice and ultimately improve
student achievement.
Statement of the Problem
In the new millennium two directives have shaped literacy professional development. In
2000 the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) released the
Report of The National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, 2000) and in 2001 the No Child Left Behind Act was passed (NCLB, 2002).
Taken together these directives have heightened the debate about epistemology and methodology
and spurred states to develop standards for learning as the federal government began holding
schools accountable through mandated student assessments and program evaluations
(Cunningham, 2001; Shanahan, 2003; Tierney, 2014; Yatvin, 2002). The NICHD Report of The
National Reading Panel enumerated five separate skills necessary for reading: phonemic
awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension strategies. These five areas are now
reflected in 24 Common Core State Standards for reading and another 22 standards for writing,
language, speaking and listening (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2019) so how do we
ensure teachers are skilled in all of these areas, especially when experts believe that many
students from diverse backgrounds have not benefited from effective delivery of quality literacy
instruction and we need to connect practices found in multicultural, general and special
education (Simpson, 2007)?
The quality of the teacher is one of the strongest indicators of success for students in
today’s classrooms (Hattie 2012) so it is important to evaluate the practices used in teacher
education and professional development in order to ensure outcomes that improve teacher
content knowledge and pedagogy. Darling-Hammond, Hyler & Gardner (2017) reviewed 35
3
studies to identify the features of effective professional development (PD), defined as “structured
professional learning that results in changes in teacher practices and improvements in student
learning outcomes.” They found the seven features of effective PD include being content
focused, collaborative, reflective, using active learning, models of effective practice, and expert
support over a sustained duration (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). Models of PD such as
attending conferences, workshops, book clubs and peer observation do not meet many of the
seven features. Even amongst educators who receive a great deal of quality PD, a knowing-doing
gap exists in education because many PD initiatives may increase teacher knowledge, but do not
inspire lasting changes in teacher practices.
Purpose of Study
One form of PD which appears to have elements that address each of the recommended
seven features is lesson study, a collaborative PD process from Japan. Lesson study has been
credited with bringing about Japan’s evolution of effective mathematics and science instruction
(Lewis 2002) but it has been used less frequently in literacy professional development. Curcio
(2002) identifies the four phases of the lesson study process as collaborative planning, lesson
observation by colleagues and guests, analytic reflection, and ongoing revision.
Lesson study uses the professional knowledge of a group of teachers to identify an area
for their own growth then provides a structure for them to work collaboratively in a recurring
cycle of planning, observation and reflection to improve their practice. When using the lesson
study model of PD, the primary goal is for teachers to collaborate to generate content and
pedagogical knowledge which will change and improve their instructional practices (Figure 1).
Figure 1 The Lesson Study Process
4
Research suggests that teacher collaborative learning contexts affect teacher efficacy, an
outcome that has been empirically linked to improved student achievement (Chong & Kong,
2012). Educators with high collective efficacy focus on student struggles and show persistence
and a willingness to change and try new teaching approaches because they know it impacts
student learning. Operating from the axiology that the value of something is a function of its
consequences (Mertens & Wilson 2012), this proposed research will seek conclusions about
lesson study not only as a form of professional development that brings about a change in teacher
practices but also as a means to cultivate collective teacher efficacy and thereby improve student
achievement.
Research Questions
In 2017 Fairfax County Public Schools launched a new Elementary Language Arts
Planning and Pacing Guide, substantially changing the reading and writing curriculum at each
grade level. During the 2017-2018 school year personnel from Fairfax County’s Language Arts
office came to Mason Crest Elementary to help the school’s literacy teachers plan and facilitate
lesson study around the new pacing guide for a few teams. In 2018-2019 the school literacy
leaders, including this researcher, wrote a grant and received funds for substitute coverage for
5
classroom teachers in order to continue the lesson study model of professional development with
additional grade level teams of teachers to increase literacy content knowledge and improve
instructional practices in the new pacing guide.
This research will not only add to the body of knowledge about lesson study but will
provide feedback to stakeholders at Mason Crest Elementary in order to make judgements about
program effectiveness and inform decisions about funding the continuation or expansion of the
lesson study process for subsequent school years. The mission statement of Mason Crest, “High
levels of learning for all students and staff,” shows this school’s dedication to ensuring that staff
development leads to changes in practices that improve student achievement. The following
research questions will guide the study:
1. How does lesson study support teachers in the process of changing their instructional
practices?
2. What, if any, evidence is there that engaging in the lesson study process contributes to
building collective efficacy among a team of teachers?
Literature Review
This literature review will identify themes in the current literature on lesson study that
could have implications for future practice and future research. Only articles from peer-reviewed
journals, published within the last 20 years were considered. Since lesson study has been widely
used internationally for decades, and is less prevalent in the United States, any article originally
written in English was included, no matter in which country the research was conducted.
Similarly, lesson study is more widely used in math and science content areas in middle and high
schools, but given this researcher’s intent to further explore lesson study in the context of
elementary literacy PD, preference was given to articles that included elementary teachers or
6
literacy, but secondary teachers and math and science were not excluded. While the primary
focus of this literature review is on lesson study as a form of professional development with
inservice teachers, the decision was made not to exclude articles that included research with
preservice teachers.
The databases Academic Search Complete, AP PsychNet, Education Research Complete,
and ERIC were used to do two separate searches for relevant articles in order to find studies
pertaining to each of the two research questions. The first search included the terms “lesson
study” AND “professional development” AND “change.” The second search included “lesson
study” AND “collective efficacy” which was then expanded to “collaboration.” Upon reviewing
the abstracts, any article that had not been cited at least 5 times was excluded in order to focus on
the seminal works in lesson study as a form of PD that could change teacher practices and build
collective efficacy.
Conceptual Framework
This study is situated in the constructivist and sociocultural views of learning. Literacy is
not an individual cognitive act but a social process. A unique aspect of lesson study is that
teachers are learning practices through participation in collaborative activity. According to
Vygotsky (1998) learners gain new knowledge or skills when they experience a situation within
their zone of proximal development. The learning that takes place is through social interaction,
dialogue and collective observation and reflection so each teacher will bring their own unique
lived experiences to the process which will impact their own outcomes as well as those of the
teammates experiencing lesson study with them. Piaget's (1936) theory of constructivism argues
that people produce knowledge and form meaning based upon their experiences. Piaget viewed
intellectual growth as a process of adaptation that happens when existing schema does not work
7
and disequilibrium occurs until thinking is changed. Adult learners experience this
disequilibrium during the PD process and construct new learning through interactions with their
community of learners. This community of learners will be especially important to consider
when evaluating the extent to which some teams change their practices as compared to other
teams experiencing lesson study.
We will evaluate these outcomes operating from the axiology that the value of something
is a function of its consequences (Mertens & Wilson 2012). The consequences of interest in the
research questions are the effectiveness of lesson study as a form of PD to bring about changes in
practices and foster collective efficacy. The following literature review will be organized into the
