nine.- :1
{3.2.24.-

913%“:

. 9‘ IA‘-: 5»
.u to.

1... I13... u...
. Qaulilvti$Ilhn3

‘1.

r. I. ant-whoa". hg’...
1“. gun“. .I Mu
.,\

i
t u: .3. 3%
ad's n 5".”u1nu... a
.. . . 1!. .Ix
Ib‘ut.;\)lul

. $\. .
l5 .{urititi‘zt‘i2itll
In! :3 137:3..“11‘1 .2.

u "a:

 

tO\O LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

EARLY LITERACY ASSESSMENT AS A CATALYST IN THE
EVOLUTION AND FUNCTION OF SHARED LEADERSHIP
AND THE EXECUTION OF LOCAL REFORM

presented by

LISA MARGHERITA SENSALE

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

..i_._v_.----.-.—.-.—.- _ r

PhD. degree in Educational Psychology and
Educational Technology

”(fig—x

V Major Professorgé/Srgnature

 

 

 

 

December 17, 2009

 

Date

.---o—-a--c-----I—--o-o-

MSU is an Afiinnative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:/PrqlAcc&Pres/CIRCIDateDue.indd

 

EARLY LITERACY ASSESSMENT AS A CATALYST IN THE EVOLUTION AND
FUNCTION OF SHARED LEADERSHIP AND THE EXECUTION OF LOCAL
REFORM
By

Lisa Margherita Sensale

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Educational Psychology and Educational Technology

2009

ABSTRACT

EARLY LITERACY ASSESSMENT AS A CATALYST IN THE EVOLUTION AND

FUNCTION OF SHARED LEADERSHIP AND THE EXECUTION OF LOCAL

REFORM
By
Lisa Margherita Sensale
The following dissertation employs Cultural Historical Activity Theory

(CHAT) to describe how one rural elementary school designed and implemented
a school-wide early literacy assessment system and negotiated the tensions
associated with the process. Data from this qualitative case study reveal the vital
role participation structures play in the change process. Structures, such as
agreed upon norms and division of labor, can mediate the development of
collaborative tools that facilitate staff engagement in goal directed behaviors. The
analysis illustrates how these structures helped teachers achieve consensus and
consistency as they scheduled, learned about, and reflected upon early literacy
assessments, engaged in professional development activities, documented and

Shared assessment results, celebrated their successes and ultimately managed

the accountability and instruction tension.

Copyright by
LISA MARGHERITA SENSALE
2009

To Westchester Elementary

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The pursuit of my doctoral degree1 has made me stronger and wiser than I
could have ever imagined. I am deeply indebted to many people for their insight
and encouragement during this process, but ultimately could not have completed
this journey without my dissertation committee: Dorothea Anagnostopoulos,
Robert Floden, Melinda M. Mangin, Troy V. Mariage and P. David Pearson. Of
course, I could not be where I am today without the unconditional love, support,

and patience of friends and family near and far-thank you so very much.

 

1 The work for this dissertation was supported in part by the Center for the Improvement of Early
Reading Achievement (CIERA) which was funded in part by a grant from the Office of
Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), US Department of Education (R305R7004). Any
Opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those
of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of OERI or the US Department of
Education.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. ix
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................ x
CHAPTER 1
ASSESSMENT, ACCOUNTABILITY AND SCHOOL REFORM IN AMERICA:
SETTING THE STAGE FOR THE RESEARCH STUDY ................................. 1
Structure of the Dissertation ................................................................. 5
CHAPTER 2
ILLUMINATING CONSEQUENTIAL ACTIVITY IN THE SCHOOL CHANGE
PROCESS ........................................................................................... 7
Riding the Change Waves .................................................................. 8
Outcomes-based Reform ..................................................... 13
Leaming-centered Reform .................................................... 14
Literacy Learning Communities Working on Assessment ............ 15
Reflections on Learning ....................................................... 17
Leadership in the School Change Process ........................................... 18
A Historical Perspective on Leadership ................................... 18
Building Leadership Capacity ................................................. 20
Distributed Leadership.........; ............................................... 21
Professional Learning Communities .................................................... 23
Developing a Professional Learning Community ......................... 24
Literacy Learning Communities at Work ................................... 26
Reflections on Learning ........................................................ 29
Cultural Historical Activity Theory ............................................ 29
Summary ........................................................................... 36
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 38
Overview ....................................................................................... 38
Methodological Considerations ........................................................... 38
The Context .................................................................................... 39
The Occasion for Collaboration ........................................................... 40
Tiered Level of Professional Development ............................................. 42
A Typical Core Planning Team Meeting ................................................ 43
A Typical Staff Meeting ..................................................................... 44
University Role ................................................................................ 45
Components of the School-wide Literacy Assessment System .................. 46
The School-wide Writing Assessment ...................................... 46
The School-wide Spelling Assessment ..................................... 46
The School-wide English Language Arts Assessment .................. 47

vi

The Beginning of the Change Effort .................................................... 47

The Evolution of the Study ................................................................ 48
Participants ......................................................................... 50
The Teachers ...................................................................... 50
The Principal ....................................................................... 51
The Curriculum Director ........................................................ 51
The Superintendent .............................................................. 51
My Role as a Participant-observer ........................................... 52
Research Design ........................................................................... 52
Reliability and Validity ........................................................... 53
Data Collection Procedures .................................................... 55
Data Analysis ...................................................................... 57
Methodological Limitations ..................................................... 59
CHAPTER 4
OBJECT-ORIENTED ACTIVITY SYSTEMS AND TENSIONS IN THE
PROCESS OF SCHOOL CHANGE .......................................................... 61
Overview ....................................................................................... 61
Documenting and Understanding Transformation through CHAT..61
Assessment as an Accountability and Instructional Tool .............. 66
Section Summary ........................................................................... 69
Shedding Light on the Change Process ............................................... 70
Participation Structures ........................................................ 70
Division of Labor ................................................................. 70
Rules and Norms ................................................................ 76
Section Summary ........................................................................... 80
Leading through Assessment ............................................................ 80
Scheduling Assessment ........................................................ 81
Learning About Assessment .................................................. 82
Reflecting on Assessment ..................................................... 84
Engaging in Professional Development .................................... 86
Documenting and Sharing Results .......................................... 90
Celebrating Success ............................................................ 91
Summary ...................................................................................... 92
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND CONLCUSION .......................................................... 93
Overview ......................................................................................... 93
Implications ..................................................................................... 94
Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT): An Analytical Tool. . . . . ...97
Strengths ........................................................................... 97
Weaknesses ..................................................................... 100
Future Directions ............................................................................ 100
APPENDIX A ..................................................................................... 106

vii

APPENDIX B ..................................................................................... 114

REFERENCES ............................................................. . .................... 132

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1, The Hierarchical Distribution of Components in an Activity System

(adapted from Barab et al., 2003) ............................................................ 30
Table 2, Timeline of Capstone Events ..................................................... 106
Table 3, Primary Data Sources ............................................................... 57

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1, A model activity system adapted from EngestrOm (2001) ................ 34

Figure 2, Westchester Elementary activity system prior to university
involvement (1997-1998) ....................................................................... 63

Figure 3, Westchester Elementary activity system during university
involvement (1998-2003) ....................................................................... 65

Figure 4, Interacting activity systems in third generation activity theory
adapted from EngestrOm (2001) and Yamagata-Lynch & Haudenschild

(2009) ................................................................................................ 99

CHAPTER 1
Assessment, Accountability and School Reform in America: Setting the Stage for
the Research Study

The school reform movement in America is typically described with
respect to one of two accountability models propelling policy change: external
reform models which dictate from the outside what schools must be held
accountable for and internal reform models which encourage teachers to create
and abide by their own accountability systems (Pearson, Vyas, Sensale, & Kim,
2001 ). Internal and external accountability models are generally perceived to be
diametrically opposed and essentially incompatible, but this is a rather simplistic
assumption to make about the context of educational reform. Both models have
co-existed and evolved as basic tensions or dualities (Wenger, 1998) throughout
the history of education, and schools have learned to successfully operate within
both at the same time. The belief that internal and external accountability models
exist as mutually exclusive entities is a direct result of policies that privilege one
model, and essentially one type of evidence, over another at a particular point in
time.

The accountability scale is currently tipped in favor of external models;
schools and their constituents are told exactly what they will be held accountable
for, what they have to gain if they meet or exceed the expectations, and what
they are likely to lose if they fall short of the established goals. Although such
accountability frameworks have been created with the best of intentions (e.g., the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act [ESEA], 1965; No Child Left Behind

[NCLB], 2001) they have severely undermined the complexity of educational
change by failing to acknowledge evaluation as a multidimensional, recursive
process where value judgments are influenced not only by the tools and methods
that are used, but by the audiences and purposes they are purported to serve. In
the current climate of external accountability, most stakeholders are removed
from “the best information needed to make the most ethical judgments and the
most valid decisions possible-about individuals, groups, and whole classes of
students” (Pearson et al., 200i, p. 180).

One reason that external models are favored over internal explanations for
change pertains to the way the success is generally measured. The success of a
reform effort has traditionally been calculated according to “scale” or the number
of schools reached by the initiative. Consequently, scale is largely discussed with
respect to the adoption of external reform models which are far-reaching. In spite
of efforts by some researchers to reconceptualize scale in favor of a broader
definition which focuses on the complex interactions and exchanges that support
and sustain a desired trajectory (Cobum, 2003), the research reporting on reform
efforts does not make these mediation practices visible to those not involved with
the reform effort, and on some occasions, even to those who are even most
directly involved. A second reason for why external models are preferred thus
concerns the unsteady and conflicting record of research on reform from the
inside. While enough is known about the elements of fruitful change (e.g.,
teacher prerogative, Shared visions, collaboration, instructional strategies) far

less is known about the mechanisms that mediate school improvement. For

 

example, little is known about how leaders use internal assessment systems to
mediate school-wide development and instructional change, and what that looks
like. Halverson (Halverson, 2003; Halverson, Grigg, Prichett & Thomas, 2005,
2007) has begun to build a picture of change from the inside with his examination
of how local school leaders use assessment data and other artifacts to drive
instruction and create a professional learning community. However, this picture is
still extremely limited. Little is known about the change process from the inside,
for example, when it comes to Change in literacy practices and school-wide
norms.

In FIorio-Ruane’s (2002) call to shed more light on the inner-workings of
education systems, she reminds us that, “as applied researchers in the human
sciences, we work to illuminate teaching and teacher education in an ongoing
way, and by means of sustained, expansive, responsive, critical, and multivoiced
scholarship” (p. 214). Accordingly, I argue that an expansive2 framework that
allows researchers to take a closer look at both the structures and processes of
change could contribute much to the school improvement literature.

The study described herein captures the evolution of a teacher initiated,
literacy change effort in one rural elementary school and is framed by the

following primary and supporting questions:

 

2 Grounded in principles of Cultural Historical Activity Theory, EngestrOm has put forth a model of
“expansive learning” to describe how learning communities evolve and function. The term
“expansive” signifies a process that is dynamic, iterative, social, activity oriented, and mediated
through conceptual and physical artifacts. Moreover, it represents a framework that attempts to
make the change process visible.

. How can the development of a school-wide, early literacy assessment
system serve as a catalyst in the evolution and function of Shared
leadership and the execution of local reform?

o How does the tension between assessment for accountability
and instructional purposes manifest itself during the
development of a school-wide early literacy assessment
system?

0 How does Shared leadership evolve, function and ultimately
mediate the accountability and instruction tension posed by the
creation of a school-wide, early literacy assessment system?

Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) is used to explore how teacher
commitment to an assessment guided reform effort facilitated the development of
shared understandings while simultaneously building an exceptional community
of learners and leaders. In doing so, object-oriented activity systems are taken as
the unit of analysis in order to efficiently capture the dynamics of teachers’ work
lives (i.e., relationships among individuals, resources, the rules and norms that
affect their teaching and involvement in change activities and how division of
labor is distributed among community members) and explain and understand the
outcomes of a variety of professional development activities. In short, this
endeavor is an “empirical account of a community of practice” (Barab, Barnett &
Squire, 2002), or an “existence proof" (Borko, 2004) for how school improvement
can be supported when goals, expectations, and leadership are shared. This

study supplements the reform literature by drawing attention to the systemic

 

nature of the change process and providing researchers with the tools to unpack
the motive, goals, and instrumental conditions associated with developing Shared
understandings of literacy and assessment.
Structure of the Dissertation

The chapters that follow describe school reform in greater detail,with
particular emphases on leadership and professional community in the realm of
literacy and assessment, and Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) as an
analytical tool. Chapter Two, “Illuminating Consequential Activity in the School
Change Process” paints a more pointed picture of the four bodies of literature
guiding this research and as such, represents the conceptual framework for this
study. Specifically, I present a historical account of educational reform efforts
‘ within the context of accountability, describe the leadership literature as it applies
to school change, and explore the scholarship on professional learning
communities. In the final section of the chapter I specify the components of
CHAT and explain how the theory can bridge the gap that currently exists among
the aforementioned bodies of literature and ultimately explicate assessment
driven change within a learning community. Chapter Three, “Methodology”
describes the nature of the research, including what research methods were
employed and how data were collected and analyzed. Chapter Four, “Object-
oriented Activity Systems and Tensions in the Process of School Change”
describes the findings as they relate to the conceptual framework. An activity
systems analysis, to elaborate, is applied to the data to capture the broad

patterns of activity that unfolded in one elementary school’s pursuit to build a

 

school-wide literacy assessment system and effect student learning. Moreover,
participation structures that aided in the change process are identified and
explained, as are the tensions that the teachers had to negotiate in the
assessment reform process. Chapter 5, “Conclusion and Discussion” Sheds light
on the findings by relating them to previous research and discusses implications

for future policy, practice and research.

 

CHAPTER 2
Illuminating Consequential Activity in the School Change Process

This research study falls at the intersection of four bodies of literature
which collectively form the framework through which I describe and analyze a
unique school change initiative. The literature review that follows is divided into
five sections. The first three sections provide a context for understanding
assessment and accountability as they relate to school reform. The first section
documents the direction educational reform has taken over the last 40 years with
a particular emphasis on outcomes-based and leaming-centered accountability
models. The second component addresses the shifting perspectives of
leadership in the school change process, which is closely connected to the third
section on professional learning communities.

Each of these bodies of literature has much to offer a reader about
assessment use, accountability, leadership, and communities of practice. They
also leave unexamined key questions that, I argue, can be addressed by Cultural
Historical Activity Theory (CHAT), which I explain in the fourth section of the
chapter. The success of assessment-based reform initiatives hinges on the
participation of leaders and other individuals within the community. An
established link between leadership, teacher learning communities and
assessment, however, is missing from the current scholarly literature. Cultural
Historical Activity Theory has the potential to reveal how community interactions

around assessment can help schools meet their goals. The fifth and final section

 

of this literature review presents a brief synopsis of the literature and
communicates the significance of the study.
Riding the Change Waves

The clarion call to improve public education in America has had a very
long history and is consistently marked by mounting public concern. Whether the
cause for alarm is underscored in the media or national policy documents, the
motivation behind such channels of communication is the same, to hold some
individual or group accountable or responsible (Johnston, 1998) for our schools,
be they falling or thriving. The grounds for concern are typically situated in sub-
par performance outcomes on standardized tests of achievement. Assessment
as an accountability tool dates back to as eany as the 18403, when Horace Mann
instituted a standardized written examination to monitor school efficacy in the
state of Massachusetts (Pearson et al., 2001), and has become ever more
salient following the launch of Sputnik. The Soviet Union’s presence in outer
space invoked a great fear that America was at risk. The education system was
attacked for failing to teach the subjects of math and science adequately, and the
curriculum was subsequently reformed (Lieberman, 1998).

If Sputnik pointed to the educational system as a whole as wanting, the
Civil Rights Movement brought to the forefront the inequities that existed among
racially segregated schools and led to the federal govemment’s passage of Title I
in the mid 19603, to ensure that at-risk and disadvantaged children were
receiving an equitable education (Asp, 2000; Fullan, 1998; Lieberman, 1998;

McGilI-Franzen, 2000). Moreover, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

of 1965, of which Title I is the cornerstone, required compensatory education
programs to periodically remit scores on “objective” tests for evaluation purposes
(Asp, 2000). Around this time the Coleman Report was published, revealing
astonishing news; programs that had been developed to alleviate educational
inequities were not producing better results. The report pointed its lens away
from the school toward communities and families as the primary source of school
inequities. Family socioeconomic status (SES), not school curriculum, was the
most significant determiner of school success (Lieberman, 1998). The document
challenged researchers to begin an extensive foray into school life to identify and
document factors within schools impacting student success. Such research
endeavors unmasked an “implementation problem”, where teachers were faulted
for not administering the policies and programs necessitated by the federal
government (Lieberman, 1998).

During the period Spanning 1973 through 1978 the RAND Corporation
conducted a national study of four federally funded programs designed to support
student learning and school change and discovered that policy makers attached
quantity to school success; the more money invested in education, or the greater
the number of programs adopted by schools, the greater the likelihood of positive
school change (McLaughlin, 1998). Accordingly, the RAND Change Agent study
reported that programs were not always implemented successfully, and even if
they were, they did not guarantee long-term success after funds were withdrawn
(McLaughlin, 1998). The problems were plentiful during this decade of

implementation, as Fullan (1998) has documented; schools were adopting

 

innovations without questioning their validity; programs were developed with little

or no regard for local school context, essentially preventing teachers from

contributing to the reform and reinforcing the view that innovations would work in

any setting. Teachers were perceived to be passive providers of miracle

educational programs rather than qualified professionals, thus supplanting the

notion that the process of school change is part of a complex social system I“
reliant on roles, relationships, values and adequate resources. Educational 1,
policies and literature at the time did not examine what characteristics made

schools successful, and furthermore, how to generate successful school change

practices (Fullan, 1982).

In 1983 the National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE)
acknowledged that our nation was in jeopardy, once again, in their report entitled
“A Nation at Risk”; students were being outperformed by their international
counterparts on tests of academic achievement; millions of Americans were
found to be functionally illiterate; performance on high school standardized tests
and college aptitude tests had declined drastically, while the number of remedial
mathematics classes increased by 72 percent (NCEE, 1983). Excellence in
education was largely assumed to be a function of, and consequently could be
driven by, high expectations, “the level of knowledge, abilities, and skills school
and college graduates should possess,” and “the time, hard work, behavior, self-
discipline, and motivation that are essential for high student achievement"
(NCEE, 1983). The report subsequently advocated for greater accountability in

the form of more testing, more homework, more time in schools, more classes

10

and stricter high school and college admissions and graduation requirements, in
addition to higher standards for teacher preparation programs. The Effective
Schools Movement, or Meaning Decade (Fullan, 1998) was born.

Effective school change, in this new movement, would be a function of
institutional support from the top-down, and greater teacher input from the
bottom-up. Professional leadership, shared visions and goals, high expectations,
monitoring systems and home-school partnerships were all factors consistently
identified by researchers as having a positive impact on school success
(Mortimore, 1998; Murphy & Hallinger, 1988), but the role that teachers played in
this process was not adequately described. In 1986, “A Nation Prepared:
Teachers for the 21St Century” (Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1986)
highlighted the need to make teachers the center of school reform, trusting their
knowledge and eXpertise for preparing students, rather than some external force
(Lieberman & Miller, 2000). A period of restructuring soon followed; it addressed
issues ranging from how time was to be used in the classroom to who would be
participating in the decision-making (Blase, 1998; Miller, 1998; Schlecty, 1990).
Site Based Management (SBM) had been presented as a framework for
decentralizing schools, but as researchers like Leithwood and Menzies (1998)
have found, school administrators who were put in charge of school budgets,
personnel, and programs essentially controlled the movement. Moreover, as
DuFour and Eaker (1998) contest, restructuring often focused on non-academic

issues such as student discipline, parental involvement, and staff morale.

11

Schools did change, but the broader purposes of schooling (i.e., teaching and
learning) were lost in the process.

In 1989, President Bush, the elder, along with the National Governors’
Association established a set of educational goals for the year 2000, later
adopted as the Goals 2000 Act (United States Department of Education [USDE],
2000) under the Clinton administration, mandating every state to set standards
for educational achievement, including what teachers were supposed to teach
and what students were supposed to learn in various subject areas (Pearson et
al., 2001). In accordance with this law, the government also had to provide
schools, districts, and states with the resources necessary for meeting
challenging standards-a feat executed and managed with varying degrees of
success (Superfine, 2005). Holding teachers to high standards, however,
appears to have been a much easier task. The report, “What matters most:
Teaching and America’s future” (National Commission on Teaching and
America’s Future, 1996), for instance, not only outlined more rigorous standards
for teachers including using National Board standards as a benchmark for
proficiency, but also attached rewards and consequences to performance
(Lieberman & Miller, 2000). It is vital, indeed, to hold teachers to high standards,
but in Mulford’s (1998) words, “Teacher empowerment without accountability can
lead to anarchy, whereas accountability without empowerment can lead to
subservience" (p. 633). In Spite of such concerns, federal legislation continues to
emphasize accountability over opportunity, or capacity-building (Goertz & Duffy,

2003); nowhere is the accountability privilege more vivid than in the existing No

l2

 

Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation (USDE, 2001) of the second Bush
administration.
Outcomes-based Reform

Accountability has been an integral part of the reform rhetoric of this era.
Both presidential candidates in the 2000 election used the policy initiative as
leverage for their platforms, and when George W. Bush reauthorized the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 2002 (more commonly
known as the NCLB Act of 2001) he positioned testing as “the cornerstone of
reform” (Bush, 2000). In doing so, he made it compulsory for schools to Show
measured gains on large scale, standardized assessments in order to receive

federal funding.

Standardized assessments are generally favored by policy makers
because they are (a) relatively inexpensive, (b) easy to implement and score, (c)
easy to change, and (d) able to provide visible results to stakeholders (Linn,
1998). Their value as accountability and reform tools, however, is largely
contested (see Amerin & Berliner, 2002; Linn, Baker, & Betebenner, 2002;
Pearson et al., 2001). First, the assessments provide incomplete information.
These tests often lack instructional and curricular validity because they assess
curriculum in a fractured manner; tests often focus on a select domain of what
actually gets taught in schools (Haladyna, Nolen & Haas, 1991; Paris, Lawton,
Turner & Roth, 1991; Sacks, 1999; Sirotnik & Kimball, 1999). These same tests,
however, serve as benchmarks for what students are to know and be able to do

at particular grade levels and thus signal what is valued (Paris et al., 1991) and

13

what is ultimately taught (Herman & Golan, 1991; Johnston, 1998; Smith, 1991;
Shepard 1990, as cited in Sacks, 1999). Second, the summative nature of the
tests often prevents teachers from receiving results in a timely manner, making
such assessments inadequate for making informed instructional and placement
decisions. Third, schools operating under the same policies and outcomes-
based accountability measures respond and perform in different ways (Elmore,
2001), which is a significant indication that external mandates alone are not
, enough to foster school improvement. Lastly, although external accountability
models promise more flexibility and local control for states and school districts,
administrators and teachers are still essentially required to implement prescribed
programs and meet certain requirements (e.g., Finnigan, O’Day, & Wakelyn,
2001). Consequently, stakeholders react to meeting minimal expectations
instead of reflecting on current practices and generating new knowledge.
Learning-centered Reform
Research and policy documents, at one time or another, have held
curriculum, students, families, programs and standards accountable for student
learning. Teachers, however, are consistently identified “as the sine qua non of
every school change effort” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). Although a significant
portion of educational reform initiatives have viewed teachers as knowledgeable
to the extent they are able to transmit information to others, there is an overall
expectation that teachers will be agents of change within and outside of the
classroom. In order to be such advocates, teachers need to question and

examine their own assumptions and practices as well as the policies advocated

14

by their schools and communities. The goal of such inquiry is to ultimately “[alter]
practice and social relationships in order to bring about fundamental change in
classrooms, schools, districts, programs, and professional organizations”
(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, p. 279). Teacher learning within school based
change efforts under this framework
occurs as a consequence of collegial efforts among teachers to identify
critical school issues and to invent ecologically valid ways of collecting,
analyzing, and interpreting Site documents as well as interviews with
colleagues, staff, parents, and students. Learning to use data for

collaborative decision-making is thus both a cause and a consequence of
changing school culture. (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1999, p. 286)

“Tn-II“ ._

Likewise, as Darling-Hammond, Ancess, and Falk (1995) state,
Rather than driving instruction, [assessment] evolves from teachers’ own
development as learners and professionals, and from their ideas about
Ieaming and curriculum, which create the basis for assessment and are
then informed in turn by occasions for examining student work. (p. 18)
Policy initiatives regarding assessment and school change, however, often
ignore the research highlighting the importance of school context, including
teachers’ beliefs, their perception of their working environment, the support they
receive from peers and administrators, their sense of autonomy, and the collegial
and consequential conversations that ensue around teaching and Ieaming. In
spite of fractured policies, there are schools that have taken the initiative to
develop their own methods of assessing student progress, and that have credited
the process for their improved teaching and Ieaming as well as their students’.
Literacy Learning Communities Working on Assessment

There are several examples of reform efforts in which assessment has led

the way by providing a positive image of student Ieaming and a central role for

15

teachers in the assessment development, scoring, and interpretation processes.
Many of the endeavors have been district wide (e.g., Hoffman, Roser & Worthy,
1998; Worthy, Hoffman, Roser, Rutherford, McKool & Strecker, 1998) and
supported by consultants who Shared relevant research, modeled instructional
practices, and facilitated meetings or “study groups” like the Primary Language
Record (PLR) (Falk, 1998), the South Brunswick Early Literacy Portfolio
(Salinger, 1998) and the Bellvue Literacy Assessment Project (Valencia & Place,
1994). Others essentially focused on teacher understanding and use of a
particular assessment, such as the Work Sampling System (WSS) (Dorfman,
1997; Meisels, Jablon, Marsden, Dichtelmiller, & Dorfman, 1993; Nicholson,
2000). Teachers generally labeled their experiences within the assessment
projects as positive, noting how the tools provided evidence of student
performance and a means for communicating progress with others. In addition,
they often commented on the usefulness of collaborative meetings around the
assessments. Conversations regarding the effects of the Bellvue Literacy
Portfolio on instruction and student learning outcomes, for instance, quickly led to
discussions about curriculum. Intellectual discussions arose around the scoring
of portfolios, where teachers pondered issues such as the value of the project
and modifications for various grade levels and ESL students. Teachers, as
Valencia and Place (1994) have conveyed,

had a deep understanding of why [they] were engaging in each

activity, a commitment to trying it out, and the understanding

that [they] could modify the tools, procedures, and rubrics as
[they] went along. (pp.147-148)

16

 

Although some participants expressed their frustration with their lack of
ownership in the process (e.g., Hoffman et al., 1998; Worthy et al., 1998) and the
amount of time that was required (e.g., Dorfman, 1997), the projects offered
teachers an environment to develop shared understandings of the reading and
writing process.
Reflections on Learning

Analysis of the above assessment-driven studies of reform highlights the
importance of collaboration and reflective practice in reform agendas. Moreover,
it shows that when teachers are afforded the opportunity to take ownership of the
issues and concerns that surface in schools they embrace them with all of their
complexities (Roehler, 1992) and facilitate change. The change process not only
calls for actions to be taken, but also for

ongoing knowledge building where the aim is to achieve greater individual

and collective understanding of the grounds on which the decisions Should

be taken and for evaluating evidence collected of the consequences of

those decisions. (Wells, 2002, p. 209)
The assessment driven reform efforts described here were charged with fostering
greater teacher understanding of assessment and student Ieaming and were
supported by external consultants. Many of the assessments were also created
and administered by volunteer teachers or external sources, engendering a
narrow view of ownership and active participation. Furthermore, the focal point of
this group of studies is static; the assessment tool itself and how it is used to
document student learning and ultimately inform instruction do not change.

Although collaboration appeared to be integral to each of these projects it was

often treated as a side effect or consequence rather than a Significant resource

’l7

 

or process. Absent from these studies iS a focus on cultural norms and values
and the function of structural supports.

Fullan (1996) contends that we should not be asking “how we can make
the system cohere, but rather how we can help educators achieve greater
coherence in their own minds and efforts” (p. 420). This, he adds, can be
accomplished by addressing the process through which beliefs, values and
norms are formed and by highlighting new conceptions of professionalism in the
field of teaching, in addition to tending to structural concerns, such as leadership.
Culture and complexity are thus brought to the forefront of school improvement
and with them, an understanding that school teaching varies from context to
context. Researchers have contended that a commitment to reculturing involves
a commitment to developing and honoring professional Ieaming communities
within schools (e.g., McLaughlin, 1998; Miller, 1998). This means moving beyond
traditional norms of individualism and viewing and allowing educators to act as
researchers and intellectuals as well as leaders (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991;
Lieberman & Miller, 1990; Miller, 1998; Richardson, 1990).

Leadership in the School Change Process
A Historical Perspective on Leadership

Leadership has been defined and redefined across eras and across
contexts, but for most of the twentieth century it was presumed to be about
power and control (Rost, 1991 ). The start of the twentieth century was fraught
with criticisms about the quality of American education and reform was heavily

influenced by business concepts such as the need to be more efficient, and

18

corporate models that developed school objectives by assessing program costs
against program efficacy (Williams—Boyd, 2002). The superintendent and the
school board made their marks as early as the 18003, and the former conducted
his business according to standardized algorithms advocated by Horace Mann
and his associates (Williams-Boyd, 2002). Superintendents perceived teachers to
be expendable Since they were Simply workers hired to carry out specific
mandates, which of course, was contrary to teachers’ own beliefs.

The position of principal came about towards the end of the nineteenth
century and was first seen as an instructional leader, or “principal teacher,” and
in light of a growing population, an authoritative figure in charge of formal
decisions such as hiring and firing (Williams-Boyd, 2002). In the 19503 when
inequities were becoming ever more apparent, the principal was in charge of
holding teachers accountable by following the demands of administrators and
ultimately producing results. The principal’s job was held to be a set of skills or
“peripheries” that could easily be assessed (Rost, 1991), like the ability to
communicate and effectively manage a staff, a position rivaled by the belief that
the role was dynamic and supported by other staff members (Williams-Boyd,
2002). The essence or “content of leadership" in this latter view not only includes
what leaders need to know about their profession and their school in order to be
successful, but also knowing how individuals behave and react, knowing how to
introduce change, and being able to envision a larger purpose (Rost, 1991). It

was not until the 19803 that shared leadership made its impression, but the guise

19

of Site Based Management or Site Based Decision-Making did not offer teachers
much in the way of leadership (Taylor & Bogotch, 1994).
“The new social realities of teaching” (Lieberman & Miller, 2000) view
every teacher as a potential leader (Fullan, 1993; Lieberman & Miller, 2001).
According to Darling-Hammond (1996)
If we have Ieamed anything about change it is that all of the actors in the
system need to develop first hand deep understanding of new ideas and of
the complex kinds of practice needed to carry them off. This is beginning
to happen most productively where people are creating hyphenated roles
for themselves as researchers, teachers, and policymakers engaged in
doing policy, school reform, and teaching as well as looking at it. (as cited
in Darling-Hammond, 1998, p. 665)
Successful change thus involves reculturing the profession: moving away from
individualistic approaches to teaching towards collegiality and whole school
success, viewing teachers as intellectuals instead of technicians, and taking
responsibility for performance by holding high standards for all students as well
as teachers (Lieberman & Miller, 2000).
Building Leadership Capacity
Leadership involves the identification, acquisition, allocation, coordination,
and use of the social, material and cultural resources necessary to
establish the conditions for the possibility of teaching and learning. This
definition supports a transformational perspective on leadership, defining it
as the ‘ability to empower others’ with the purpose of bringing about a
‘major change in form, nature, and function of some phenomenon.’
(Bennis & Nauss, 1985; Burns, 1978; Leithwood, Begley, 8 Cousins,
1994) (as cited in Spillane, Halverson & Diamond, 2001 p. 24)
Leadership capacity, the ability to participate skillfully in the leadership
process (Lambert, 2002) and instructional capacity, “the capacity to build
worthwhile and substantial learning” (Cohen 8 Ball, 1999), go hand in hand in the

process of education reform. Both are multidimensional, requiring interactions

20

among content, context and materials, and both are positioned as ongoing and
dynamic processes. Transformational leadership (Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood,
Jantzi, Steinbach & Ryan, 1997) has been used to describe leadership that
moves beyond formal and unitary concepts, which focus on a leader’s traits (e.g.,
flexibility, self-confidence) (Yukl, 1981) or behaviors, (e.g., manager, decision-
maker) (Hallinger & Hausman, 1993), to include reciprocity and collaboration
among all key players for the common good of the school. Leithwood and
colleagues (Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood et al., 1997) had initially categorized
transformational leadership along eight dimensions: vision building; goal setting;
intellectual stimulation; individual support; modeling best practices and
organizational values; showing evidence of high performance expectations;
creating a dynamic school culture; and developing structures for shared decision-
making. Having acknowledged that the literature on transformational leadership
failed to also include managerial or transactional dimensions, they included four
more: a focus on community; staffing; instructional support; and school
monitoring activities (Leithwood et al., 1997). Ultimately, what this and other
related research (e.g., Lambert, 1998, 2002; Spillane, et al., 2001, 2004) has
pointed to, is the distributed nature of leadership-across content, context and
activities.
Distributed Leadership

To view leadership through a shared or distributed lens is to position
teacher activity, mental as well as physical, as “stretched over the school’s social

and situational contexts” (Spillane et al., 2001, p. 23). A distributed perspective

2]

focuses on leadership tasks such as building a school-wide vision and how those
tasks are interpreted, dissected, and enacted by leaders. Furthermore, a
distributive perspective examines how tasks are socially distributed across
multiple people and how they are a function of situational constraints and
affordances posed by the material (e.g., assessment tools) and cultural (e.g.,
participation norms) artifacts (i.e., tools) through which people interact
(Halverson, 2003; Spillane et al., 2001). A distributed perspective not only
describes the leadership process, but also highlights the complexities involved in
creating a professional Ieaming community (Halverson, 2003, 2006; Halverson et
aL,2005,2007)

The research linking distributed leadership, assessment, and professional
Ieaming communities to school reform is fairly thin. Halverson and colleagues,
thus far, are the only individuals to explore this connection (Halverson, 2003,
2006; Halverson et al., 2005, 2007). More specifically, Halverson (2003) has
investigated how school leaders designed and implemented artifacts that
ultimately led to the creation of a community or system of practice. Over a two
year period, for example, he examined how one elementary school executed an
assessment program, monthly meetings about practice, and a school
improvement program and uncovered how conversations around student data
continually shaped and strengthened local capacity by nurturing multi-level

interactions and legitimizing community practices.