three primary components necessary to understand before moving forward with this research:
lesson study, change management, and collective efficacy.
Lesson Study
There are four main activities that teachers engage in during lesson study according to
Curcio (2002). In the most common version of the lesson study process, teachers identify an
area for growth then a “knowledgeable other,” which could be a mentor teacher, content area
specialist, university partner or other colleague, helps them research and collaboratively plan a
lesson (Cheng & Wong 2014). Next the team watches one teacher, often the “knowledgeable
other,” model the lesson in a classroom while others observe and collect evidence of student
learning. Sometimes they identify one or two case study pupils to focus on for data collection.
The third activity is to meet to reflect, share observations and refine the lesson. They continue
the cycle with another teacher modeling it in another classroom using the refined lesson plan.
Finally, at the conclusion of the process, they reflect on their collective understanding and use it
to create a product of their learning that can be shared with other staff and educators outside their
8
building.This literature review on lesson study will identify themes in the literature during each
of those four activities including collaborative planning, lesson observation, analytic reflection
and revision, and documentation.
Collaborative Planning
The first of the four activities is when teachers gather and decide on a focus for their
lesson study then work together to find resources to help them design a collective lesson plan.
During the collaborative research and planning phase all studies found many benefits and few
challenges. Cohan & Honigsfeld (2006) incorporated jugyoun kenkyuu – the Japanese lesson
study approach – into teacher preparation courses with both undergraduate and graduate
preservice teachers in order to create situations for the preservice teachers to think deeply about
instruction, learning, curriculum and education. Each candidate taught and video-taped the
lesson, got feedback and produced a lesson study report. According to the quotes from their
reflective papers, the collaboration and dialogue about teaching gained through the lesson study
approach was beneficial ot their professional growth.
Koustouris et al. (2017) also looked at using lesson study with preservice teachers but
broadened the typical lesson study model to include university-based lecturers as part of the
school-based teaching team. Video conferencing was used to give feedback rather than face to
face meetings. The authors wanted to investigate the issues experienced in using video-
conferencing to connect the dispersed members in the lesson study collaborative team meetings.
They concluded that inclusion of other professionals on the lesson study team is beneficial
especially in fostering a collaborative culture for preservice teachers, but distance linking during
this collaborative process is dependent upon having the right equipment and technical support.
9
Voogta, Pietersb, & Handelzaltsc (2016) found benefits in the collaborative planning
phase for in-service teachers because traditional teacher development is usually passive in nature
and teachers are typically expected to implement the plans of others. Collaborative curriculum
design places the teacher as the main link in the chain and this study evaluated the effect of doing
so by using data from 14 doctoral theses to study the impact of collective design on both
curriculum change and teacher learning. The results showed collaborative design helped
teachers take on new pedagogy as well as subject matter knowledge, especially related to
technology. It also led to higher quality curricula and ownership reform from the involved
stakeholders. The involvement of the school leadership was found to be essential as collaborative
teams needed support in the process. The teachers had more agency, took ownership of their
learning and implemented the curriculum with more fidelity after engaging in the process.
Suh & Seshaiyer (2015) took the collaborative process even further and looked at the
benefit of vertical articulation across grade levels when a vertical team of elementary teachers
used lesson study to develop their understanding of algebraic concepts across grade levels. This
gave teachers the opportunity to collaborate with colleagues outside their normal team and
pushed their thinking beyond their immediate objectives. This collaboration led to relearning,
disequilibrium and awareness that was a catalyst for change. The researchers had to buy teachers
time using grant money because most schools are not set up for this type of collaboration so the
authors suggest teachers need more release time for this type of professional development
activity.
Lesson Observation
Once the teachers have collaboratively planned a lesson, then one teacher, usually an
experienced “knowledgeable other” teaches that lesson in an actual classroom while the others in
10
the group observe and take notes on the student learning. Suh & Seshaiyer (2015) not only found
benefits in the collaborative aspect of lesson study but also found the classroom observation
activity to be productive. In this phase teachers were able to revisit conceptual principles from
previous grade levels, anticipate strategies students would use and misconceptions they may
have, and see multiple models and a pattern of development. Another important outcome was for
teachers to recognize the ways to scaffold and differentiate for diverse learners by observing
their peers in action.
While Suh & Seshaiyer were able to bring the teachers from a variety of teams together
for the observations, Koutsouris et al. (2017) used technology to connect a disperse team for the
lesson observations and many of the findings in their study had to do with technical difficulties
during the video recording of the lessons. One school had trouble with the internet quality and
spent 10% of the meeting time dealing with connectivity and sound quality. The position of the
cameras during the teaching of the lessons was an issue because the university-based members of
the team viewing the lesson remotely could either see the students or the board, but not both.
When teachers tried to use a mobile camera to get closer to the students it caused disruption that
altered student behavior. When they moved class to a quieter location to improve sound quality
of the recording that was also found to alter student behavior. They concluded that lesson study
is beneficial when observing lessons in person but distance linking is highly dependent upon
having the right equipment, and at times the presence of that equipment can alter the essence of
the lesson being observed due to its impact on the students being recorded.
Mentzer et al. (2014) also found mixed results from the lesson observation phase of
lesson study. They led a three year science teacher PD called Leadership for Educators:
Academy for Driving Economic Revitalization in Science (LEADERS). It consisted of Project
11
Based Science (PBS), leadership courses and renewable energy content taught through a lesson
study approach. Data showed significant gains in two of the three foci – content knowledge and
leadership skills – but not in PBS. It is assumed much of the content knowledge was learned
during the collaborative planning and reflection activities of lesson study but the observation of
lessons should have given the teachers stronger PBS skills so the authors concluded they would
adjust the project design for the next cohort in order to improve summative results. Since lesson
observations are one of the things that set lesson study apart from other forms of professional
development we need more research focusing on this step of the process since these studies
found as many challenges as benefits when teachers observe each other’s lessons.
Analytic Reflection and Revision
After the “knowledgeable other” finishes teaching the collaboratively planned lesson
while the rest of the group observes, the next step in lesson study is for the group to gather
together again to reflect on the learning that took place during the lesson. Norwich & Ylonen
(2015) focused on the gains that could be acquired during the analytic reflection after lesson
observation. Their study used an assessment by response to teaching approach and they coined
the term lesson study for assessment (LSfA), meaning an approach that focuses on improving
teachers’ ability to assess student learning needs. The teachers identified case pupils to study
within the context of lesson study and included the case pupil’s perspective on their own learning
and on the process. They found the most important mechanisms were providing honest,
constructive feedback, analyzing lessons, and using prior knowledge about student learning
difficulties to refine and improve the lessons. One of the primary outcomes was improved
capability of teachers to use response to teaching approach to assessment after their experience in
12
collaborative analytic reflection. The teachers were better able to focus on learning conditions
that affect student achievement rather than blame it on pupil characteristics.
Cajkler et al. (2015) also found the analytic reflection activity of lesson study helped
teachers develop creative solutions to learning challenges. Their exploratory qualitative study