22

Professional Learning Communities

A community is a multigenerational group of people, at work or play,
whose identities are defined in large part by the roles they play and
relationships they share in that group activity. The community derives its
cohesion from the joint construction of a culture of daily life built upon
behavioral norms, routines, and rules, and from a sense of Shared
purpose. Community activity also precipitates shared artifacts and ideas
that support group activity and individual sense-making. A community is
multigenerational, that is, it exists over time and individuals. In Short, a
community differs from a collection of people by the strength and depth of
the culture it is able to establish. (Riel & Poplin, 2001, p. 2)

To change the system, we must alter the rules, roles and relationships that
define it. To make any lasting change in the structure, corresponding
changes must occur in the shared beliefs, commitments, meanings,
values, lore, and traditions in which structure is embedded and from which
it gains its permanence and stability. (Schlecty, 1997, p. 135)

Learning organization, community of learners, professional community,

learning community, communities of inquiry, communities of practice, knowledge

[building] communities, educative communities, and Ieaming circles are all

phrases used to describe organizations, companies or schools, working together

towards a common goal. Despite having been labeled as a “management fad”

within the business arena during the early 19903 (Senge, 1990) the paradigm

has burgeoned within the field of education with the same fervor. A successful

Ieaming community is one that assumes an inquiry stance towards change

(Lieberman, 1995; McLaughlin & Zarrow, 2001). Central to this idea is the belief

that the work of inquiry communities is both social and political-that is, it
involves making problematic the current arrangements of schooling; the
ways knowledge is constructed, evaluated and used; and teachers’
individual and collective roles in bringing about change. (Cochran-Smith &
Lytle, 2001)

Professional communities are able to function when both structural conditions

such as teaming and time for planning, and cultural conditions like shared values

23

and leadership, are cultivated (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Gallagher, Goudvis &
Pearson, 1988; Lieberman, 1995; Louis, Kruse & Marks, 1996). Such a stance
translates into effective professional development when teachers are presented
with opportunities and supports for capacity building, including occasions for
ongoing collaboration, shared decision-making, practice, risk taking, and inquiry
and evaluation in the realm of theory and practice (Barab & Duffy, 2000; Darling-
Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Knight, 2002; Lieberman, 1995; McCotter, 2001;
Seashore Louis, Kruse & Marks, 1996). The aforementioned environment, more
importantly, validates teacher positions, makes knowledge and experience visible
and exposes tensions that need to be addressed (Olson, 2001) while
simultaneously highlighting the critical nature of discourse in the change process.
Developing a Professional Learning Community

Most research conducted on Ieaming communities has been influenced by
work conducted within the field of anthropology (e.g., Lave, 1993; Lave 8
Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). The study of Ieaming communities as
appropriated by educational scholars, however, has focused on the creation of
Communities, while anthropologists have largely focused on communities of
practice that have been in existence for thousands of years (Palinscar,
Magnusson, Marano, Ford, & Brown, 1998). Nevertheless, the literature on
communities of practice, in and out of schools, converges around three major
themes: a common domain of interest, community, and practice (Wenger,

McDenTIott & Snyder, 2002).

24

Wenger and colleagues (2002) have argued that despite the pervasive
nature of communities of practice, they may need to be cultivated nonetheless.
They write,

A plant does its own growing, whether its seed was carefully

planted or blown into place by the wind...However, you can do

much to encourage healthy plants: till the soil. . .supply

water...secure the right amount of sun exposure. . .Similarly, some

communities of practice grow spontaneously while others may

require careful seeding. (p. 13)

Although they exist in many forms and styles, communities of practice (CofP) are
supported by the same basic structure. First, a CofP Shares a domain of
knowledge that forges a sense of common identity and holds members
accountable. The domain could be as specific as knowing how to identify a child
in need of special services or as broad as school reform, but the issues at hand
are not pre-detennined. Rather, they evolve with the community and are
dependent upon its needs at a given moment in time. A domain that is well
developed ultimately serves as a declaration of what knowledge the community
has agreed to take responsibility for (Wenger et al., 2002).

Community, the second integral component of a CofP, is the “social fabric
of learning” (Wenger et al., 2002) through which relationships are built (Lave &
Wenger, 1991). It is here where individuals share ideas and ask questions as
they work toward building a common vision and establishing trust. A community
is contingent upon regular interactions around a shared domain of interest. All

third grade teachers in an elementary school building would not be considered a

community of practice unless they met regularly, in formal or informal settings, to

25

build shared understandings of practice around their domain (Wenger et al.,
2002)

The third component of a CofP is practice. Wenger and associates (Lave
& Wenger, 1991; Wenger et al., 2002) define practice as the shared language,
stories, theories, documents, tools and norms that a community develops over
time. This knowledge repertoire can include elements that are explicit and
concrete such as “how to” manuals, as well as elements that are tacit and more
obscure, such as the ability to determine if a student is listening without making
eye contact.

Education reform scholars who have appropriated the CofP framework to
define and shape their own initiatives have done so not only to empower
teachers by building expertise and commitment to the profession, but also with
the intent to improve student Ieaming outcomes (Marks & Seashore Louis, 1997).
Conversation-based inquiry groups, for example, help cultivate teachers’ sense-
making by “[mirroring] current developments in the psychology of Ieaming and
[paralleling] what teachers are now learning is best for educating youngsters in
their classrooms” (Clark & Florio-Ruane, 2001, p.11). Context, “that which
weaves together” (Cole, 1996, p. 135) both the structural and cultural aspects of
schooling, without a doubt, iS a vital component of educational reform.

Literacy Learning Communities at Work

Many change models that support teacher inquiry and focus on the

broader purposes of schooling (e.g., Palinscar et al.,1998; Thomas, Wineburg,

Grossman, Myhre, & Woolworth, 1998) have had conversation and community

26

dialogue at their core, and external consultants supporting the endeavor. They
have varied with respect to scale, as some were conducted at national (see
Lieberman & Wood, 2001), district (see Hamilton & Richardson, 1995;
McLaughlin & Zarrow, 2001; Richardson & Hamilton, 1994), and school levels
(see Stokes, 2001) and need, with some inquiry projects focused on individual
teacher interests (see Tierney, Tucker, Gallagher, Crismore, & Pearson, 1988)
and others on school or district needs. And they have also varied with respect to
participation requirementsusome programs relied solely on volunteer teachers,
leaving a community of inquiry to develop among a select few.

Countless testimonies have been documented regarding successful
communities of inquiry within the area of literacy, but The National Writing Project
(NWP) (Lieberman & Wood, 2001) may very well be the largest and most
enduring professional development agenda known to education. The NWP,
which remains active, encourages teachers to articulate and manage their own
dilemmas with the support and collaboration of a network of peers and other
educational specialists. It was built with the understanding that teaching is more
than just a series of heuristics, involving cycles of Ieaming and evaluation, and
embedded in lectures, workshops and experience. Lieberman and Grolnick
(1996) have identified a number of characteristics underlying the structure of the
project including: the setting of broad and challenging agendas; opportunities for
indirect Ieaming and collaboration; acceptance of multiple perspectives; and

facilitative rather than directive leadership roles. The project helped teachers

27

become more aware of their roles as both consumers and producers of
knowledge.

At the district level, both The Bay Area School Reform Collaborative
(BASRC) (McLaughlin & Zarrow, 2001) and the Practical Argument Staff
Development program (Hamilton & Richardson, 1995; Richardson & Hamilton,
1994) positioned teachers as active learners and professionals as they used
evidence in their questioning and remediation of current practices. Likewise,
Stokes (2001) described inquiry based Ieaming at a school that began with an
entire staff committed to creating performance benchmarks and administering,
scoring, and evaluating assessments, but ended with individual teachers
focusing on their own areas of interest.

These projects are noteworthy because they possess a number of
characteristics that define effective professional development (see Putnam &
Borko, 2000), including situating teacher education within classroom practice and
student data and empowering teachers by letting them know that their knowledge
is “legitimate and worthy of respect as knowledge to be shared, improved, built
upon, and used in other contexts” (Lieberman & Wood, 2001, p.179). Missing
from this corpus of studies is a more detailed picture of how communities
function with respect to cultural factors, of which inquiry is just a part, and
structural conditions, like leadership, teamwork, and tool use, which span both
elements. Accordingly, it is imperative to ask how communities hold themselves

accountable (Richardson & Placier, 2001) in an era of top-down reform and high

28

stakes testing: How do they formulate, debate, and evaluate their problems and
consequential actions?
Reflections on Learning

The literature described up to this point brings to the forefront a variety of
different components relating to school capacity. lntemal and external
accountability models for instance, are generally perceived to be catalysts for
reform. Likewise, leadership and Ieaming communities are viewed as tools in the
change process. Capacity, however, is a function of both structural and cultural
elements and how they ultimately interact with artifacts. As such, assessments,
leadership, and communities of learners should not be viewed as stand-alone
solutions for improving teaching and Ieaming in schools. Cultural Historical
Activity Theory (CHAT) has the potential to reveal the intentional nature of
change and how assessment, leadership and community work together.

Cultural Historical Activity Theory

Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) is a framework that embodies
the collective and mediated nature of human activity (EngestrOm, 2001). It
expands upon Lev Vygotsky’s concept of mediated action (Cole, 1996; Cole &
EngestrOm, 1993; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991) by bringing the complex
interactions an individual can have with his or her community to the forefront, and
addressing how activity systems actualize and reproduce (EngestrOm, 2001;
EngestrOm & Miettinen, 1999). Although the activity system is taken as the
primary unit of analysis, it is supported by a three-tier structure of activity. The

collective activity of a community driven by an object-related motive sits at the

29

uppermost level. The activity, however, can only be realized through a set of
discrete goal-driven actions undertaken by an individual or group at the middle
level. Once goals are attained and behaviors are institutionalized, operations
emerge at the bottom level (EngestrOm, 2001; EngestrOm & Miettinen, 1999).
EngestrOm (2001) elaborates,
Goal-directed individual and group actions, as well as automatic
operations, are relatively independent but subordinate units of analysis,
eventually understandable only when interpreted against the background
of entire activity systems. Activity systems realize and reproduce
themselves by generating actions and operations. (p. 136)
Barab, Evans and Baek (2003) illustrate the hierarchical distribution of
components as they pertain to preservice teachers in the table below:

Table 1

The Hierarchical Distribution of Components in an Activity System (adapted from
Barab et al., 2003)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hierarchy of Activity System: Preservice Teachers (adapted from
Activity Blanton, Simmons & Warner, 2001)
Components
Activity Preservice training
[cultural] “
Motive(s) Professional qualification
Action(s) Participating in lectures, writing field notes
[conscious]
Need(s) Professional teaching position; course credit; intellectual
development
Operation(s) Gripping writing and manipulating instruments; expressing
[automatic] preconceived beliefs and attitudes
Conditions v Classroom and online environment and tools; learning
materials and resources; faculties’ teaching styles

 

3O

 

Cultural Historical Activity Theory provides the researcher with a useful heuristic,
not a prescription, for examining data (Barab et al., 2003). An activity systems
analysis would likely describe an activity system with respect to its motive and
various components, and explicate the mediating components of the system as
well as the actions undertaken by an individual or community.

The principles of CHAT highlight the need to address change from the
perspective of the participating teachers as well as the evolving system.
EngestrOm (1987) elaborates,

The analyst constructs the activity system as if from looking at it from

above. At the same time, the analyst must select a subject, a member (or

better yet, multiple different members) of the local activity, through whose
eyes and interpretations the activity is constructed. This dialectic between

the systemic and subjective-partisan views brings the researcher into a

dialogical relationship with the local activity under investigation. The study

of an activity system becomes a collective, multivoiced construction of its
past, present, and future zones of proximal development. (as cited in

EngestrOm & Miettinen, 1999, p. 10)

Cultural Historical Activity Theory is predicated on the notion that individuals
construct knowledge by actively participating in settings that are shaped by
cultural and historical events. One of the main components of the theory is that
activity systems are consequential to the development of both the individual and
the collective; the relationship is reflexive and can be examined by studying the
systems within which individuals operate and create. What one or many know is
unveiled as sustained participation in a “community of practice” (Lave & Wenger,
1991; Wenger, 1998), where individuals and groups interact with tools, rules, and

the community in order to transform a shared object or objective (EngestrOm,

1993a,1993b, 19993, 1999b, 19990, 2001). The tools or artifacts that mediate

31

their actions manifest themselves in oral and written texts, as well as physical
gestures, and can be theories or principles such as the reciprocal relationship
between assessment and instruction, or instructional routines.

Learning and development of the individual as well as the community,
requires “reflective appropriation” (Cole & EngestrOm, 1993) of tools, and
analysis of self and the system. Activity theory portrays a seamless connection
between thought and action and explains Ieaming as a “you are what you do”
(Nardi, 1996) phenomenon (EngestrOm, 19993, 1999b, 19990). In the realm of
education, one may refer to this as “teaching as praxis” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle,
2001), which represents a fusing and bi-directional relationship between theory
and practice, or knowing and doing (Brown, Collins 8 Duguid, 1989),
respectively. Knowing is not a question of “what” or “how,” but rather an “evolving
communal activity" (Wells, 2002), the means through which knowledge is built
and shared (Hutchins, 1993). Knowledge, therefore, is not a tangible commodity
to be transferred to others, but a process of construction (Wells, 2002), where
individuals internalize the inner workings of their community through dialogic
activities such as discussions and debates, and extemalize what they have
appropriated by using and challenging the concepts created as a group. Learning
and development thus could be defined as the process of moving from the
highest level activity (i.e., cultural) to the lowest (i.e., automatic) or vice versa
(Barab et al., 2003; EngestrOm, 1987). Learning and development should not be

viewed solely in quantitative terms by seeing it as the sum of every individual’s

32

knowledge-store, but also embraced as a qualitative process whereby groups or
institutions can grow horizontally by expanding their network of possibilities.

Lastly, activity systems, the context in and through which engagement
occurs, are nested within sociohistorical contexts (Barab, Barnett, Yamagata-
Lynch, Squire, & Keating, 2002) and can be overlapping; every setting has a
history and it is the dynamic relationship between the system’s components that
permit new and related systems to develop. A staff of teachers, for example, may
have the goal of Ieaming how to incorporate an informal observational survey
into their work day. Once they acquire an understanding of how to use that
assessment, that artifact becomes a tool they could then use to drive instruction
and ultimately impact student Ieaming.

EngestrOm employs a triangle heuristic to represent the components of an
activity system. Figure 1 depicts his configuration. The subject in the diagram
refers to the individual or group for whom the actions are the focal point of study.
The object, be it a physical artifact or an understanding, is that which the subject
acts upon by interfacing with various instruments or tools. The rules of the
system are the norms and expectations shared by the community, the individuals
or groups who have a stake in the object and share responsibility for its

transformation.

33

Instruments
A

 

 

 

 

Subject 4 > Object —-> Outcome
v
Rules A L g L . . .
V r t * DIVISIon
Community of Labor

Figure 1. A model activity system adapted from EngestrOm (2001).
The greatest affordance that Cultural Historical Activity Theory can offer is the
ability to describe the motives and means through which school change occurs.
The motive to change, transform, or reconceptualize an object emerges because
it is in direct conflict with some present behavior, ideal, or artifact. Once, and if,
this tension or duality (Wenger, 1998) is realized, participants can pull from a
corpus of potential actions, and it is through these actions that the object is
transformed (Engestrdm, 1993a, 1993b, 1999a, 1999b, 19990, 2001; EngestrOm,
EngestrOm &Suntio, 2002). The purpose of taking any action is not to make the
existing tensions obsolete, but to manage them, since it is the tensions
themselves that motivate change (Barab et al., 2002; EngestrOm, 19933, 1993b,
19993, 1999b, 19990, 2001; EngestrOm et al., 2002).

EngestrOm (1987, 1993a, 1993b) refers to these tensions as inner
contradictions and has classified them according to four levels. Primary
contradictions exist within one or more components of an activity system (e.g.,

within instruments) and emerge when two value systems are in conflict with one

34

another. Schools engaged in reform efforts directed at changing teacher practice,
for example, are likely to have teachers (subjects) with varying conceptions of
how to bring about successful change (instruments). Some teachers might view
reform as an individual effort, while others may perceive it to be more
collaborative. Although teachers in this kind of situation Share the same object,
that classroom practices must be changed, conflicting values can influence
participation. Secondary contradictions are found between system components
(e.g., rules and Objects). Teachers participating in a professional development
project oftentimes experience a tension between their daily teaching
responsibilities and those imposed by the project and must find a way to manage
this tension if they expect to bring about a change, or transform the object.
Tertiary contradictions arise when the methods for achieving an object are at
Odds with other methods that are perceived to be more culturally advanced, but
ultimately do not meet participants’ needs. Such contradictions are often found
when federal or state mandates require schools to replace their curricula with
those from a pre-approved list. Quaternary contradictions occur between
adjacent activities. If teachers in the above example typically integrated literacy
instruction across subject areas but were then mandated to adopt a literacy
curriculum that required focused blocks of instruction on literacy concepts alone,
they would then need to adjust their strategies for teaching in the other
disciplines (Yamagata-Lynch & Haudenschild, 2009).