was conducted at secondary schools in England where they interviewed teachers and found
positive results from the collaborative planning and the lesson observations but the analytic
reflection had the greatest impact on teachers’ thinking about classroom practice. While they
acknowledged the positive outcomes, they also cautioned that this process is time intensive. In
the current performance and data driven culture in education where people want results directly
linked to research based practices, there were no immediate transformative changes, but with
sustained commitment lesson study shows promise.
Documentation and Dissemination
The last activity in the lesson study process is considered optional and some models end
the process after the last analytical reflection meeting while others go on to have the team
produce some product of their learning that can be shared with others and used in the future.
Voogta et al. (2016) and Suh & Seshaiyer (2015) were the only studies that focused on this
activity and they both found it to be an important one worthy of more research.
Voogta et al. concluded that teams not only learned from the collaborative process of
planning, observing and reflecting, but also learned from sharing their designed curriculum
materials with other colleagues because they had to explain the rationale behind their materials.
Teams do not often share their work with others so this was a valuable aspect of the lesson study
experience. The end product of the Suh & Seshaiyer study with vertical teams vas a vertical map
which provided a description of the skills, understandings and knowledge in the sequence in
13
which they typically develop for students. By documenting and disseminating their learning in
the form of this vertical map teachers had a lasting artifact of what algebraic learning looks like
and sounds like across the grade levels.
Summary of Lesson Study Literature Review
Many of the studies included in the literature review found positive outcomes for using
lesson study but future research needs to be done to evaluate lesson study in terms of each of the
seven features of effective PD including being content focused, collaborative, reflective, using
active learning, models of effective practice, and expert support over a sustained duration
(Darling-Hammond et al. 2017). The current research presents evidence that lesson study
provides teachers with a framework to engage in collaborative and reflective work to improve
their practices. Not only are teachers improving their content knowledge and pedagogy, but they
are analyzing student learning and using that information to revise and create more effective
lessons. The literature reviewed showed the effectiveness of this process across content areas and
grade levels as the studies were conducted in elementary schools and secondary schools. Further
research is needed on the effectiveness of video recording as part of the process to determine
how lesson study might best be used with teams who are not all on site. While each aspect of
lesson study was found to have benefits, the time spent in collaborative planning and reflection
had greater impact in some studies than the time spent in lesson observation so the role of
teachers during this activity needs to be further studied as well.
While the lesson study process could work equally well in any content area, the majority
of lesson study research has been done in math and science contexts and there are differences in
how literacy and math are learned that may make it more challenging for the teachers observing
the lesson to evaluate, reflect and discuss the effectiveness of the collaboratively designed lesson
14
in literacy. Additionally, the popularity of lesson study in Japan and other countries may not
translate as well to the American culture with our focus on competition over collaboration, but in
schools that operate as professional learning communities and engage regularly in collaborative
processes this may help maximize outcomes for teachers, both preservice and in-service. While it
definitely has promise, the effectiveness of lesson study as a form of professional development
that changes practices requires is yet to be determined and requires further research.
Change Management
I reviewed the literature on organizational change to broaden my perspective on how
lesson study might support teachers in the process of changing their practices, first seeking out
articles that contained different frameworks for viewing change in order to use them as a source
for making comparisons. I then assessed other literature on organizational change through the
lens of an educator, thinking specifically about which articles were especially pertinent to the
kind of mandated external change that is often put upon schools, as well as those articles
pertinent to the kind of grass roots bottom-up change that happens when teachers seek to
improve their practice. Finally, I considered the fact that teams are the building blocks of many
organizations, including schools, and lesson study is done collaboratively in teams so I was
interested to see if the current research is addressing how change may affect teams and how
teams may affect the change.
When using the lesson study model of professional development, the primary goal is for
teachers to gain content and pedagogical knowledge which will change and improve their
instructional practices. Louis and Marks (1998) conducted a mixed methods study of 144
teachers at 24 schools and found those teachers who participated in collaborative reflective
dialogue focused on student learning were more likely to have authentic changes in pedagogy
15
than those teachers who did not participate. Other models of professional development such as
attending conferences, workshops, book clubs and peer observation do not allow for teachers to
“try out” the new learning within the context of the professional development thereby allowing
the knowing-doing gap to grow. As Darling Hammond (2017) defined professional development
as learning that results in changes in practices we must understand more about change
management theory to evaluate the effectiveness of lesson study to actually change teachers’
instructional practices.
The knowledge gained from the literature review on organizational change emerged into
four themes after reading and reflecting. Studies below are organized and reviewed based on the
points they address within the three themes of continuous change, frameworks for studying
change, and internal reaction to external mandated change.
Continuous Change
The first theme that emerged while reviewing the literature was the concept that change is
not episodic, but rather continuous. Tsoukas and Chia (2002) present organizational change as a
normal condition of organizational life. They claim organizations are by definition a product and
site of change, a continuous flux of human action. This idea of continuous change is different
than many frameworks which discuss episodes of change, implying there are also time periods of
stability without change. Tsoukas and Chia suggest organizations focus on “organizational
becoming,” an ongoing process of accommodation of experiences, beliefs and habits of action
(Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). This aligns with Weick & Quinn’s (1999) idea that we are always in the
middle of things because sensemaking has no beginning and no end. Weick & Quinn (1999)
investigate organizational change from the lens of two dichotomous descriptions, continuous
change, which is evolving and incremental, and episodic change, which is intermittent. The
16
presence of inertia underlies the two descriptions and determines the strategies used to manage
each of the two kinds of change.
Hannan & Freeman (1984) also study inertia in that organizations either adapt to their
environment or remain inert. Some parts of the organization change more quickly than others
and the core is more difficult to modify than the peripheries of the organization. The authors
investigate the premise that organizations are subject to strong inertial forces and may or may not
be able to succeed in making radical changes in strategy and structure in the face of
environmental threats. The argument is that despite inertia from environmental turbulence,
modern societies favor organizations that can reliably produce collective action. Small
organizations are more likely to attempt radical change than large ones but are also more likely
to die in the process.
Langenberg and Wesseling (2016) build on Karl Weick’s core concepts and develop the
idea that organizing is a flexible, dynamic, ongoing mental model. This article examines how
managers and employees signal interruption, misunderstanding, failure, mistakes, conflict, and
contradiction. Leaders have the job of managing sense and sharing meaning.
Frameworks for Studying Change
Much of the literature is less concerned with continuous change and more concerned with
frameworks for studying identifiable periods of change, such as that expected of teachers when
adopting new curriculum or instructional strategies learned in PD. Salerno & Brock’s (2008)
book The Change Cycle is comprised of six stages that a person goes through in any type of
change, whether it be personal or professional. Stories of organizations going through massive
change are used to exemplify some stages and stories of individuals going through life transitions