Cultural Historical Activity Theory, while closely aligned to Vygotsky’s

work, moves beyond the development of the individual and focuses on the

35

transformation of a system of activity (EngestrOm, 19993, 1999b, 19990, 2001). It
also address issues of emotion, power and authority (Roth & Lee, 2007), foci not
Often addressed in studies based on Vygotsky’s work (Wertsch, 1991). Moreover,
unlike Lave and Wenger’s theory of Legitimate Peripheral Participation, CHAT
views Ieaming and development as a multidirectional phenomenon, accounts for
conflict and onset of change (EngestrOm, 19993, 1999b, 19990; Palinscar et al.,
1 998), and does not make sharp distinctions between old-timers and newcomers

(Riel & Poplin, 2001).
Summary

School change is an ill-structured domain by nature (Spiro, Vispoel,
Schmitz, Samarapungavan, & Boerger, 1987). It involves a number of different
stakeholders with varying belief systems and positions of authority and
accordingly, 3 number of different methods and means of change. It is an
endeavor sustained by tensions--between internal and external models of reform,
and competing conceptions of teacher work. Historically, change has been
perceived as a lock-step process that could be successful if the appropriate chain
of command was followed. Although present-day literature provides support for
teacher autonomy and underscores the importance of context and culture in the
reform process, it is at odds with current educational policy that subscribes to a
much narrower and more simplistic view of education.

Research linking shared leadership, professional learning communities,
and the intricate process of school change in the context of early literacy and

assessment reform is virtually non-existent, or at best fractured. On the one

36

hand, the school change literature is rather broad, as it focuses on the attributes
that make an individual a good leader or the elements that make an effective
community of practice. On the other hand, the literature is narrow, as it focuses
on a particular program or assessment, rather than how that artifact interacts with
cultural and structural elements in the process of school reform. What the reform
field is missing is a more cohesive picture of how schools can successfully
negotiate the tensions associated with the federal and state policies aimed at
increased centralization and standardization. Cultural Historical Activity Theory
(CHAT) provides the vocabulary to discuss such meaningful activity. Activities
are shaped and distinguished from one another by their objects. Once activity
systems are identified, researchers work to understand the motive, goals and
instrumental conditions associated with shared meaning making by focusing not

only on the observable dynamics of teachers’ work lives, but also by asking them

to share their perspectives.

37

CHAPTER 3
Methodology
Overview
This dissertation uses Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) to explain
how a group of teachers from one elementary school navigated the development
of a school-wide early literacy assessment system and the tensions associated
with the process. This chapter begins with a description of some methodological
considerations pertaining to the use of CHAT in this research study. Next, I
provide an overview of the research site and an explanation of how the tensions
teachers experienced during their daily work lives led them to seek out a
partnership with university researchers. I then describe the participants involved
in the study, my involvement as a participant-observer, and the overall design of
the study-reliability and validity issues, data collection procedures and methods
0f data analysis.
Methodological Considerations
Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) provides a sociocultural
framework for understanding how meanings and actions are negotiated in
Settings in which individuals collaborate with one another to solve problems and
heQOtIate life and work. The theory has mainly been used as a framework for
stuc1yIng student Ieaming and development in early childhood settings
(Engestrém, 2001; EngestrOm et al., 2002; Wells & Claxton, 2002), technology
inteQ ration in schools (e.g., Barab et al., 2002) and for studying adult Ieaming in

t
he Workplace (e.g., EngestrOm, 1993a,1993b, 1999c, 2001). Few studies,

38

 

however, have used CHAT to study teacher learning in school settings and
school change. Furthermore, labeled as a descriptive tool (Barab et al., 2003),
CHAT is devoid of a universal set of procedures for conducting and analyzing
research. Consequently, I have had to rely on a small set of CHAT studies (e.g.,
Barab et al., 2002; Yamagata-Lynch, 2001, 2007; Yamagata-Lynch &

Haudenschild, 2009) and my own interpretation of the theory, in order to

conceptualize this study. It is clear from the CHAT literature that activity systems
evolve over long periods of time and must be examined against their own
histories. As a result, I provide a historical sketch of the context in an effort to
target the school’s motives for change and understand how relationships and
objects change within the system (Center for Activity Theory and Developmental
Work Research, 2004; Nardi, 1996).
The Context
Located approximately 25 miles outside of Lansing, MI is Westchester

Elementary3, one of four schools situated within a rural, predominately white and
'OW SES community. The area is made up of family farms and small businesses,
and embodies a strong sense of community, with family as its backbone (Maple
GVOVe Properties, 2002). The township is small, housing 2,024 residents in 2000,
but growing (Maple Grove Properties, 2002). Roughly 60% of the population is
em Dloyed, with about 36% having reached or neared retirement in the year 2000
The school district also includes one high school, a middle school and since

1 999, a K-8 charter school. The district currently serves over 1500 students, but

t -
h '3 number is on the rise as Schools of Choice has positively impacted the

 

3
p
Seludonyms are used throughout the dissertation.

39

 

number of students enrolling in the elementary school. During the 1998/1999
school year 472 students were enrolled in the elementary school and
approximately 50% of these students received free and reduced lunch. The
number of students enrolled during the 2002/2003 school year was 506 with
roughly 33% of the population qualifying for free and reduced lunch.

The Occasion for Collaboration
During the 1997/1998 school year, prior to university involvement, 3 team

of I iteracy leaders (Le, a small group of teachers interested in developing a

balanced literacy program) at Westchester Elementary convened to discuss

pla ns for reforming the literacy curriculum. A summary of a May 8, 1997

committee meeting revealed the team’s perceived challenges, fears and hopes
for the future. Documented challenges included time constraints, including limited
ti me to build trust as a staff, finding support and lack of communication. There
were also concerns that their team would evolve into something exclusive and
nor‘I-collaborative, and that leadership would be lost. They hoped, however, for
greater communication and collaboration among staff, honesty, increased
knowledge and unity, and increased student Ieaming. As in many schools,
VVeStchester teachers worked to manage a number of tensions endemic to the
institution of schooling. For example, teachers on the literacy team had to
neg Otiate time spent on literacy activities with other teaching responsibilities.
They also had to challenge the philosophy that school change depends upon a

Sm a II group of individuals versus a united staff. In addition, despite limited,

4O

piecemeal resources and minimal change in student performance, teachers had

to remain motivated in order to stay on the change path.

Frustrated with consistently low test scores on the state mandated high

stakes assessment, the Michigan Education Assessment Program (MEAP), the

above group of teachers, along with the co-principals at the time, began

searching for someone who could help them examine and revise their approach

to literacy assessment. The regional education association contacted consultants

at the Michigan Department of Education, who then established contact with

affiliates from the Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement

(C l ERA) housed at a nearby university. I was one of the CIERA team of

researchers. During the fall of 1998, the staff along with the CIERA researchers

drafted the following set of goals for a collaborative project that would extend

across a 5 year period:

1.

2.

Create and implement classroom assessments, Pre-K through 4
Identify performance standards aligned with the district English

Language Arts curriculum and link to specific assessment tools

. Design a plan for reporting student progress to all constituents

(students, teachers, parents, administrators, policy makers, public)
Develop strategies for using assessment results to plan instruction

and improve student achievement

. Identify a set of pilot assessment tools to use in a school-wide

assessment system

41

Tiered Level of Professional Development
The structure of professional development employed at the start of the
project can best be described as a tiered process, with three levels of teacher
involvement within the school. Teachers choosing to be involved at Level One
agreed to participate in staff decisions and implement assessment tools. Level
Two teachers, in addition, allowed us to observe classroom instruction and
interview students from their classes. Level Three teachers, also known as the
Co re Planning Team (CPT), also agreed to take a substantial leadership role in
the professional development process by accepting responsibility for planning
staff meetings. These roles were never perceived to be static and changed over
time.

The professional development process followed a recurring event
Structure. We held monthly meetings as a research team, which were always
preceded by monthly meetings with the Core Planning Team to devise a plan of
operation and to organize a related set of monthly meetings with the entire staff.
I n addition, annual professional meetings were reserved for the summer, and an
an nual report on the school's progress was also presented to the school board.

In Year 1, we spent most of our meeting time creating and implementing a
SChool-wide writing assessment plan. In Year 2, our energies were largely
focused on the development of a school-wide spelling program and the
refi hement of the writing assessment. In Year 3, we focused mainly on
im Dlementing the spelling curriculum and aligning writing assessment data to

i . .
”Strucfion, but also began work on a readIng comprehension assessment. Most

42

V‘X‘T

(ifcas

of Year 4 involved maintaining and refining the writing and spelling systems,
creating more consistency in reading accuracy and fluency assessments,
developing grade level comprehension assessments, and a student profile
summary sheet for recording and sharing data. And, in Year 5, we continued to
maintain and refine the systems and administered English language arts

assessments (see Appendix A for a timeline of capstone events).

Prior to CIERA involvement in the school reform effort grade levels shared

a minimal corpus of informal and formal assessment tools. The assessment tools

that were common across grade levels (PreK-4) at the time of our involvement
included: observation, writing, oral language/discussion and running
records/informal reading inventories. The tools specific to grades PreK-2
included anecdotal records, The Observation Survey, Early Literacy Learning
Initiative (ELLI) assessments (an extension of Reading Recovery) and the Gates-
MacGinitie. The assessments in place in grades 3-4 included performance I
assessments (projects), Scholastic News Reading Tests, basal assessments

(from a retired series) and the Michigan Educational Assessment Program

( M EAP).
A Typical Core Planning Team Meeting

Core Planning Team meetings followed a predictable sequence and were
hot meant to last longer than two hours. A tentative agenda was usually
esta blished prior to convening by taking into consideration events that had
ha Dpened at prior staff meetings and feedback from the principal, and on

O(:(T-asion, the curriculum director. The meeting often began by debriefing the

43

activities and discussions that occurred at the previous staff meeting, and those

that had occurred between meetings; these events were typically shared grade
level by grade level. Depending on where the staff was in their development of
their assessment system, the second part of the meeting was usually devoted to
developing an understanding of the content and direction of the school change
process. The third part of the meeting was spent developing the agenda for the
upcoming staff meeting, including the activities the staff would engage in, the
procedures, and the roles that certain individuals would assume. The
orchestration of the last part of this meeting was quite intentional and in some
ways, served as a dress rehearsal for the staff meeting. When staff meetings
were planned, the CPT made conscious decisions about when it would be best to
have ideas presented by a fellow teacher, an administrator, or a researcher in
Order to maximize participation and uptake of the entire staff. While the principal
generally opened every staff meeting, the professional development activities, by
and large, were carried out by CPT teachers who were knowledgeable or
passionate about the topic at hand. When CPT teachers felt like they lacked
expertise in an area, CIERA researchers were asked to take the lead.

A Typical Staff Meeting
Staff meetings usually opened with a few words of introduction and

encouragement from the principal. An agenda was distributed to the faculty and a
member from the Core Planning Group explained each task. The staff usually

engaged in small and whole-group activities and had the opportunity to

c("hmunicate across grade levels. Discussions that started during the staff

44

n.
TH
l L‘

‘f
“in

.u-
I l

A L“
my

"1!;

vl.‘ i

39.91

meetings generally continued during grade level collaborative meetings, which
were facilitated by respective grade level CPT representatives.
University Role
CIERA researchers were regarded as CPT members and were present at
all planning and staff meetings and professional development events. As a
research team we were present to support the effort, help with work, provide
resources, including time, and essentially fade into the woodwork. When the CPT
felt staff needed to build theoretical understandings of topics, for example, we
located and Shared relevant research articles. When the goal was to help
teachers bridge theory and practice we suggested and sometimes led hands-on
lea rning experiences such as mini-lessons, poster sessions, and data analysis
activities. We wanted all teachers to experience a sense of progress and helped
design situations that not only allowed for that, but also armed teachers with the
tools that would allow them to experience success in the future. The school’s
adoption of a holistic writing assessment, for instance, prompted us to develop a
procedure for scoring papers and identifying anchors or exemplars. We
0"'Qanized the first scoring session, but teachers used the model to facilitate
SL1 bsequent sessions. As CPT members we regularly assumed the secretarial
VOIe at all meetings and took minutes, which also included synthesizing grade
'eVeI documents like assessment procedures and rubrics. Lastly, we presented
sChpol progress to the school board on those occasions when the principal

be'ieved she needed expert testimony or just moral support.

45

Components of the School—wide Literacy Assessment System

The School-wide Writing Assessment

The school-wide writing assessment was given to students from PreK
through grade 4, twice a year. In the winter students were asked to write about
"My Special Place” and in the spring they were asked to write in response to
"S omething I Do Well.” The administration procedures for each of the grade
levels were similar in that they required some discussion about the topic prior to
writing. In addition, students were given ample time to plan, write and edit their
pieces before turning them in. Grade level adaptations of the prompts varied, but
mainly differed with regard to the amount of scaffolding the teacher provided
during the brainstorming session that preceded the writing task. All papers were
scored against a grade-appropriate, holistic writing rubric that had a maximum

score of 4.

The School-wide Spelling Assessment

The school-wide spelling plan combined a spelling assessment and
CI... rriculum that cut across the grade levels. The curriculum was composed of
formative assessments that identified student progress along a continuum of
developmental stages and grade-level benchmarks, and instructional strategies
that helped students progress from one developmental stage to the next. Also
iDCIUded were instructional strategies that help students generate correct
Spellings of new words based on knowledge of spelling patterns, an assessment
that focused on how students applied spelling knowledge in their everyday

Writing, and a summative assessment. The developmentally focused

46

assessments and instructional strategies were largely taken from Word journeys:
Assessment-guided phonics, spelling and vocabulary instruction, by Kathy

Ga nske (2000), but other formative assessments existed and varied according to
teacher. The end-of-the-year, summative assessment was suitable for students
in grades 1-4 and consisted of a (grade-appropriate) percentage of high-utility,
pattern and content words.

The School-wide English Language Arts Assessment

The school-wide English Language Arts (ELA) assessment was aligned
with the state assessment (MEAP) and was given to students from K through
grade 4. The assessment began with a writing sample that introduced students to
the theme of the assessment (e.g., truth and honesty) and helped students
Connect big ideas to their lives. The students read or listened to three texts
exDloring a big idea connected to a theme, and answered selected response
questions regarding the texts, and a constructed response item asking them to
00 n nect their answer or response to big ideas in the texts.
The Beginning of the Change Effort
When Westchester Elementary joined forces with the CIERA research

tea m, the two worked together to develop a set of goals for the long-term,
Co'laborative initiative described above. The whole staff committed to the change
proCess, and the community working towards change included the school as well
as the university partners. While time constraints still existed within the literacy
schpol change effort, the accepted norm was that everyone would participate, but

the Work would be divided. Moreover, the school’s partnership with the university

47

meant more resources for the school, including structured time for
communication and discussion,which consisted of regular Core and staff
meetings as well as time to meet in grade level collaborative groups.
The Evolution of the Study
Qualitative data are...a source of well-grounded, rich descriptions and
explanations of processes in identifiable local contexts. With qualitative
data one can preserve chronological flow, see precisely which events lead
to which consequences, and derive fruitful explanations...good qualitative
data are more likely to lead to serendipitous findings and to new

integrations; they help researchers to get beyond initial conceptions and to
generate or revise conceptual frameworks. (Miles & Huberrnan, 1994, p.

1)

The current research endeavor was originally conceived to address
concerns associated with high stakes testing, specifically the tendency to have
one test do the job of many. The aim was to bring to the forefront a new notion of
accountability, one that drew attention to the multidimensional and recursive
nature of the evaluation process where value judgments are influenced not only
by the tools and methods that are used, but by the audiences and purposes they
are purported to serve. Multiple constituencies and activities within the schooling
process imply the coexistence of multiple and sometimes competing needs. As
Such, the main goal of the original research study was to advocate for a viable

notion of an assessment system,

a deliberately organized set of assessment tools that provides all
of the clients of the assessment system with the best
information possible to make the sorts of judgments and
decisions each client group needs to make. (Pearson, 1998,

p.280)

The research questions guiding the study, accordingly, focused on situating

assessment and accountability within a larger system or network of actors and

48

activities and interrogated issues of content validity, client needs, value and utility

of assessments, and consequential validity. AS we began to address these
questions and needs as a team of researchers and teachers it became apparent
that this project was more about professional development and leadership in the
school change process than it was about assessment. Although literacy and
assessment remained at the heart of the project, the evolution of teacher
leadership communities and the processes through which they were able to
initiate and sustain change suggested a need for a closer look at Westchester
Elementary’s capacity for reform.