are used in others. The stages are moving from loss to safety, doubt to reality, discomfort to
17
motivation, discovery to perspective, and finally understanding the benefits of change and
integrating the experience. The analogy of a stop light is used throughout the process as you need
to stop in the initial stages, proceed slowly and cautiously in the middle stages, and then finally
move ahead in the final stages.
Mitchell (2013) studied nurses who are challenged to implement a variety of changes.
This article compares three change theories and discusses how and when to use each. The first is
Lewin’s framework which involves three stages of unfreezing, moving and refreezing while
Rogers’ framework is broken into five stages of awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and
adoption. The bulk of the article shows how nursing practices align most closely with the third
change theory, which is Lippitt’s four stage framework of assessment, planning, implementation,
and evaluation. While all three theories are applicable to education, Lippitt’s framework is
actually cited most often in educational change.
Knoster, Villa and Thousand (2000) use a framework for thinking about system change
that requires five elements in order for change to be sustained successfully. Those elements
include vision, skills, incentives, resources and an action plan (Figure 2). If even one of those
five elements is missing the change will not be sustained successfully and will instead result in
frustration, resistance, anxiety or confusion.
Figure 2 Model for Managing Complex Change
18
Ely (1990) goes into even more detail and breaks the stages down further, describing
eight conditions that are needed in order for educational technology innovations to be adopted
and fully implemented. The conditions include dissatisfaction with the status quo, knowledge
and skills, resources, time, rewards, participation, commitment, and leadership. While the model
is applied specifically to technology adoption in the article, many of the categories align with
those in Hord and Roussin’s (2013) Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) and can be
applied to areas outside technology adoption. CBAM categorizes levels of concern about
implementing a proposed change. There are seven broad categories, in which people go from
considering themselves, the change and the organization. The seven categories of CBAM are
awareness, informational, personal, management, consequence, collaboration and refocusing.
Using CBAM helps school leaders to understand, predict, and address teacher concerns and
reactions. It can also give leaders a tool to help both individuals and teams manage change.
Goodson (2001) takes a socio-historical perspective on educational change in recent
decades. In the 1960s and 1970s teachers initiated and promoted educational change so he calls
19
this the period of internal change. Then in the 1980s and 1990s the change became external as
teachers responded to mandated change instead of initiating change themselves. In the new
millennium we’ve entered an era of personal change where we see both internal and external
change and teachers must fit their own goals and purposes in alignment with the reform in order
for them to make changes in their classroom practice. When this happens Goodson calls it
integrated theory because there is a balance between the internal, external and personal
segments.
House and McQuillan (2005) also take a historical look at change in education. They
categorize three perspectives on school reform and claim most research done on school reform in
the past few decades are characterized by these perspectives. The technological perspective
focuses on production, economics and efficiency. The political perspective involves negotiation,
political science and authority. The cultural perspective focuses on community, anthropology
and cultural integrity. Fully understanding school reform necessitates considering all three
perspectives, but House and McQuillan claim most reform efforts tackle only one of the three
perspectives and eventually fail because they’ve neglected the other factors. In Goodson (2001)
terms, the technological and political perspectives are both external forces while the cultural
perspective falls somewhere between internal and personal.
The final framework for studying organizational change is presented by Wiggins and
McTighe (2007) who build their model of schooling by design on the premise of understanding
by design. There are three main stages and the first step is to identify desired results. In this stage
schools must determine their long term goal and ensure that all stakeholders have a shared
vision. Next they must determine acceptable evidence by using data to present where they are
now and decide what data they will use as evidence of results to show their progress in the
20
future. Finally they must plan actions to achieve goals, both short term and long term. This starts
them in a cycle of action research in which they act on their plan, get data as feedback then
adjust the plan and continue acting and collecting evidence, which aligns nicely with the lesson
study process.
Mandated Change
Mandated change is rampant in the field of education and must be considered because not
all professional development is at the teacher’s choosing so lesson study may be a vehicle to
address mandated change. Coch and French (1948) investigate resistance by looking at a case
study of Harwood Manufacturing Corporation, a production company whose employees’ resist
organizational changes to their jobs and methods of operations. The theory was that resistance is
a combination of individual reaction and strong group-induced forces. The study concluded that
management can mitigate resistance by the intervention of group meetings to facilitate group
participation. Most professional development is done either as whole staff or individually so
lesson study’s team approach may be suited to addressing resistance in this way.
Ellsworth (2000) also discussed resistance in his book that looks at change in education
and also touches on contributions from outside the field of education. The chapters discuss
strategies for educational change, change communication models, Roger’s Diffusion of
Innovations, Ely's Conditions of Change, and Fullan and Stiegelbauer's New Meaning of
Educational Change. It explains concepts such as the change process, the intended adopter, and
resistance to change. He describes resistance as the interference component in the change
communication model and acknowledges that it may come from cultural, social, organizational
or individual factors. He also clarifies that while resistance may initially oppose the change and
21
inhibit implementation, it also provides valuable feedback that could bring to light issues that
need to be addressed in order for lasting organizational change to occur.
Richardson and Placier (2001) propose two approaches to organizational change, one of
which deals with resistance. The empirical-rational approach describes mandated change that is
determined by administrators or policy makers and teachers are told about the change and
expected to implement it. This makes the change difficult and teachers are often blamed for the
failure to change due to their resistance. However, in the normative-reeducative approach the
change originates with any individuals involved in the process (so it could be teachers or
administrators) and the change is enhanced by deep reflection on beliefs and practices. Dialogue
such as that in lesson study PD is considered critical in this approach so teachers or other critical
friends help develop the necessary understanding for the change to be sustained.
Albright, Clement and Holmes (2012) also spoke of mandated change and identified
three reasons why it is often unsuccessful. Teacher interpretation of mandated change comes
with a sense of compulsion, meaning they are only doing it out of compliance because they have
to, but not because they believe it is best practices. The second reason is there is often a lack of
time for meaning making because the proposed changes must be implemented before the
teachers fully understand what to do, much less why to do it. Finally, there is a perception that
there is now a transitory nature to school reform because so many mandates have hit teachers
that they view them as a passing thing that will disappear if they can just outlast it. This idea was
labeled presentism by Lortie in 1975 and described as short term thinking and acting that must be
addressed by leaders trying to implement sustainable change in schools. Wiggins and McTighe’s
(2007) schooling by designs addresses presentism by using backward design to create a vision
22
then work backwards to achieve it. Their research in schools found backward design negated
some of the effects of presentism.
Finally, Michael Fullan (2008), who is recognized as the leading expert in change in
education, expands on McGregor’s Theory X and Y work from 1960. Theory X is that people are
inherently lazy and dislike work so must be supervised closely. Theory Y states people will put
in extra effort if the work is meaningful and they are supported by leaders and peers. Fullan
encourages leaders trying to change organizations to use Theory Y as the first point of entry
because systems don’t change themselves; individuals change systems acting individually and
together. Fullan describes top-down and bottom-up theories. In education top down theory is