My first foray into the patterns and processes of community development
began with a close analysis of discourse at core team meetings. Focusing on
teacher engagement across two meetings, approximately one year apart, I took
note of individual roles and turn taking, repetition of words and ideas, and
transition points in conversations. In doing so I discovered that although the
means through which the ownership of ideas were attributed to individuals

differed from meeting to meeting, they were both a function of teacher and
researcher interactions. Furthermore, it was clear that the appropriation and
reformulation of ideas was a function of repetition and the multiple and
cornplimentary roles that teachers and researchers assumed in the process.
Relationships, indeed, were central to the development of shared understandings
and a community of practice. | subsequently decided to take a more

com prehensive look at the dynamics within this evolving community and asked

myself the following questions: How can the development of a school-wide, early

49

literacy assessment system serve as a catalyst in the evolution and function of
shared leadership communities and the execution of local reform? How does the
tension between assessment for accountability and instructional purposes
m anifest itself during the development of a school-wide early literacy assessment
system? How does shared leadership evolve, function and ultimately mediate the
accountability and instruction tension posed by the creation of 3 school-wide,
ea liy literacy assessment system?

Participants

Participants in the larger CIERA study included individuals who were
involved at different levels of the assessment system: elementary school
students, teachers, parents and policymakers (e.g., principal, school board
members). The main data sources for the purpose of my investigation, however,

come from teachers and administrators (i.e., school principals, superintendents,

and the curriculum director).

The Teachers

A total of 35 different teachers participated during the data collection
period. They taught in grades PreK-4 and nearly everyone was female. Only
“'1 ree males held positions at the school when data collection began during the
1 998/1999 school year and by the 2000/2001 school year no males existed on
the teaching staff. Participants had an average of 9.36 years of teaching at

WeStchester Elementary and an average of 13.52 years teaching overall.

50

The Principal

The principal taught kindergarten for 4 years, and served as co-principal
for 2 years while teaching kindergarten. She had taught for a total of 24 years,

having also taught grades 1 and 3 during her tenure. She held both a bachelor’s

and a master’s in Education.

The Curriculum Director

The curriculum director assumed her role in 1999 after having been in
charge of school improvement, professional development and secondary

language arts in a nearby district, and working for one year as a Reading

Recovery teacher.

The Superintendent

Two different individuals served as Superintendent during the course of
the study. The first individual, Jerome, served as principal of Westchester
Elementary for four years prior to taking on the role of Superintendent in 1997. In
addition, he was part of a team of five people involved in developing the 5th and
8 th grade writing MEAPs. Jerome finished out the 1998-1999 school year and
“’3 s replaced by Bert at the start of the 2000-2001 school year. Bert assumed the
r0 I a after having completed one year as principal of the local middle school and
“NO concurrent years as middle and high school principal and receiving the 1999

N ational Distinguished Principal Award from the National Association of

E I s rnentary School Principals (NAESP)-

51

IIIl ROI

Ibsen

l'lifiTflI

 

A. ,«I
10.;

liter

ID a!

ass

The

My Role as a Participant-observer

My position during the course of the study was that of participant-
observer. l was 1 of 4 facilitators on the research team, and 1 of 2 who regularly
interacted with the participating teachers over the 5-year duration of the project. I
helped plan meetings, located and introduced various literacy and assessment
artifacts for teachers, answered questions about literacy content and procedures,
summarized and explained assessment data, and interviewed and observed
participants. Although my role as facilitator was not at the forefront during the ,

early years of the project, my involvement did increase over the years. I viewed
myself as a resource, as well as a community member but my role as a
participant-observer was not one of balance. Positioned as an insider, I had
access to a wealth of information and the opportunity to “manipulate minor
events”-3uch as arranging times to meet with small groups or individuals (Yin,
2003); however, since this study largely hinged upon teacher needs, values, and
i"Iteractions in the process of school change, most of my time was spent listening
to and observing participants’ actions and reactions.
Research Design

The present study is qualitative in nature, defined by Creswell (1994) as

an inquiry process of understanding a social or human problem, based on

building a complex, holistic picture, formed with words, reporting detailed

views of informants, and conducted in a natural setting. (p. 1)

It i S a case study of one school’s efforts to build a school-wide literacy

asSessment system and the consequences that ensue. Cultural Historical Activity

Theory (CHAT) is used as a heuristic for framing the research. Although CHAT

52

IIIEIII'E
rust l
w
L). ii I

taslru

III a

The I
My;

50m;

does not provide prescriptions for constructing studies and analyzing data (Barab
et al., 2003), it does allow one to surmise a few guidelines to follow during the
design process. First, object-oriented activity systems are taken as the unit of
analysis. Activity systems have histories and can be overlapping, so a researcher
must observe their development over an extended period of time, as l have done
in my study. Movement within the hierarchy of activity (i.e., motive-goals-
instrumental conditions) is mediated by physical and symbolic components, as
well as other members of the community. Varied data collection procedures,
then, must be used and multiple individuals must be interviewed in order to
accurately capture the multivoiced nature of the community (EngestrOm &
'Miettinen, 1999). Hence, the data sources for this study include a series of semi-
structured interviews, field notes, transcripts of grade level meetings and
meetings with individuals at varying levels of participation, and artifacts such as
assessments, curriculum documents, student work and test scores.
Reliability and Validity
Reliability, in the traditional sense, refers to consistency, or the extent to
Wh ich a study can be replicated in another context. In qualitative research,
l"(D‘Areven
researchers tend to view reliability as a fit between what they record as
data and what actually occurs in the setting under study, rather than the
literal consistency across different observations. (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998,
p. 36)
T he validity of a research study, in the broadest sense, refers to its authenticity

(Li hooln & Guba, 1985) or truthfulness (Mehrens & Lehmann, 1991) and has two

so VTIplementary facets: lntemal and external. lntemal validity, the extent to which

53

’L'.
l. I:

Ever

the interpretation of data accurately portrays what actually occurred within the
research setting, is far more important to qualitative researchers than external
validity, the extent to which researcher claims generalize to those settings or
individuals who are not directly studied (Maxwell, 1992). Bogdan and Biklen
(1993) note,
Qualitative researchers go to the particular setting under study because
they are concerned with context. They feel that action can best be
understood when it is observed in the setting in which it occurs. The
setting has to be understood in the context of the history of the institutions
of which they are a part. (p. 30)
This endeavor is a case study of one school and one context over a lengthy
period of time. It is an anecdotal story of one community’s values, complex
dynamics, and “implicit contextual factors” (Wenger et al., 2002) in the process of
school-wide reform, making it unwieldy to separate the phenomenon under
investigation from the context. Wenger and colleagues (2002) write,
Stories provide recognition for their protagonists; they reinforce the
importance of making one’s practice visible in the organization; and they
help build a culture that values innovation and knowledge sharing. Stories
are a powerful component of any culture, and legitimizing the storytelling
process encourages people to act out the stories they would like one day
to tell. (p. 169)
A'though it is not the role of case study research to make inferences about a
pa rticular population on the basis of empirical data drawn from a sample (Yin,
20 ()3), Cultural Historical Activity Theory provides researchers with the language
to talk about similar activities in different settings. Moreover, applying CHAT to

th a data collected in this study allows for analytic generalization (Yin, 2003).

E\’en though a nominal number of studies exist that apply CHAT to school

54

change, I am still able to make generalizations about the viability of CHAT as an
analytical tool.

A number of steps have been taken to address internal validity. First, this
study utilizes data collected over a five-year period, which presents greater
opportunities to verify the results of my analyses by searching for patterns.
Accordingly, long-term data collection allows one to gain a better understanding
of the whys and hows of change by focusing on the web of interactions involved
in a setting, rather than just a snapshot (Miles & Huberrnan, 1994). Second, data
collection was systematic and focused on the activities and resources pertaining
to literacy, assessment, and school change. Third, sources and methods of data
collection were triangulated by bridging connections among people over time and
among means, such as observations and interviews (Miles & Huberrnan, 1994) in

order to provide a more comprehensive account of the change process and
strengthen the construct validity of the study (Yin, 2003). In an effort to faithfully
Ca pture leadership and division of labor in the school change process, for
example, I cross-checked interview data with field notes from Core Planning
Team and whole staff meetings. Fourth, as l coded the data members from my
r eSearch team and dissertation committee reviewed the categories and themes

th at emerged, and I also had conversations with my informants about their

ex Deriences.

De ta Collection Procedures
The data for the broader CIERA study are a combination of interviews and

a h elyses of the field notes and transcripts of planning, staff, and grade level

55

collaborative meetings collected from 1998-2003. Throughout the 5-year duration
of this study, representative individuals from each group affected by the
assessment system were interviewed. Students were interviewed about their
perceptions of assessment data and its use. Teachers, parents, administrators,
and community members were interviewed about their knowledge of assessment
systems, questions they wanted answered by assessments, perceived need for a
system, and evaluation of the effectiveness of the elementary school’s current
and evolving assessment system. A highly experienced transcriber and
approximately four different undergraduate work-study students, not directly
connected with the project, performed transcriptions of taped interviews and
some meetings. Transcripts were reviewed by the CIERA researchers for
omissions and other errors and were subsequently corrected when tapes were
replayed for closer analyses. Although data sources were plentiful in this study,
interviews with teachers and administrators and transcriptions and field notes of
Core planning team meetings served as primary resources in my analysis of the
evolution and function of shared leadership communities (see Table 3 for primary

data sources and Appendix B for interview protocols).

56

Table 3

Primary Data Sources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03
Teacher and X X X X
Administrator
Interviews
Field Notes X X X X X
Meeting X X X X X
Transcripts
Data Analysis

Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) does not provide researchers
with a straightforward method for analyzing data (Yamagata-Lynch, 2001).
Although my analysis did not proceed in a lock-stop fashion, I did abide by some
principles in order to make the process more systematic. First, according to
CHAT, contradictions are what drive change. This research study was largely
framed around one of the most pervasive tensions in the field of education, which
is also reflected in my literature review and my research questions--assessment
as both an instructional and accountability tool.
After pinpointing the overarching tension, l organized my meeting and
inte rview data into a time-ordered display (Miles & Huberman, 1994), or
an r\otated timeline, of critical happenings within the school and created a case
dynamics matrix (Miles & Huberman, 1994), which allowed me to identify object-
orianted activities, display prevalent tensions and consequential actions, and

examine historical relationships among themes. In an effort to identify the

salience and significance of events in the change process I employed the

 

constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967); annotations were
reduced to smaller “units of meaning” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and grouped into
various thematic categories while I simultaneously compared participant
responses and classified relationships. I then proceeded to identify and diagram
the activity systems at work at Westchester Elementary which was an ongoing
and iterative process.

Activity systems are defined by their objects,

Activity theory is a theory of object-driven activity. Objects are concerns,

they are generators and foci of attention, motivation, effort and meaning.
Through their activities people constantly change and create new objects.

(EngestrOm, 2008 p. 3)

I identified activity systems by following the objects motivating the various
change activities. My first interest, however, was capturing object-oriented
activity systems at the macrolevel (i.e., school-wide assessment system, writing,

spelling and English language arts assessments) and was largely an attempt to
set boundaries on the scope of data analysis. The nested nature of activity
Systems, though, calls for researchers to focus on some microlevel analyses as
We" - Such microanalyses were limited to recurring themes (actions) around the
Creation of a school-wide assessment system (i.e., scheduling, Ieaming about
and reflecting on assessment, engaging in professional development,
CloChimenting and Sharing results and celebrating success). As I began
Quagramming the activity systems at work at Westchester Elementary, I quickly

realized the cumbersome nature of the task and decided that diagramming every

activity system would probably not yield great explanatory power. Rather, the

d‘Iagrams would likely distract readers since their static nature cannot aptly

58

II'IEIT

.[A
mild
I'B'I'ls
‘ I
IEFISI
drar.

com]

capture the rich activity that unfolded at the school. As a result, I only
diagrammed Westchester Elementary School’s activity systems prior to and
during the change effort. After identifying the subject and object of each activity
system, I listed and mapped out the remaining components (i.e., tools, rules,
community and division of labor). Once activity components were mapped onto
Engestrbm’s triangle heuristic I began identifying tensions on the diagram.

In order to aptly capture a system of activity it is crucial to move beyond
the simple identification of components (e.g., tools, rules) and focus on the
systemic tensions that characterize the initiative. Many tensions presented

themselves as recurring themes (e.g., school reform is an individual vs.
collaborative effort; time constraints) and were fairly easy to identify. As I
revisited the CHAT literature and reexamined my drawings, documenting
tensions on the heuristic proved to be a messy process. After examining my first
drawings, I realized that I did not accurately capture primary contradictions within
Components of the activity systems so I had to add those to the diagram.
M0 reover, after studying my initial diagram of Westchester’s activity system prior
to the change effort I discovered that I did not depict a secondary tension
bet\Neen instruments and object, the small group of motivated staff could not
at“-ain their object without the appropriate tools which posed a tension that I had
to demark on a revised diagram.
Ma thodological Limitations
The methodological limitations of this study pertain both to its design and

“‘8 data analysis procedures used. First, since data were collected over a

59

prolonged period of time, parameters were set in order to aptly capture a subset
of recurring assessment themes; the five year duration of this study thus made it
difficult to depict all literacy and assessment actions. Second, the CHAT analysis
employed in this research is strictly my understanding of how events unfolded
and my interpretation of the CHAT literature. Although I was able to cross-check
themes that emerged from interviews and meetings with other researchers,
applying CHAT to the data was solely my undertaking. Third, while I set out to
document an on-going reform effort I chose to use EngestrOm’s (2001) static
CHAT diagram which clearly fails to portray (a) the evolutionary nature of reform
and (b) the relationships involved in the process. The thematic analysis

employed in this study and the accompanying narrative, however, more than

compensate for this limitation.

6O

CHAPTER 4
Object-oriented Activity Systems and Tensions in the Process of
School Change
Overview
The following chapter is divided into four sections. The first uses
EngestrOm’s triangle heuristic to describe how the activity system at Westchester
Elementary unfolded. The second describes the “core tension” (Barab et al.,
2002) that motivated Westchester Elementary to reconceptualize and develop
their early literacy assessment system and curriculum as a means for crafting
shared understandings and facilitating school-wide improvement. By explicating
this tension between assessment as both an accountability and instructional tool
we are able to get to the very essence of the community, the nucleus around
which all motives and activities were based (EngestrOm, 1987, 1993a, 1999a).
The third section describes the structures that were established to support
Change, while the final part of the chapter addresses the complex interactions
that ensued around the tension.

DO Camenting and Understanding Transformation through CHA T

Educational reform efforts, while touted for facilitating change, are often
c>rit'icized for not sustaining the positive effects experienced during their relatively
Short durations. The problem, Engestrbm (1998) proposes, lies in the “taken-for
granted” Space that teachers and students interact within. While schools must
Operate within various rules and regulations at the institutional level, they also

0Iberate within various boundaries at the classroom level, those bound by

61

curricula and texts. The “taken-for-granted” or “hidden” space, lies between the
two levels, and consists largely of teaching practices, and interactions between
teachers (EngestrOm, 1998); diagrammatically, it is the lower part of EngestrOm's
heuristic. It is the actualizations within this Sphere, the school ethos, which drives

one’s conception of self as teacher, or student, and eventually compels change.

The activity system at Westchester Elementary prior to their involvement
with university partners in 1998 is depicted in Figure 2. The subject of the activity
system at this time consisted of a small group of literacy leaders who recognized
a need for change and made a commitment to facilitate the effort. Unfortunately,
they lacked sufficient instruments required to actualize their object, a balanced

literacy program. Their instruments, or tools, consisted of fractured beliefs about
school change, a hodgepodge of assessments, and piecemeal professional
development and curriculum. The rules that guided the team’s participation in the
activity system were concomitant with time and other teaching responsibilities.
Teachers, for example, were responsible for teaching and assessing Ieaming in
Other subject areas and could not have literacy as their sole focus. The
Co’TTrriunity refers to the group that the literacy team belonged to, mainly the
teachers at the school and the facilitator from the ISD, and the division of labor
ref'e rs to the responsibilities shared by the literacy leaders. The activity system.
ConSequently, forced teachers to wrestle with two primary tensions, within

instruments and rules (indicated as tensions “a” and “b” respectively), and four

Se(:ondary tensions; a small group of motivated staff had to maintain their

Optimism in spite of a limited collection of tools and beliefs (indicated as tension

62

 

“0”) and a history of unsatisfactory student performance (indicated as tension
“e”). Furthermore, they had to try and achieve their object with an inadequate set
of tools (indicated as tension “d”) while operating within time constraints

(indicated as tension “f’).

Instruments
-School reform is an individual vs. collaborative effort
-Collection of assessment tools vs. assessment system
-Short-term, piecemeal professional development vs. long-term,
systematic professional development
-Piecemeal, unarticulated curriculum vs. comprehensive,

  
 
  

 
   
 

 

 

 

articulated curriculum ,, - — -.‘
-Lack of communication '1. a I}
-Limited funding ,1 ‘f' K
c d
Subject ‘I e ‘a Object
-Motivated -Comprehensive
literacy T balanced Outcome
team literacy —' -Unsatisfactory
orooram student
f performance
’2‘"; ,‘,-v"" Division of Labor
Rule3"~.--v"A - a L -Shared
-Time constraints Community responsrbIIIty
-Other teaching -Westchester staff among team
responsibilities -Facilitator from local ISD members

Figure 2. Westchester Elementary activity system prior to university
involvement (1997-1998).

Once Westchester Elementary began collaborating with university
partners their activity system changed (see Figure 3). The subjects of the new
activity system now consisted of an entire staff, instead of a small group of
individuals, committed to the school change effort. The university partnership
Presented the staff with various instruments that would ultimately help facilitate
Change, such as opportunities for collaboration, the notion of shared leadership,

lOng-ten'n, systematic professional development, and a school-wide assessment

63

philosophy. The object that was the focus of their actions changed Slightly, from a
comprehensive balanced literacy program to a school—wide assessment system
and vision. The rules that guided the team’s participation in the activity system
remained concomitant with time and other teaching responsibilities, but also
included self-selected levels of involvement and staff generated expectations for
participation at each of the levels. The community, the individuals who had a
stake in the outcome, expanded to include university partners and a curriculum
director, and the division of labor was shared between the staff and the
university.

Establishing a partnership with the university helped Westchester
Elementary eliminate the tensions brought on by limited, piecemeal resources
and a history of unsatisfactory performance. The primary tension within rules
(indicated as tension “3”) remained, as did the secondary tension between rules
and the attainment of the object (indicated as tension “b”); the staff still had to
deal with time constraints and additional expectations. Westchester staff, in spite
of this tension, was still able to achieve their desired outcome of adequate

student performance.

64

Instruments
-University resources
Opportunities for collaboration
-Conception of shared leadership
-Long-term, systematic professional development
-School-wide assessment system

 

  
  
  

 

 

 

‘I
Object
Sub'ect .
-Wejstchester -School- w'de Outcome
Staff 4 : literacy -Adequate
assessment_—> student
system 3! performance
VlSlon
r' ‘3“,-
1:01: "~---" 4 > e > Division of
constraints Community Labor .
-Other teaching -Westchester staff -UnIver3Ity
responsibilities University partners ‘COIe
-Self-selected levels of -Curricu|um Director -Lef\;el ”
involvement ffiaevel I
-Staff expectations staff

Figure 3. Westchester Elementary activity system during university
involvement (1998-2003).

Cultural Historical Activity Theory makes leadership practice in the context
of early literacy reform accessible. In addition, it portrays change as a function of
(a) a division of labor, for which shared leadership is an integral part, (b) norms,
(0) goal-driven, object oriented behaviors, and (d) artifact mediated activity
systems. Although Westchester staff participated in a number of knowledge and
community building activities, they were not a sufficient catalyst in the change
effort. Devoid of agreed upon norms and rules of participation, there probably
would not have been any collaboration or consistency at Westchester. Similarly,
Positive norms and professional community without the presence of goal directed

activities would not have been sufficient to promote change. Absence of any one

65

component of the activity system would, in effect, cease to make the system
function. Akin to Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (1999) position, translating data and
theory into practice is “both a cause and a consequence of changing school
culture” (p. 286).

Assessment as an Accountability and Instructional Tool

Staff responses to and discussions around the CIERA Survey of Early
Literacy Programs in High Performing Schools (1998) revealed a school behind
the national average on assessment use, assessment training, and time spent on
literacy activities. The survey confirmed their perceived need for more novel
professional development but also highlighted attributes of effective schools that
were present in their school, such as an understanding of the purposes and
consequences of assessment, parent involvement and communication with
parents; it ultimately brought to the forefront the need for school-wide
performance standards and systematic assessment use.

Assessment was something that had positive as well as negative
connotations at Westchester Elementary. Whether or not an assessment was
perceived as an affordance or a constraint was largely dependent upon its
structure and purpose. Formal, summative assessments of a standardized or
high stakes nature were believed to be difficult to interpret and not useful for
making instructional decisions. One special education teacher observed,

In regard to standardized assessments, I think sometimes (teachers) don't

feel like they’re getting an accurate measure. I think teachers would like

something that was easier for them to understand or easier for them to
make parents understand because I think sometimes with standardized

66

(tests) parents don’t get a real good read on where their child is actually
performing. (lnt4-Chris, 11/98)

Moreover, as a fourth grade teacher shared,

I think that all of the teachers that I’ve talked to are real frustrated about

testing and what little knowledge that we gain from what we’re using right

now. A lot of them would like some kind of test that would just really give
you a clear, precise picture of the student and the areas where we could

work with each student, (Int-Charles, 5/99)

In addition to not providing teachers with enough information to make decisions
about students, the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) served
as the chief determinant of whether or not a school was failing. As a high stakes
assessment and one that would never fade away, teachers felt compelled to
participate in a school change initiative,

There was a determination to make changes and the level of concern was

so high because our MEAP scores were so low and there were so many

external pressures based on that. . .(lnt-Patti, 6/02)

Informal, formative assessments, without fall, were regarded as the most
useful overall because they allowed teachers to meet individual student needs.
Such assessments included, but were not limited to, anecdotal records, Marie
Clay’s Observation Survey, informal reading inventories and writing tests. A Pre-

K teacher shared her assessment needs,

I want [assessments] to answer the question of what do I teach next. I
[want them to] be able to give me a clear cut view of where do I go now.
Okay I know that this child doesn’t have the concept of ‘in’, ‘out’, ‘over,’
‘under,’ so with knowing that, then where do I go from there. What’s the

best approach and then how do | reassess. . .(lnt—Kristen, 11/98)

\

4 .
l ntervnew

67

It was also crucial for assessments to give teachers an understanding of whether
or not students were at grade level. A kindergarten teacher, speaking to the need
of meeting individual developmental needs and grade level benchmarks shared,

I think both need to be addressed. I think it’s important to be able to look

at a specific child and see where they started, where they made it, that

kind of thing. And, I do think that...as a grade level saying this is what we
can expect our second graders to have mastered...the growth they need
to see...that way if there’s someone that’s not...at...level, we can work
with that child individually to get them where they need to be. (Int-Melissa,

5/00)

From an administrator perspective, this criterion-referenced information was
pertinent because it reflected the quality of the school district. Likewise, this
information provided a clear-cut estimate of a child’s performance: below grade
level; on grade level; above grade level and met parent needs,

I want to know what level he’s at. I want to know if he’s growing at the

level he should and if he’s getting better. I want to know that he’s reading

at first grade level or second. (lnt-PBK, 5/99)

When standardized assessments were viewed as tests that were
consistent among teachers, allowed for comparisons, and informed instruction,
they were viewed as affordances,

But what we’re striving for, the outcomes, that’s why I think a standardized

type of assessment is a good thing in some instances because you can

look over what you are doing as compared to what they (other teachers)
are doing and see if it is working. (lnt-5/99)
Moreover, when everyone is using the same assessment then everyone is held
accountable for reporting student data and using that data to evaluate their
instruction.
It holds you accountable. lt forces you to look at how your kids are

performing. I mean, my kids are performing the way they are because of
what I taught them or what I didn’t teach them...lfall of the kids in my

68

classroom got a “1” that wouldn’t mean that I had kids...who couldn’t write.
It would mean that I wasn’t doing something right as a teacher, so I think it
forces you to really look honestly at how you’re teaching and what you
need to do to improve. (Int-Karla, 5/00)
In so far as assessments were needed and used as measures of accountability,
they played a comparable role in instruction and could not be viewed as sufficient
in their own right. The curriculum director poignantly explained this stance,
I want assessment to be a part of what happens all of the time in the
classroom. It shouldn’t be an event; the MEAP is an event. Assessment
should not be an event. What I would like to see is for it to be so much a
part of what happens that we do not think about assessment any more
than we think about turning on the lights in the morning. (Int-Laura, 5/99)
Section Summary
The description of the accountability and instruction tension provides a
glimpse into the context in and through which Westchester Elementary teachers
worked to facilitate change. In order to transform the culture of schooling they
were currently operating within, this tension needed to be made transparent.
Teachers were well aware of the constraints they needed to negotiate in order to
work towards improvements and saw the need for more knowledgeable others to
help transform practice. Although outside support was welcome and there was a
general understanding of where the school was headed, the staff’s needs and
wants (as they existed and emerged) needed to be at the forefront of the change
process. Crafting an instructional vision and a culture where teachers owned
their own Ieaming was an ongoing and iterative process dependent upon
available resources, collaboration, trust, and assessments for instructional and

accountability purposes. The dynamics involved in mediating the development of

shared understandings of literacy and effective teaching are now described.

69

Shedding Light on the Change Process

This section illuminates the change process by zeroing in on the
participation structures that allowed teachers to negotiate community
development and system change, and the instructional leadership activities that
helped mediate the accountability and instruction tension and the development of
shared understandings. First I describe the broader structures supporting the
change process focusing on division of labor and the rules and norms governing
the system, as well as teacher perceptions of these supports and their
involvement. Then, I take a closer look at how leadership activities were enacted
and what those processes looked like in the service of developing shared
understandings of literacy assessment.

Participation Structures

Division of labor.

During the summer of 1998 11 members of the Westchester Elementary
staff assembled with a small group of researchers from the Center for the
Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA) to form the Core Planning
Team (CPT), a group established to facilitate change at the school. It was not
until September, however, that the group convened to make plans for the first
official staff meeting. Attendance included four individuals from CIERA, Patti and
Catherine who were co-principals as well as co-kindergarten teachers, Laura the
curriculum director, Margaret a first grade teacher, Jill from second grade,
Jeanne from third grade and Charles from fourth. At this meeting, one of the

most important objectives targeted for the upcoming staff meeting included

70

clarifying the purpose of the school’s collaboration with CIERA, what the potential
benefits were, and the various levels of involvement teachers could assume
within the project. Level Three was the designated tier for teachers on the CPT.
Level Two teachers allowed researchers to interview students from their
classroom and observe literacy instruction. And Level One teachers agreed to
participate in decisions that impacted the whole school, which included the
implementation of new assessment tools. Interviews with Westchester
Elementary staff revealed the need and value of having a CPT, as it served a
number of functions within the school improvement effort.
Westchester staff saw the CPT serving five major roles and functions in
the school change process, including: (a) more knowledgeable others, (b)
encouraging buy-in and ownership, (0) planning, (d) assessing staff readiness
and pace of change, and (e) liaisons. As more knowledgeable others, the CPT
was respected by their peers for their knowledge and commitment to literacy
development,
I think the core team [was] put in a really very appropriate role. They were
the leaders... And I think that it’s given us more than just the experts per
se. I mean it wasn’t that we had to wait til’ David or Deanna showed up if
we had questions. There were people that work here on staff that said, no,
this is what they meant by when they said...This is what they meant, this is
what we’d like to do. And that, I think, made it easier to implement. (Int-
Chris, 5/02)
Positioned as “intellectual gophers,” they sought out information (if they did not

already have it) to help move the staff in established directions, asked and

answered questions, and problem-solved by searching for alternatives or

71

solutions. As on-site experts and leaders from within the ranks, the CPT earned
the respect and trust of their fellow teachers,

And the fact that you do have the core people who are able to relate to
their peers, I think that’s probably maybe even more important. The fact
that, if they buy into it and they can explain it and understand it, I think that
puts more value perhaps than even the administrative leadership or you
all, you know, all of you, with your leadership, too, because even though
we respect your opinions and...the things that you do with us, I would
almost say that the actual core members might be the most important key
to helping the change take place. (Int-Leslie, 5/02)

The Core Planning Team promoted buy-in and ownership in a number of ways.
One parent of a kindergarten and fourth grade student poignantly attributed the
staff’s enthusiasm and dedication to Patti, the principal.

[Patti] is an integral part of the school. Her leadership has a lot to do with
these teachers wanting to continue to give their best to the students. You
can’t have...you can’t have someone that’s in charge that doesn’t
understand how to talk to people, to convey the message, you know,
share with them how much she cares about the education of these kids
and to do it in a way that’s not demeaning...l have watched the last five
years this place just dramatically change, and I know that a large
percentage of that is because of her leadership and the way that she
communicates with her staff and the people around her. (lnt-PCH, 5/02)

Likewise, the staff respected Patti for her expertise and experience as a former
teacher and her involvement at all levels of the project. Speaking to Patti’s
personal and professional characteristics one second grade teacher noted,

I think...as an administrator, I think she gets really down in there, whereas
some administrators would kind of step back and let the staff do it. I mean,
they’d check in and make sure things were going but [Patti] really has her
hand in it, in the development, in making sure that things are being carried
out the way they were intended and that we’re all on the ball and doing
what we’re supposed to be doing, when we’re supposed to be doing it.
(Int-Jenny, 5/02)

72

The structure of the project, as a whole, encouraged staff ownership in the
school improvement process. The staff was encouraged to voice their opinions
and determined the course of change by voting. Chosen topics were honored
and addressed by the CPT, regardless of personal preference or opinion. As one
Reading Recovery and former first grade teacher shared,

I know we weren’t real happy. . .about the spelling but you know, that

worked out to be something that really was timely and it was something

they really needed and wanted, and put the icing on the cake as far as the

staff buy-in and the development. (Int-Margaret, 5/04)

The Core Planning Team also played a significant role in the planning and
design of meetings and artifacts. They did much of the legwork and tried hard to
maximize use of the staff’s time. Commenting on the CPT’s function a first grade

teacher shared,

That is exactly it. They are the core. They get the information, they make
the plans, come back and give us directions and tell us what we should be
doing. I’d like them to go ahead and make more decisions about those
other pieces; you know what should we be doing now, helping us plan
what we are going to do with all of this information. (lnt-Marva, 5/00)

The staff valued having different degrees of participation to choose from because
it made the decision-making process more efficient. Having reflected upon the
division of labor one kindergartener teacher shared,
I mean, I think it makes more sense to have three, you know, three
different levels of it as opposed to expecting everybody to be in the core
team, making decisions, cuz then you have too many people with too
many opinions, so you need a small set for decision making. (Int-Melissa,
5/02)
In addition, the CPT saved time,
[The Core Team] does a lot of planning for when we get together so it can

be productive in the least amount of time. I know that their hours are a lot
greater than ours. And it is so that we can work efficiently. We couldn’t do

73

it without them. We all would have burned out a long time ago. (Int-Chris,
5/00)

The decision-making process overall went more smoothly because the CPT was
able to anticipate potential hurdles and work out solutions by trying to understand
why staff would respond in certain ways. For example, in a discussion of how
writing assessment data should be interpreted and shared, Patti reminded the
CPT of the staff’s limited experience with interrogating data,

Maybe drawing the correlation between how we look at MEAP and why
we look at the MEAP scores with this piece of information might be
something that would be hands on. They could really understand that. And
then maybe provide us some options about different ways to look at this
because. . .basically as classroom teachers, this isn’t something we do
often. Research and data collection is not something that’s constant in our
classrooms, so providing those opportunities for us to think beyond what’s
obvious would be an interesting piece for us. (CM, 9/14/99)

A large part of the planning process involved assessing staff readiness to
move forward with respect to their motivation as well as their level of
understanding. Consequently, the staff had to ask themselves three related
questions: (a) What does the staff know about the topic? (b) What do they need
to know? and (c) How do we get them there and increase buy-in? This kind of
evaluation was captured in quotes from the principal and another Core Planning '
Team member, respectively,

...one thing this year has taught me is I can only do so much. . .some of

[the change] has to come along on its own. Sometimes, just like you watch

your students and you, you’re going to change what you’re doing based

on the way they respond. I think it’s the same way with the teaching
staff...we have to watch where they’re going and go the next step based
on what their understanding is and where they are. And in a perfect world,
we could do all these things and we could do them now. If we could hand
pick the people in the building we want to do it with, we can do that. But in

reality, the situation is we have everybody in this building and they’re all
on a different plane, let me tell you. . .But they struggle, they struggle at

74

different things...Some people are struggling personally, some are
struggling professionally, which I’m working with...everybody’s at a
different struggle area. (Int-Patti, 5/01)

I think in the beginning I thought we’d be farther ahead at this point. But as
we started, I thought no. The staff in the building was not quite ready yet.
There’s more that we need to explore. Like, you know, making sure
people are all on the same page... Like okay, we’re starting at the
foundation. We’re all on different levels of understanding but making sure
that some of those very basic things are understood. (Int-Margaret, 5/02)

Acknowledging the staff’s level of comfort was also part of the process as one
Reading Recovery/Title l Coordinator observed,

I think what I’ve seen from this staff overall is, the more knowledge and
information they have the more comfortable they feel creating their own
things, they obviously don’t feel comfortable in the spelling area. So I think
with more information it will come. (CM-Terry, 1/11/00)

Accordingly, the CPT had to monitor the pace of the change effort and as
they Ieamed, timing was everything,

I think we’ve done a good job of that this year, of making sure, taking it
slow enough or we introduced it at the right time where, you know, they’re
ready for that... showing them these are some of the new things coming
down the pipe... because I think maybe in other instances, it’s just been
something, here’s the new thing from wherever and this is what we’re
gonna do. But we actually give them time to kind of think about it, provide
the information, see how it would work in the classroom, how it wouldn’t
work, what titles could you use, how could you plan the themes. I think that
gives them a lot of good thinking without being ovenrvhelming...we have to
do the kind of development with them that a teacher would do with their
students because you know, you can jump in and give all the information
but then who will have gleaned it all and who will be frustrated and who will
be [at the] instructional [level]. (Int-Margaret, 5/02)

Lastly, the Core Planning Team fulfilled an extremely important role as
liaison. Concerned with the common good of the school, each member of the
CPT assumed roles comparable to those taken on by union representatives. As

members of particular grade levels they spoke on their behalf and served as

75

liaisons between the grade levels and the CPT. One second grade teacher
commented on the availability of her grade level representative,

She’s within grade level so to have someone from each grade level is

important. Because if it’s someone from, say you only have two people in

the building, you may never see those people. So she’s always available.