seen as mandated change that comes from government policy change, school board directives or
new principals with agendas and eventually effects teachers in their classrooms. Bottom up
theory is teacher initiated change that has positive effects on student learning which is picked up
on by principals and school boards and spread to have impact at the school, district and possibly
national level. Fullan claims that strategies that combine both top down and bottom up theories
are more likely to succeed because they provide necessary perspective and direction but give
local capacity to respond to and feed into overall direction.
Goodman and Loh (2011) was the only article to specifically review organizational
change from the perspective of team performance and effectiveness. Team leaders should value
expressions of resistance as an opening to dialogue and constructive discussion on future
directions for the organization. Effective change management requires that leaders be flexible
enough and understand the Kubler-Ross Change Curve (Figure 3) as a tool to use as a diagnostic
or guide when dealing with change, employee resistance and the desire for improved team
performance. They remind us that all change involves people and while change can be
23
emotionally demanding, it can also give people an opportunity for renewal. Change can actually
strengthen teams if they have the tools to support them through each stage of the process.
Figure 3 The Kubler-Ross Change Curve
Summary of Change Management Literature Review
One very important consideration is the locus of change. When external change is
mandated, the employees go through a different process, often with much more resistance, than
when the change is bottom-up. This affects their reaction to change, the time they spend in the
different stages and ultimately the sustainability of the change. In education massive amounts of
mandated change has resulted in reform fatigue in many schools so more research could be done
on how this phenomena is correlated with change.
The literature is rich in frameworks for viewing and managing change. While many are
geared towards helping managers know how to manage employees during change, there has also
been plenty of work done that would apply to any individual going through change. There are far
fewer articles that propose frameworks for teams going through change. This is an area for future
24
research. Because there are so many different theoretical frameworks it would also be useful for
practical applications if research was done comparing different frameworks so leaders, teams and
individuals would be better equipped with the appropriate tool during change.
Collective Efficacy
This literature review continues by not only exploring lesson study and change
management but also reviewing the literature on collective efficacy in order to learn more about
lesson study as a form of PD to cultivate collective teacher efficacy and thereby improve student
achievement. Empirical evidence shows collective teacher efficacy, defined as the “collective
self-perception that teachers in a given school make an educational difference to their students
over and above the educational impact of their homes and communities” (Donohoo, 2017), is
three times more powerful and predictive than socio-economic status (Goddard, Hoy & Hoy,
2004; Hattie, 2012). When examining educational outcomes through the lens of social equity,
one of the major factors to consider is student socioeconomic status. Educators must question our
practices to determine what we could do to help mitigate the effect of low socioeconomic status.
Educators with high collective efficacy focus on student struggles and show persistence and a
willingness to change and try new teaching approaches because they know it impacts student
learning. According to Cochran-Smith et al (2015) learning to teach is an inherently social
activity that occurs within a community of practice and lesson study has the potential to enhance
that community of practice and impact team collective efficacy through the PD process.
The concept of professional collaboration and learning communities was taken from the
business world and has become commonplace in the rhetoric about educational reform. In the
past decade the concept of professional learning communities have had important implications
for policy, practice and research (Marsh & Huguet, 2015). The underlying assumption of
25
professional learning communities is that peer collaboration around student data has the potential
to transform teaching practices in ways that will lead to higher student achievement (Riveros,
Newton & Burgess, 2012). Strong professional communities within schools was associated with
an increased sense of collective responsibility for student learning, a school attribute related to
gains in student achievement on standardized tests (Louis & Marks, 1996). Studies show that
teacher participation in collaborative inquiry such as that which is experienced in lesson study
may have positive effects on instruction (Marsh, Bertrand & Huguet, 2015).
Tasa, Taggar and Seijts (2007) define collective efficacy as “a team’s shared perception
of its capability to successfully perform a specific task.” Collective efficacy does for teams what
self-efficacy does for individuals. This research focused on the antecedents or determinants of
collective efficacy. The authors studied 191 business students working in teams to see if
aggregated teamwork behavior is positively correlated to collective efficacy and if collective
efficacy is positively correlated to subsequent team performance. Three factors that were found
to impact the extent to which an individual displays teamwork behavior are task-relevant
knowledge, self-efficacy and initial collective efficacy. The study results support the theoretical
idea that “emergent states such as collective efficacy are not processes in and of themselves
because they do not describe how group members interact while contributing to goal
accomplishment. Rather, teamwork behaviors serve as inputs into the collective development of
perceptions of group capability” (Tasa et al, 2007). Practical implications are that leaders
creating self-managing teams could improve collective efficacy by selecting members with high
task-relevant knowledge and self-efficacy for teamwork. Then, as the team is learning together,
for example during lesson study, leaders should highlight the perception of early success within
the team in order to accelerate collective efficacy.
26
Donohoo (2016) defines collective efficacy (CE) as the belief that, through collective
actions, educators can influence student outcomes and increase achievement. She presents
collective efficacy as a function of past experiences plus environmental factors. Educators with
high collective efficacy willingly focus on student struggles because they believe they can
impact them and they show persistence when trying new teaching approaches. Research shows
that collective teacher efficacy has three times the impact on student achievement as
socioeconomic status, parental involvement and student motivation and twice the impact of
feedback and prior achievement. Teachers with high collective efficacy are change agents who
identify problems and collaboratively problem solve because they believe what they do matters.
Where efficacy is present teachers are more likely to implement research based strategies with
fidelity and persist through the challenges of adopting new curriculum and practices.
Stajkovic, Lee and Nyberg (2009) first distinguish between collective efficacy and group
potency then look at their link to group performance. Collective efficacy is task-specific whereas
group potency refers to a shared belief about general team capability across multiple situations.
This is a slightly different definition than other studies in this literature review. Their work is
important to consider because the meta-analysis included a sample of 69 studies, which
contained 4,250 groups and 18,891 individuals. Of those 69 studies, 18% measured perceived
collective efficacy through group discussions but the preferred method was found to be
measuring collective efficacy through aggregation of individual assessment. Overall, collective
efficacy was found to be positively related to group performance even after outlier analysis.
Tekleab, Quigley and Tesluk (2009) collected data from 53 teams and found that conflict
management has a direct positive effect on team cohesion, which improves performance,
satisfaction and team viability. They studied both task conflict, which is a cognitive construct,
27
and relationship conflict, which is a socioemotional construct. Overcoming conflict is important
in developing team collective efficacy and of the two categories relationship conflict was found
to be more negatively associated with team effectiveness. The relationship conflict between team
members uses attentional and emotional resources and restricts open discussion of ideas. This is
important to remember when conducting lesson study with teams who function together outside
of the lesson study context and bring with them any conflicts they may be experiencing in other
contexts.
Alliger et al. (2015) distinguish individual resilience from the less studied construct of
team resilience and define team resilience as the capacity of a team to withstand and overcome