(Int-Joan, 5/02)

The staff also expressed the Core Planning Team’s willingness and ability to
respect diverse opinions and incorporate teacher input. One kindergarten teacher
shared,

I don’t feel like it was someone else’s decisions and I had to follow them

just because I was told to. . .I know our representative for kindergarten

does a wonderful job in bringing the information from the meetings back to
us and talking to us about it and getting our feedback and stuff like that...
she always comes to us and says this is what happened and what do you

guys think. (Int-Melissa, 5/02)

The Core Planning Team’s ability to support change, as depicted in the next sub-
section, had much to do with the rules and norms (transparent and tacit)
supporting the community.

Rules and norms.

When asked how the school improvement effort impacted staff and
students, the principal placed great emphasis on the new culture that had
emerged:

I think it produced a culture of Ieaming, of group Ieaming. And it started

the effective use of collaborative time because we began to use it as

conversational time and we began to leam from each other. We looked at
writing samples, we talked about the rubric, we started to maybe evaluate

ourselves a little bit more as classroom teachers. (Int-Patti, 5/02)

Likewise, as one fourth grade CPT teacher pointed out,

I keep coming back to that collaboration piece, but I just can’t

76

believe how well the grade levels collaborate now, how we come to staff
meetings and communicate now, how much more we understand what
first grade is doing under fourth grade, it is just incredible with the amount
of sharing that goes on. And that in turn has certainly created a
Westchester team spirit, if you will, among the staff. (Int-Barbara, 5/02)

When asked to comment on the principal’s role in this endeavor, teachers
mentioned her ability to set the tone and provide a supportive environment. One
third grade teacher shared:
You have somebody who’s gonna set the tone and not just set the tone
and walk back out of the room, but set the tone and be there and work
through it with you, it encourages and helps everybody else to be
involved. And she does have a way to talk to people who don’t seem to be
contributing as much involvement, to let them know that that’s part of the
expectation. (Int-Jeanne, 5/02)
Moreover, her approachable and non-judgmental nature helped her facilitate risk-
taking and change among staff. A PreK teacher addressed the principal’s
willingness to be supportive:
She’s been...very encouraging. She’s also been very helpful. You know,
saying her door is always open if you have questions. And, you know, I
think she’s someone that’s very open...l feel like you can approach her
with...problems that you’re having and that she’s not judging
you. . .thinking, ‘Oh, gosh, she doesn’t know what she’s doing.’
(Int-Christina, 5/02)
The principal also articulated the important role trust played in creating a
supportive environment,
They trust me. . .I think your effectiveness is somehow hinged to the level
of trust people have in you. And even though I’ve had to say some very
difficult things in evaluation processes...l think they really believe that l
have the good of everyone in mind at all times. (Int-Patti, 5/02)
The principal’s character traits and actions indeed, supported a culture of
Ieaming. To elaborate, the principal was well aware of the time constraints

teachers had to operate within, including other subject area responsibilities and

77

personal commitments after school. In view of such limitations, she needed to
make sure that teachers were able to meet school-wide, grade level and
individual expectations for change. Staff meetings were designed to share new
information with the staff, reserved for professional development activities and
presented teachers with opportunities to share across grade levels. The focused,
goal oriented nature of these activities were a significant factor in their success.
The curriculum director called attention to this point when she compared the
happenings at the middle school to those at Westchester Elementary:
Westchester, I think, really uses the time and uses the assessment-and
part of it’s the collaborative time, and they’re able to talk about it...But I
think if they had the collaborative time without the professional
development, which the middle school does, it wouldn’t have been okay.
(Int-Laura, 5/02)
To facilitate grade level communication, Patti scheduled time during the school
day for teachers to meet in grade level collaborative teams, which were
commonly referred to as “collabs”; teachers met daily for 25 minutes while
students were at recess and also had planning time available during specials.
Prior to the start of the 2001-2002 school year, the only time grade level teams
had an opportunity to collaborate was one Monday a month after school and that
time was not structured. Moreover, time was always set aside for staff to
administer, score and evaluate student assessments and was published in staff
memos or on staff calendars. In describing the import of the various participation
structures within the school, Patti called attention to their interdependent nature,
The most powerful [meetings] are the staff meetings but you can’t have
the staff meetings without the core team meeting...That’s become the

forum to get the common language out there. Collab teams are short and
pretty specific to one, one topic, and pretty much instructional. This is what

78

you have to do. This is what information we’re collecting. That’s it...And I
don’t think there’s a lot of talk between themselves about things, until that
forum of the staff meeting. When they get in those [groups] they spark off
of each other. . .Lives are busy and...we have taken and scheduled X
amount of minutes every month for that. . .(lnt-Patti, 5/01)
The benefits of such collaborative time were also conveyed by the staff, as one
kindergarten teacher explained,
Kindergarten just got collaborative for the first time last year so this is only
our second year of collaboration and that is extremely helpful and
beneficial rather than trying to find time always after the school day to get
together. Helps us keep focused and looking ahead at what is going on in
the upcoming weeks as well as sharing what is happening currently in our
classrooms and see if we are all going crazy at times or if kids are
behaving the same way in all rooms, (Int-Anne, 5/02)
Active participation at Westchester Elementary was the established norm for
change. At minimum, teachers were expected to attend and participate in
meetings and to administer assessment tools agreed upon as a staff. Self—
selected levels of participation allowed teachers to determine the extent of their
involvement beyond the minimum expectations and supported flexible role
changes. This standard even extended itself to more personal agendas, including
staff weight loss:
Yeah I know it’s all team isn’t it, I know isn’t that funny, they’re all giving us
something to really work together towards whether it’s Weight Watchers or
writing or spelling or whatever...
(Int-Barbara, 5/02)
The decision to take on leadership roles, particularly at the Core Planning
Team level, had much to do with (a) other time commitments, (b) comfort with
content knowledge and expectations, and (c) the ability to conceptualize change

and accept the abstract. Jeanne, for instance, actively served as a third grade

representative since the start of the project because of her comfort with and

79

knowledge of writing. Because of family commitments, however, she chose not to
participate in Core Planning Team meetings in 2001 and thereafter. In her spring
2002 interview, the district curriculum director commented on the role that
knowledge and comfort with the abstract factored into leadership,

I think it’s been very effective there are people who can accept an

innovation on an abstract level and people who accept it on a concrete

level and I think that the three tiers that you’ve created have allowed tier

one people to see it happen even though they couldn’t conceptualize it. So

I think it’s allowed for both types of thinking and it’s allowed for the

different levels of concerns about change. (Int-Laura, 5/02)

Section Summary

Context served a critical role in the change effort at Westchester
Elementary. Structural supports, as in the agreed upon division of labor,
permitted teacher leaders on the Core Planning Team to mobilize reform by (a)
serving as more knowledgeable others, (b) encouraging buy-in and ownership,
(c) planning, (d) assessing staff readiness and pace of change, and (e) acting as
liaisons. The rules and norms of shared responsibility, collaboration, risk-taking,
and trust that personified the community played a corresponding role as well.
Taken together, these participation structures laid the foundation for creating a
school-wide vision of literacy and a community of learners. The remainder of this
chapter will describe the activities at the forefront of the consistency building
process and how those activities unfolded in the service of building shared
understandings of literacy and assessment.
Leading through Assessment

Applying Engestrbm’s triangle heuristic to the change process at

Westchester merely provides a snapshot or “macroreflection” (Barab et al., 2002)

80

of the activities characterizing the development of a school-wide assessment
system. Although the figure depicts a static system, it actually has a history of
nested activity systems. In other words, Westchester staff had to participate in a
number of coordinated, goal-driven actions in order to achieve their desired
outcome of adequate student performance. First, in order to incorporate new
assessment tools into their school day the staff had to create new schedules.
Likewise, they set aside time for Ieaming about the assessments and how they
should be administered and scored. Third, staff created routines for reflecting on
the utility of the assessment and student results. Fourth, they scheduled regular
occasions for professional development. Fifth, since assessments were used for
instructional and accountability purposes teachers documented and shared
student results. Lastly, they arranged times to celebrate their successes.

Scheduling assessment.

In order to better contextualize the activity that unfolded at Westchester
Elementary, I direct the reader’s attention to the bottom portion of Engestrom’s
triangular schematic. The subject relates to the community via rules and the
community relates to the object via a division of labor (Barab et al., 2003). Thus,
when the Core Planning Team drafted administration schedules for familiar and
new assessment tools, the remainder of the staff trusted they would not do so in
haste and would also schedule assessments in ways that would help them meet

their instructional and accountability needs.

81

Learning about assessment.

Learning about assessment comprised building shared understandings of
assessment and assessment systems, and the procedural knowledge for
administering and scoring three different assessment tools. A variety of
instruments were used to mediate the staff's understanding of assessment
including anecdotes, brainstorming sessions and role play. On one occasion,
teachers were asked to assume the role of an elementary student as they
completed a comprehension assessment in one of five formats (i.e. oral retelling,
multiple-choice, short answer, summarizing task, or relating the passage to their
personal experience) and then discussed the impact of the format on their
expenence.

Before assessment tools could be used as instruments for mediating the
development of a school-wide literacy assessment system and vision
Westchester staff first needed to develop an understanding of how each of the
tools (objects) worked. In the area of writing, the school chose to adopt the
holistic wn'ting assessment and scoring rubric from the Michigan Literacy
Progress Profile (MLPP), a compilation of informal, earty literacy assessment
tools engineered by the state and two intermediate school districts (lSDs). The
writing prompt and rubric as is, however, could not meet their needs so a
secondary contradiction emerged between the writing assessment (instrument)
and their plan to create a school-wide assessment system and vision (object).
The staff responded to this tension by creating a standardized set of procedures

for each grade level to follow which included decisions about the nature and

82

extent to which pre-reading and pre-writing activities would be used, how to
accommodate special education students, and how to handle make-up exams.
Holistic scoring sessions gave teachers the opportunity to Ieam how to apply the
rubric to student writing samples and time to clarify standards with peers.

The second construct staff chose to tackle was spelling. They adopted the
Developmental Spelling Assessment (Ganske, 2000) and initially learned about
the tool by scoring spelling samples that the CPT had collected. The CPT spent a
considerable amount of time determining how to use this instrument, rooted in a
developmental theory of spelling, to spur the creation of a comprehensive
spelling program that would meet individual student needs as well as grade level
benchmarks. Once staff developed a general understanding of the theory behind
the tool, they were then able to use the instrument to mediate the development of
a spelling curriculum (object).

The final component of Westchester’s literacy assessment system was the
development of a school-wide English language arts assessment (ELA). A
prototype for a revised state assessment helped mediate the development of the
school’s ELA (i.e., it served as an instrument) however it posed both secondary
and quaternary contradictions. Staff were working with a fourth grade prototype
so in order to create and institute “mini-MEAPs” they needed to determine how
the various assessment activities would look at each of the grade levels,
kindergarten through fourth grade, which created a secondary contradiction
between the assessment instrument and the five different grade level ELA

assessments (objects). Moreover, they needed to discuss how to merge the

83

English language arts assessment with the writing assessment they already had
in place. Modeling their grade level assessments after the MEAP prototype
meant that staff needed to become familiar with two 6-point holistic scoring
rubrics, one for writing and one for writing in response to reading; they needed to
replace the 4-point scale they were used to and had do a little more work which
posed a quaternary contradiction.

Reflecting on assessment.

Reflecting on the utility of an assessment at Westchester Elementary
occurred on a regular basis and often required staff to address the procedural
aspects of assessment (i.e., administration, creation process, scoring), evaluate
the usefulness of the information gleaned from the data, and achieve coherence
as a staff. On one occasion, the CPT asked staff to participate in a PMQ activity,
where grade level groups discussed the “pluses” and “minuses” of holistic
scoring and addressed “questions” that emerged from the process. This
evaluation instrument and others like it helped the staff develop common
understandings about the importance of the man for consistency in scoring, the
ability to make within and cross-grade level comparisons, and the merit of the
conversations that ensued around the scoring of student work.

Westchester staff were presented with a number of opportunities to
interrogate spelling data which also helped increase overall buy-in for a spelling
program. Prior to adopting the DSA, for instance, the CPT used writing samples
from the holistic writing assessment as an instrument to mediate staff

understanding about (a) what should be included in a spelling program and (b)

84

the potential utility of the DSA. In this case, the CPT had staff identify the
percentage of correctly spelled high frequency words, common phonemes, and
unique words present in student writing samples scored a 2, 3, or a 4. Teachers
noted that increasing mastery of high frequency words was visible across the
grade levels, but students missed a number of unique words, which seemed to
be related to the control they had over phonograms. The activity provided
support for including high frequency words, common patterns, and personally
interesting words in student spelling lists.

Feedback on the spelling program as it evolved was generally positive.
Teachers felt that familiarity with the developmental continuum made
benchmarks clearer and helped students move away from memorizing. It also
helped teachers individualize instruction and allowed them to observe student
growth. On the other hand, teachers wrestled with managing multiple spelling
groups, accommodating students at either end of the developmental spectrum in
addition to those who have not met the benchmark for placement in the earliest
of levels, how to assess spelling in student writing, and how to communicate
spelling results with parents. As teachers became accustomed to using the
Ganske tool in conjunction with their developing curriculum the number of
questions they had increased. Such questions posed challenges and presented a
secondary tension between the DSA (the instrument) and the staff’s desire to
build a shared understanding of spelling (the object). In order to mediate this
tension, the staff compiled their questions and the CPT arranged a conference

call with Kathy Ganske to gain some insight.

85

In an effort to reify teacher understandings of key goals and actions and
maintain momentum, the CPT engaged the staff in a number of “taking stock”
activities, which served as instruments for building a shared vision. At the end of
their first year of reform efforts, for instance, the CPT guided the staff in creating
a timeline of significant events (Assessment Work Milestones). Staff were
presented with a list of specific accomplishments (e.g., Established Core Team
Planning Group, Developed Procedures for Writing Prompt) and were asked to
reflect on each accomplishment by writing answers to the following questions,
Why did we do the activity? How did the activity help us? At the end of year 3,
staff were asked to assess the status of their progress in the areas of writing,
spelling and reading by focusing on items that were currently in place, what
seemed to be working, and what else needed to be accomplished and refined.
Staff feedback ranged from acknowledging the benefits of having a school-wide
writing assessment and spelling plan but acknowledged the need for more
instructional activities and better ways of communicating student results to
parents and across grade levels. Furthermore, although comments focused on
the need for a reading comprehension assessment, they also conveyed staff
apprehension to move toward with reading when writing and spelling needed
further refinement.

Engaging in professional development.

Westchester staff participated in a variety of professional development
activities aimed not only at increasing their understanding of literacy constructs

but also their knowledge of how to translate findings from assessment data into

86

curricula and practice. Sometimes research articles (instruments) were employed
to broaden teacher understanding and reconcile the primary tension between
theory and practice. This tension was particularly profound in the area of spelling
and is highlighted in the following quote from the principal,
Writing has been this nebulous area all the way along, so what we...did as
a group, we provided a rationale for teaching writing. We did it through
that avenue with the assessment first. We have the understanding there,
but spelling is a totally different area, because we’ve been teaching
spelling haphazardly, whatever may, for 100 years, so we all have a
concept in our minds. So now, rather than providing some kind of
assessment first and then the understanding, we gotta back track and
understand why we teach spelling and what’s the best way to use it and
how we can go from there. (CM5, 10/12/99)
In this instance, the CPT lead the staff in a JIGSAW reading of an article
discussing the developmental stages of spelling (see Templeton and Morris,
1999) from which they Ieamed (a) the importance of a developmentally
appropriate curriculum since spelling is a developmental process, (b) that
spelling development echoes the historical development of the English language,
(c) inventive spelling is okay because it leads to the exploration of conventional
spelling, (d) modeling analogies and how to look at words is important, (e) it is
difficult to teach just using phonics since there are variations in dialects and (f)
instruction should point out what students do right.
On a similar note, a draft of the book chapter “Effective Practices for
Developing Reading Comprehension” (Duke & Pearson, 2002) was used to
prompt teacher conversations around comprehension instruction. Teachers

explored the behaviors of good readers and were introduced to the facets of a

“Balanced Comprehension Instruction" model and researched based

 

5 Core Meeting

87

comprehension strategies. The faculty was challenged to take stock of the
comprehension strategies that students used while reading as well as the ones
for which they provided instruction. The activity prompted teachers to think about
the relationship between retelling and summary and the way in which each
manifest themselves in the lower and upper grade levels; it also highlighted the
value of think-alouds and the import of multiple and deliberate passes through a
text. After taking stock of their own practices, teachers acknowledged the need to
devote more attention to student questioning and the comprehension of
informational texts within language arts and across the content areas.
Discussions surrounding student performance routinely led to discussions
about practice. The staff valued the holistic writing assessment as an
instructional tool because it allowed for focused discussions of writing constructs
(i.e., ideas and content, organization, style, sentence structure, word choice,
voice and conventions) and provided teachers with the evidence needed to make
instructional decisions. The CPT presented staff with a variety of activities
(instruments) to help translate data from assessments into practice and mediate
a secondary tension. Immediately following the very first administration of the
writing assessment, for example, grade level groups of teachers discussed the
qualities associated with level 2 and level 3 papers. After identifying and
documenting the characteristics of level 3 paper and discussing strategies for
bringing level 2 papers up to a score of 3, the CPT presented the staff with a
mini-lesson on how to teach students to add more detail to their writing by

“Exploding the Moment” (Lane, 1992). Further analysis of student writing

88

samples revealed a need for teachers to explore options for teaching students
about voice. The staff unpacked the concept of voice by examining various
definitions and examples from published works (e.g., Spandel & Stiggins, 1995;
student work from Reading and writing grade by grade: Primary literacy
standards for kindergarten through third Grade, New Standards, 1999), as well
as student writing samples.