stressors and sustain performance without endangering their cohesiveness. They investigate
many common team challenges such as time pressure, difficult assignments, insufficient
resources, interpersonal conflicts, lack of control, crisis events and ambiguity. They found a
group of resilient individuals does not make a resilient team, but rather use a framework of
“minimize, manage and mend” to describe the behavioral strategies exhibited by resilient teams.
First they minimize at the onset of a problem by planning for and avoiding the problems they
can, and reducing the impact of unavoidable problems. Next they manage the difficult
circumstances by addressing chronic stressors, maintaining basic processes under stress,
providing assistance to each other and seeking guidance by deferring to expertise over rank.
Finally, they mend by debriefing, learning from the experience and expressing appreciation.
Teams could be made up of individuals with high levels of resilience but if they do not function
as a team going through this process those individuals may not have team resilience, which will
impact future performance. Change is hard and this team resilience may help teams going
through changes in practices during lesson study.
28
Methodology
Mertens (2009) claims there is a place at which research and evaluation intersect when
research provides information about the need for, improvement of, or effects of programs or
policies in education. While lesson study is not exactly a program or policy it is with Merten’s
assertion in mind that I set out to design a research study that will evaluate the effectiveness of
lesson study in terms of changing teacher practices and building collective efficacy.
Research Design
In choosing how to collect data for this nonexperimental design I was reminded of Jim
Collins, business consultant and author, who explains choosing between seemingly contradictory
concepts leads to missed opportunities so we should embrace the positive aspects of both sides of
a dichotomy. He speaks of choosing the genius of “and” over the tyranny of “or” (Collins &
Porras, 1997) and so this proposed study will combine quantitative and qualitative data to answer
a broader range of questions and increase the depth of understanding on lesson study. Kamil,
Pearson, Moje, & Afflerbach (2011) assert our field has experienced a shift toward mixed
methods designs because “what works for whom, and when is increasingly taken up by those
interested in student learning” (p. xviii). Duke & Mallette (2004) encourage finding synergy
across research methodologies which can be achieved within a well-designed mixed method
research study.
Participants
Mason Crest Elementary is a diverse Title 1 school in Annandale, Virginia with 550
students in pre-K through fifth grade. Approximately 60% of students are English language
learners coming from dozens of different birth countries and over half the students are on free or
reduced lunch. Participating in the study will be six teams of teachers consisting of 35 classroom,
29
ESOL and special education teachers who would participate in lesson study throughout the 2018-
2019 and 2019-2020 school years. Two literacy specialists will serve as the “knowledgeable
other” facilitating the lesson study and coaching the teachers long term. Three administrators are
in charge of making budget decisions for professional development funding and they also
observe and evaluate teacher practices throughout the year. In the 2018-2019 school year the
school used grant money to begin the lesson study process (Figure 4) and that pilot may be
included as part of this proposed research study.
Figure 4 Logic Model of Lesson Study Professional Development at Mason Crest Elementary
30
Data Collection and Analysis
This convergent parallel design will include separate quantitative and qualitative data
collection then the two sets of results will be merged for interpretation and analysis.
I will conduct surveys before, at the conclusion of, and several months after each team’s lesson
study PD to collect quantitative data and will hold focus groups at the conclusion of each team’s
lesson study PD to collect qualitative data. During the data analysis I will find units of meaning
within the focus group reflections and cluster them to form themes and triangulate with the
quantitative data.
During the 2018-2019 school year I piloted some data collection that may be included
into the proposed study. The survey included the questions I crafted about change management
using Knoster’s (2000) framework for managing sustained complex change and questions about
collective efficacy based on Tschannen-Moran’s (2001) collective teacher beliefs scale.
31
Literacy References
Beretvas, S. N. (2004). Using hierarchical linear modeling for literacy research under No Child
Left Behind. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 95-99.
Chard, D., Vaughn, S., Tykler, B. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for
building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 35(5), 386-406.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2019).
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RF/K/
Cunningham, J. W. (2001). [Essay book review of NICHD. (2000). The Report of the National
Reading Panel. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office]. Reading Research
Quarterly, 36, 326-335. doi:10.1598/RRQ.36.3.5
Duke, N. K., & Mallette, M. H. (Eds.). (2011). Literacy research methodologies (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Guilford.
Edmonds, M., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Cable, A., Klinger, K., Wick, J. (2009). A
synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for
older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 262-300.
Fairfax County Public Schools Region 2 and 3 Literacy Summit handout October 2014.
Kamil, M. (2012). Current and historical perspectives on reading research and instruction. In
K.R. Harris, S. Graham, and T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook:
Vol. 3. Application to learning and teaching. American Psychological Association.
Kamil, M. L., Pearson, P. D., Moje, E. B., & Afflerbach, P. P. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of
reading research (Vol. IV). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lenz, B., Ehren,B., Deshier, D. (2005). The Content Literacy Continuum: A School Reform
32
Framework for Improving Adolescent Literacy for All Students. Teaching Exceptional
Children 37(6), 60-63.
Leu, D. J. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education in an
information age. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.),
Handbook of research in reading (Vol. III, pp. 743–770). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lomax, R. G. (2004). Whither the future of quantitative literacy research? Reading Research
Quarterly, 39, 107-112.
Metsala, J. (1997). Effective primary grades literacy instruction = Balanced literacy instruction.
The Reading Teacher, 50(6)518-521
McGill-Franzen, A. (2000). The Relationship Between Reading Policy and Reading Instruction:
A Recent History. Albany, NY: National Research Center on English Learning &
Achievement
Pearson, P.D. (2004). The reading wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 216-252.
Pressley, M., Roehrig, A., Bogner, K. (2002). Balanced Literacy Instruction. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 34(5), 1-14.
Shanahan, T. (2003). Research-based reading instruction: Myths about the National Reading
Panel report. The Reading Teacher, 56, 646-655.
Shannon, P. (1983). The Use of Commercial Reading Materials in American Elementary
Schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(1), 68-85.
Stanovich, K. E. (1990). A call for an end to the paradigm wars in reading research. Journal of
Reading Behavior, 22, 221-231. doi:10.1080/10862969009547708
Stanovich, K. E. (1998). Twenty-five years of research on the reading processes: The grand
synthesis and what it means for our field. Yearbook of the National Reading Conference,
33
47, 44-58.
Tierney, R. J. (2014). Mapping the challenges and changes in literacy research. Yearbook of the
Literacy Research Association, 63, 32-47.
Van Kleeck, A., & Schuele, C.M. (2010). Historical perspectives on literacy in early childhood.
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19, 341-355.
Venezky, R. (1987). A history of American reading textbooks. The Elementary School Journal,
87(3), 246-265.
Yatvin, J. (2002). Babes in the woods: The wanderings of the National Reading Panel. Phi Delta
Kappan, 83, 364-369.
Lesson Study References
Birenbaum, M.,Kimron, H., & Shilton, H. (2011). Nested contexts that shape assessment for
learning: School-based professional learning community and classroom culture. Studies
in Educational Evaluation, 37, 35-48.
Cajkler, W., Wood, P., Norton, J., Peddler, D., & Xu, H. (2015). Teacher perspectives about
lesson study in secondary school departments: a collaborative vehicle for professional
learning and practice development. Research Papers in Education, 30(2), 192-213.
Cheng, W., & Wong, W. (2014). Does Lesson Study work? A systematic review on the effects
of Lesson Study and Learning Study on teachers and students. International Journal for
Lesson and Learning Studies, 3(2), 137-149.
Cohan, A., & Honigsfeld, A. (2006). Incorporating ‘Lesson Study’ in teacher preparation. The
Education Forum, 71(1), 81-94.
Curcio, F. R. (2002). A user’s guide to Japanese lesson study: Ideas for improving mathematics
teaching. Reston, VA: NCTM.
34
Darling-Hammond, L. Hyler, M. & Gardner, M. (2017) Effective teacher professional
development. Palo Alto, CA. Learning Policy Institute
Dewey, J. (1938/1963). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Donohoo, J. (2016). Collective Efficacy: How Educators’ Beliefs Impact Student Learning.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Koutsouris, G., Norwich, B., Fujita, T., Ralph, T., Adlam, A. & Milton, F. (2017). Piloting a
dispersed and inter-professional Lesson Study using technology to link team members at
a distance. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(5), 587-599.
Lewis, C. (2002). Lesson study: a band-book of teacher-led instructional change. Philadelphia:
Research for Better Schools.
Norwich, B., & Ylonen, A. (2015). A design-based trial of Lesson Study for assessment
purposes: evaluating a new classroom based dynamic assessment approach. European
Journal of Special Needs Education, 30(2), 253-273.
Piaget, J. (1936). Origins of intelligence in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Suh, J., & Seshaiyer, P. (2015). Examining teachers’ understanding of the mathematical learning
progression through vertical articulation during Lesson Study. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 18(3), 207-229.
Voogta, J., Pietersb, J., & Handelzaltsc, A. (2016). Teacher collaboration in curriculum design
teams: effects, mechanisms, and conditions. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(3),
121-140.
Change Management References
35
Albright, J., Clement, J. & Holmes, K. (2012). School change and the challenge of presentism.
Leading and Managing 18(1), 78-90.
Bloodgood, J., & Morrow, J. (2000). Strategic Organizational Change within an Institutional
Framework. Journal of Managerial Issues, 12(2), 208-226. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40604305
Coch, L., & French, J. R. P. (1948). Overcoming Resistance to Change. Human Relations, 1(4),
512–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674800100408
Eacott, S. (2008).Strategy in education leadership: In search of unity, Journal of Educational
Administration. 48(3) 363-375.
Ellsworth, J. (2000), Surviving Change: A Survey of Educational Change Models. ERIC
Clearinghouse. Syracuse, NY. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED443417.pdf
Ely, D. P. (1990). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology
innovations. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23 (2), 298-305.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1990.10781963
Fullan, M. (2008). The Six Secrets of Change: What the best leaders do to help their
organizations survive and thrive. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA.
Goodman, E., & Loh, L. (2011). Organizational change: A critical challenge for team
effectiveness. Business Information Review, 28(4), 242–250.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0266382111427087
Goodson, I. (2001). Social histories of educational change. Journal of educational change. 2(1)
46-63.
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. (1996). Understanding Radical Organizational Change: Bringing
Together the Old and the New Institutionalism. The Academy of Management Review,
36
21(4), 1022-1054. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/259163
Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural Inertia and Organizational Change. American
Sociological Review, 49(2), 149-164. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095567
Hord, S. & Roussin, J. (2013). Implementing change through learning: concerns based concepts,
tools and strategies for guiding change. Corwin Press. Thousand Oaks, CA.
House, E. & McQuillan, P. (2005). Three perspectives on school reform: the roots of educational
change. International Handbook of educational change. Dordrecht: New York, NY.
Knoster, T., Villa, R., & Thousand, J. (2000). A framework for thinking about systems change.
In R.A.Villa & J.S. Thousand (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and effective education:
Piecing the puzzle together. Paul H. Brookes. Baltimore, MD.
Kuhn, T. (1962/1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lewis, C. (2002). Lesson study: a band-book of teacher-led instructional change. Philadelphia:
Research for Better Schools.
Lewis, L. & Sahay, S. (2017). “Organizational Change.” The International Encyclopedia of
Organizational Communication. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Langenberg, S & Wesseling, H. (2016). Making sense of Weick’s organizing. Philosophy of
Management. 15(3), p 221-240.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40926-016-0040-z
Mitchell, G. (2013). Selecting the best theory to implement planned change. Nursing
37
Management 20(1), p.32-37.
http://home.nwciowa.edu/publicdownload/Nursing%20Department%5CNUR310%5CSel
ecting%20the%20Best%20Theory%20to%20Implement%20Planned%20Change.pdf
Penuel, W., Sussex, W., & Korbak, C. (2006) Investigating the Potential of Using Social
Network Analysis in Educational Evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(4),
437-451. DOI: 10.1177/1098214006294307
Prosci Inc. (2017). The History and Future of Change Management. Retrieved from:
https://www.prosci.com/resources/articles/change-management-history-and-future
Richardson, V. & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. Handbook of research on teaching, Fourth
edition. Washington, D.C. American Educational Research Association.
Salerno, A. & Brock, L. (2008). The Change Cycle: How People Can Survive and Thrive in
Organizational Change. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. San Francisco, CA
Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking Organizational
Change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567–582.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.5.567.7810
Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational Change and Development Annual Review
of Psychology, 50(1), 361–386. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.361
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2007). Schooling by design: Mission, action and achievement.
Association for Supervision and curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA
Collective Efficacy References
Alliger, G., Cerasoli, C., Tannenbaum, S. & Vessey, W. (2015). Team Resilience: How teams
flourish under pressure. Organizational Dynamics.44, 176-184.
Donohoo, J. (2016) Collective Efficacy: How educators beliefs impact student learning. Corwin
38
Press. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Giles, C. and Hargreaves, A. (2006).The sustainability of innovative schools as learning
organizations and professional learning communities during standardized reform.
Educational administration Quarterly, 42(1), 124-15.
Goddard, R., Hoy, W., Hoy, A. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments,
empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3-13.
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge. New
York, NY.
Louis, K., Marks, H. (1996). Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers' work
and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 106(4),
532-575
Marsh, J., Bertrand, M., Huguet, A. (2015). Using data to alter instructional practice: The
mediating role of coaches and professional learning communities. Teachers College
Record, 117(4), 1-40.
Riveros, G., Newton, P., and Burgess, D. (2012) A situated account of teacher agency and
learning: Critical reflections on professional learning communities. Canadian Journal of
Education, 35(1), 202-216.
Stajkovic, A., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A. (2009). Collective Efficacy, Group Potency, and Group
Performance: Meta-Analyses of Their Relationships and Test of a Mediation Model.
Journal of Applied Psychology.94(3), 814-828.
Sun, M., Loeb, s., & Grissam, J. (2017). Building Teacher Teams: Evidence of Positive
Spillovers From More Effective Colleagues. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
39(1), 104–125. DOI:103102/0162373716665698
39
Tasa, K., Taggar, S. & Seijts, G. (2007).The Develpoment of Collective Efficacy in Teams: A
multilevel and longitudinal perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 17-27.
Tekleab, A., Quigley, N. & Tesluk, P. (2009). A Longitudinal Study of Team Conflict, Conflict
Management, Cohesion, and Team Effectiveness. Group & Organization
Management.34(2), 170-205.
Vescio, V. (2007). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on
teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80-91.
Voogta, J., Pietersb, J. & Handelzaltsc, A. (2016). Teacher collaboration in curriculum design
teams: effects, mechanisms, and conditions. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(3),
121-140. DOI:10.1080/13803611.2016.1247725
Methodology References
Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1997). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New
York: HarperBusiness.
Mallette, M. H., & Duke, N. K. (2004). Literacy research methodologies. New York: Guilford
Press.
Mentzer, G., Czerniak, C. & Struble, J (2014). Utilizing program theory and contribution
analysis to evaluate the development of science teacher leaders. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 42, 100-108.
Mertens, D. M., & Wilson, A. T. (2012). Program evaluation theory and practice: A
comprehensive guide. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
40

Knowledge Essay Portfolio 3

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Knowledge Essay Portfolio 3

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Knowledge Essay Portfolio 3

since reading comprehension is the linchpin of academic achievement in the application of

fund compensatory education programs to supplement reading instruction for disadvantaged

Statement of the Problem

schools accountable through mandated student assessments and program evaluations

education (Simpson, 2007)?

support over a sustained duration (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). Models of PD such as

inspire lasting changes in teacher practices.

observation by colleagues and guests, analytic reflection, and ongoing revision.

Figure 1 The Lesson Study Process

instructional practices in the new pacing guide.

research questions will guide the study:

building collective efficacy among a team of teachers?

The databases Academic Search Complete, AP PsychNet, Education Research Complete,

teachers are learning practices through participation in collaborative activity. According to

community of learners. This community of learners will be especially important to consider

teams experiencing lesson study.

lesson study, change management, and collective efficacy.

and revision, and documentation.

approach was beneficial ot their professional growth.

their peers in action.

Academy for Driving Economic Revitalization in Science (LEADERS). It consisted of Project

Analytic Reflection and Revision

that affect student achievement rather than blame it on pupil characteristics.

sustained commitment lesson study shows promise.

Documentation and Dissemination

and sounds like across the grade levels.

Summary of Lesson Study Literature Review

teachers during this activity needs to be further studied as well.

I reviewed the literature on organizational change to broaden my perspective on how

teams may affect the change.

change, and internal reaction to external mandated change.

becoming,” an ongoing process of accommodation of experiences, beliefs and habits of action

each of the two kinds of change.

to die in the process.

Frameworks for Studying Change

change, whether it be personal or professional. Stories of organizations going through massive

move ahead in the final stages.

actually cited most often in educational change.

frustration, resistance, anxiety or confusion.

Figure 2 Model for Managing Complex Change

awareness, informational, personal, management, consequence, collaboration and refocusing.

Goodson (2001) takes a socio-historical perspective on educational change in recent

perspective falls somewhere between internal and personal.

study of Harwood Manufacturing Corporation, a production company whose employees’ resist

participation. Most professional development is done either as whole staff or individually so

strategies for educational change, change communication models, Roger’s Diffusion of

resistance to change. He describes resistance as the interference component in the change

need to be addressed in order for lasting organizational change to occur.

some of the effects of presentism.

local capacity to respond to and feed into overall direction.

expressions of resistance as an opening to dialogue and constructive discussion on future

Figure 3 The Kubler-Ross Change Curve

Summary of Change Management Literature Review

on how this phenomena is correlated with change.

learning. According to Cochran-Smith et al (2015) learning to teach is an inherently social

aggregated teamwork behavior is positively correlated to collective efficacy and if collective

the team in order to accelerate collective efficacy.

important to consider because the meta-analysis included a sample of 69 studies, which

measuring collective efficacy through aggregation of individual assessment. Overall, collective

and relationship conflict, which is a socioemotional construct. Overcoming conflict is important

circumstances by addressing chronic stressors, maintaining basic processes under stress,

through changes in practices during lesson study.