Once teachers reached a level of comfort with the writing prompt, they
then used the assessment as a springboard (an instrument) for the development
a school-wide writing curriculum; this did not happen until the third year of the
prompt’s instantiation. The process began with an assessment of how their initial
curriculum framework aligned with the curricular goals that were currently in
place at each grade level and then followed with grade levels concentrating on
how they were already teaching writing, and students’ most recent performance
on the prompts. Teachers collaborated with their grade level peers to identify
teaching points and discuss activities that could potentially be used to address
particular parts of the scoring rubric. They then shared their instructional writing
goals and activities with one another during a poster fair. The discussions that
ensued led to the establishment of three school-wide writing goals that included
setting higher expectations for students, helping students stretch the content of
their writing, and modeling good writing. In order to maintain the momentum of
the assessment system, the Language Arts Committee (a group consisting of a
few CPT members and other teaching staff) agreed to tackle the development

and fine-tuning of the writing curriculum in year 4 of the project. Curriculum

89

development, however, continued well into year five with input from the rest of
the staff.

Documenting and sharing results.

In an effort to address the need to document and share results for
instructional and accountability purposes the Core Panning team (CPT) drafted a
needs assessment chart (an instrument) depicting the school-wide assessment
information that needed to be recorded and communicated year to year.
Documenting student growth across curriculum areas was of great consequence
in reporting to the state because it was used to determine if the school qualified
for Title | funding. This information was then transferred into standard Individual
Student Progress Profiles and Classroom Record Sheets for staff to review and
comment on, and eventually use in their final form.

Teachers were quite cognizant of not presenting data in a way that would
allow staff to be compared to one another based on their students’ scores.
Consequently, data compiled after the first year of the writing assessment only
showed how many students in each grade took the writing assessment during
each administration and the score they received, general increase/decrease
information, and trends as a grade level. The data, as the staff acknowledged,
did not share reasons for student performance, individual growth and/or decline,
what strengths and weaknesses were present, teaching points, teacher growth
and/or decline, performance in relation to reading, or how a child was feeling at
the time of the administration. Although the way in which the data was presented

to staff exposed a primary tension between what was reported and what could

9O

have been reported, the reflection and professional development activities
detailed above helped staff move forward with their agenda.

Documenting and sharing spelling progress with parents was also a
concern for the staff since they wanted to increase buy-in for this new
instructional approach to spelling and change how parents viewed spelling. The
DSA came with a class record form that summarized student performance at a
particular point in time and a student profile sheet which could be used to record
student performance over multiple years. Members of the CPT showed staff how
the profile sheet could be turned into a bar graph depicting student spelling
development as well as grade level expectations, and thus created a useful
instrument for communicating spelling goals and progress to parents.

Celebrating success.

Accountability as a concept and a process came to be perceived by
Westchester staff as something that could carry positive connotations.
Celebrations occurred throughout the year as conditions presented themselves
(e.g., completion of an assessment, improved performance on school and state
assessments and class work), and always at the end of every school year, often
in conjunction with “taking stock” activities. Celebrations typically took the form of
announcements made at staff meetings (sometimes accompanied by festive
foods) and eventually materialized as tangible objects (e.g., newspaper articles,
awards) that could be admired everyday. In addition, they were not limited to
direct cause and effect relationships or successes solely observed at the

elementary school level. Progress on the state reading assessment, for example,

91

was shared in spite of limited professional development in reading prior to the
test. Moreover, performance on middle school assessments was shared at the
elementary level.
Summary

The teachers at Westchester Elementary set out to build an early literacy
assessment system and shared vision (object) in order to effect positive student
performance (outcome). Previous attempts at change failed because the school
lacked sufficient instruments and had staff with conflicting beliefs who were
regularly dealing with time constraints. When the school agreed to partner with
university researchers in a school-wide initiative, however, the majority of the
tensions disappeared. The impetus for building a school-wide assessment
system evolved from the staff’s need to manage the prevailing instruction and
accountability tension. The school was successful at negotiating this tension
because they had two very important participation structures in place-division of
labor and rules/norms. The Core Planning Team (CPT) was created to
streamline the work and was ultimately successful in its endeavors because the
members served as more knowledgeable others and liaisons, encouraged buy-in
and ownership, and spent a considerable amount of time planning and assessing
staff readiness and pace of change. Moreover, the school would not have been
able to successfully enact their multifaceted, assessment driven professional
development activities (which consequently stimulated further tensions) without
trust, shared responsibility, and opportunities for staff to communicate and

collaborate with one another.

92

CHAPTER 5
Discussion and Conclusion
Overview

My research study is a qualitative case of literacy leadership that can best
be described as a coordinated web of goal-directed activities, or systems of
practice (Halverson, 2003), designed to negotiate the accountability and
instruction tension, build shared understandings of literacy and assessment, and
mobilize school reform. It set out to document how the development of a school-
wide, early literacy assessment system could serve as a catalyst in the evolution
and function of shared leadership and the execution of local reform. Moreover, it
examined how the tension between assessment for accountability and
instructional purposes manifested during the development of a school-wide early
literacy assessment system and how shared leadership ultimately mediated that
tension. The results, as documented in Chapter 4, reveal the vital role that
participation structures play in the change process. Structures, such as agreed
upon norms and division of labor, can mediate the development of collaborative
tools that facilitate staff engagement in goal directed behaviors. Such
participation structures ultimately helped Westchester Elementary staff achieve
consensus and consistency as they scheduled, Ieamed about, and reflected
upon early literacy assessments, engaged in professional development activities,

documented and shared assessment results, and celebrated their successes.

93

Implications

When the stakes are high, as in our current climate of external
accountability, it is rare to find schools utilizing summative assessment tools
because they want to. More often than not, the tools are used to satisfy an
externally imposed mandate. Westchester Elementary, however, embraced both
formative and summative assessments and used them to lead a reform effort.
Perhaps even more surprising is that their concentrated and persistent attention
to assessment took shape prior to the passage and instantiation of the No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) legislation (USDE, 2001); the Westchester reform effort
began in 1998, but the mandates did not take hold until 2002 or shortly
thereafter, which is when data collection concluded for this study. How then, was
assessment able to sustain staff motivation and school improvement for so long?
The activity system I captured in this dissertation embodies six characteristics
inherent in professional Ieaming communities (DuFour & Eaker, 1998): (a)
shared mission and values; (b) collective inquiry; (c) collaborative teams with a
common purpose; (d) action oriented behavior and (e) a focus on continuous
improvement and (f) results. These structures certainly helped facilitate change
at Westchester, but the effort was also successful because it emphasized clear
connections among curriculum, instruction and assessment (Darling-Hammond
et al., 1995) and helped teachers solve practical problems (Shepard, 2000).
Teachers, for instance, used assessment data to (a) inform instruction and

various stakeholders, (b) measure student growth against developmental

94

continuums and grade level benchmarks, and (c) evaluate the efficacy of their
program.

The results of this study reveal four major implications for assessment
guided reform, professional development, and school-wide change. First,
assessment can serve as a catalyst for change as long as the complex dynamics
of assessment integration are taken into consideration: assessment tools will
need to be incorporated into an already busy schedule; staff will need time to
Ieam, administer and score the assessments; teachers must be given multiple
opportunities to reflect on the utility of assessments and student results; ongoing
professional development must be provided; a framework for documenting and
sharing student results for instruction and accountability purposes must be in
place; and, major milestones should be celebrated (see Peterson & Deal, 2002)
to underscore what was done and why, along with the subsequent impact.

Second, the capacity for change is contingent upon rules and norms
supporting a culture of collaboration. The participation structures at Westchester
Elementary remained static as staff addressed different literacy and assessment
domains and ultimately fostered ownership and trust in the change process. Lave
(1997) reminds us, with respect to student learners that,

The more the teacher, the curriculum, the texts, and the lessons ‘own’ the

problems or decompose steps so as to push Ieamers away from owning

problems, the harder it may be for them to develop the practice. (p. 33; as

cited in Barab et al., 2002, p. 104)

The same holds true for adult Ieamers. Unlike some current top-down models of

school change, the teachers in this study were not designated as objects to be

95

changed. Rather, they were provided with the scaffolding needed to be
positioned as their own agents of change.

Third, a flexible, core group of leaders is an integral part of the reform
process. Leadership at Westchester Elementary was shared but an individual’s
participation on the Core Planning Team (CPT) depended upon other time
commitments, interest and comfort level with the subject matter, and the
responsibilities that accompanied the position. Core Planning Team members
had a number of tasks to negotiate, including: serving as more knowledgeable
others; encouraging buy-in and ownership; planning; assessing staff readiness
and pace of change, and acting as liaisons.

Lastly, school change encompasses a complex set of nested, goal-
directed, tool and rule mediated activity systems that are unique to the
organization and the individuals that make it up. Although teachers are shaped
by the goals that define the teaching profession they are ultimately subject to
circumstance, which make a “one size fits all” model of professional development
suspect. Moreover, one cannot successfully coordinate all of the components of
change without a professional community of practice-the social capital
(Halverson, 2003)-to do so. The adoption of an assessment tool, for example,
would be trivial without buy-in from the staff and agreed upon rules and
expectations. Likewise, trust and clear expectations devoid of the know-how and
opportunity to engage in meaningful interactions around instruction and
assessment can lead to a false sense of professional community (Grossman,

Wineburg & Woolworth, 2000).

96

Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT): An Analytical Tool

Strengths.

Cultural Historical Activity Theory, thus far, has not been widely used as
an analytical tool for examining school change efforts. My use of CHAT in this
study, however, does support what others have conveyed (e.g., Barab et al.,
2002; Yamagata-Lynch, 2001, 2007; Yamagata-Lynch & Haudenschild, 2009)
about its value as a useful heuristic. First, CHAT provides researchers with a
common vocabulary to describe habitual operations in real-world settings.
Likewise, it helps researchers make the invisible components of communities
and the change process (e.g., Ieaming, cultural norms, tensions) more visible.
One would concentrate on the observable aspects of a system (i.e., activity-
action-operation), for instance, in order to better understand the unobservable
motive, goals, and instrumental conditions of shared meaning making. An
essential component of this process involves identifying the tensions that
motivate activity. As I classified the internal contradictions (Engestrom, 1987,
1993a, 1993b) that emerged during the reform effort at Westchester Elementary,
for example, I discovered that tertiary contradictions (when one method of
achieving an object is at odds with a method that is perceived to be more
culturally advanced) did not present themselves. I was surprised by the results at
first because when schools adopt outside curricula or assessments they do so
because they either think, or are told, that they are better-quality solutions to their
problems. One would suppose then that the adoption of the Michigan Literacy

Progress Profile (MLPP) holistic writing assessment, or any of the other

97

assessments, would have posed such tensions but they did not. Instead, they
were viewed as objects to attain and they eventually became tools in the change
process. Had it not been for the rules and norms of shared responsibility,
collaboration, risk-taking, and trust along with the division of labor tertiary
contradictions would have surely arisen.

A third advantage of CHAT is that it provides researchers with the
flexibility to focus on broad patterns of object-oriented activity over time or even
actions lasting minutes with individuals, groups, or even institutions as the focal
point of the study. Accordingly, it highlights the intentionality of the change
process, whereas goals are only “retrospective and reflexive” (Lave, 1988, as
cited in Nardi, 1996) under the situative perspective. Lave and Wenger (1991)
note that goals generally do not compel change. Rather, people develop an
awareness of goals only after an activity has taken place, and after it has been
verbally been discussed.

Another benefit of CHAT rests with the triangle heuristic created by
Engestrbm. The diagram depicts persistent structures and helps turn abstract
concepts into concrete representations. While it may not be that useful to share
various instantiations of the heuristic with a teacher, discussing its components
and associated tensions could increase teacher involvement in the change
process. It is much more fruitful to tell teachers that they are part of a network of
individuals who are actively involved in the change process than it is to describe
them as “followers” as they are labeled under the distributed leadership

framework (Spillane et al., 2001). Moreover, the persistent structures make it

98

easier for researchers to examine the interconnected nature of situations (i.e.,
object-oriented activities). The diagrams l have shared in this research fall under
what Engestrom (2001) has labeled second generation activity theory. The third
generation of activity theory allows researchers to examine how activity systems
interact (see Figure 4). Under this conception, joint activity serves as the unit of
analysis. Figure 4 depicts two activity systems bound by a shared object, but
initiated by different subjects. Use of third generation activity theory is still not
very widespread among North American researchers (Yamagata-Lynch &
Haudenschild, 2009) but it can be a useful tool for examining how activity
systems initiated by a school may interact with district or university initiated

activities.

Instruments Instruments

 

 

Subject <———> Object 1., fl

Rules Division Rules ‘__, +___, Division
.I I 0f Community of
Communlty Labor Labor

Figure 4. Interacting activity systems in third generation activity theory
adapted from Engestrom (2001) and Yamagata-Lynch & Haudenschild (2009).

99

Weaknesses.

Cultural Historical Activity Theory, overall, is a valuable tool in educational
research. The limitations generally associated with CHAT largely point to the
drawbacks of using an activity systems analysis (i.e., the triangle heuristic). The
static nature of the diagram has the potential to oversimplify rich activity and has
the potential to mask the interconnectedness of activities. Employing a thematic

analysis with an activity systems analysis, however, can offset that-issue.

Future Directions

A number of different questions arose during my research which warrant
further investigation. Although this study did not focus on individual teacher
development and the roles they assumed over time, there were two individuals
who did play a significant role in the reform process. At the start of the study both
women participated on the CPT and taught first grade and Reading Recovery,
but by the end, they shared the role of school librarian and continued in their
positions as Reading Recovery specialists and Core Planning Team members.
They were both highly motivated individuals indeed, and one has since assumed
the role of Principal at the elementary school, but what I do not know is how their
beliefs, experiences, and professional roles as librarians and Reading Recovery
teachers allowed them to compel change. The roles of library media specialists
are changing (see Buzzeo, 2007), but how can these new roles impact students’
literacy development? This is a vital question given looming budget cuts and the
firing of key personnel, like school librarians (see American Library Association

[ALA], 2007).

100

Two teachers served as co-principals at the start of the study, Catherine
left at the end of year 2, Patti served through year 5 and Margaret assumed the
position at the beginning of year 6. The transition from two principals to one
principal appeared to go rather smoothly, but I do not have any data (other than
what I have heard through word of mouth on a few visits post analysis) pointing
toward sustainable leadership and change thereafter. Leadership was rather
consistent throughout the study, but what happens when leadership changes?
Can a new leader sustain positive change? What if that leader is someone hired
outside of the current faculty pool? Zoltner’s (2006) work suggests that a
particular routine or activity structure can help stabilize the transition of new
leaders and facilitate change, even in a high poverty urban school. Her work
along with others’ (e.g., Grossman et al., 2000; Spillane et al., 2004) suggests
that leadership activity can also depend upon the discipline. It is particularly
important for research to address these areas given the high mobility rate of
teachers and leaders in urban schools and their growing capacity.

Westchester performance on state exams was lower prior to their
involvement in change efforts. Although research suggests a relationship
between professional Ieaming communities and student performance (Louis et
al.,1995; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001) future research should examine whether
there is a causative link. Furthermore, does the kind of professional development
activity teachers engage in matter? Halverson (2006) suggests a typology
describing three kinds of activities (what he refers to as artifacts) used by leaders

that ultimately lead to the development of a professional community: catalytic

101

 

artifacts, like discussion groups that spark initial conversations; compounding
artifacts, such as data reflection retreats, that allow teachers to focus on a
particular issue; and coherence artifacts, like school improvement plans, that
reinforce a shared vision. Does the type of artifact or activity matter? Halverson’s
(2006) work and this study suggest not. The success of an artifact depends on
the context and the relationships that are built. Furthermore, under Cultural
Historical Activity Theory (CHAT), if a researcher attempted to assess the power
of a tool by isolating it from the other entities that epitomize the activity system,
she would run the risk of misinterpreting the data (Roth & Lee, 2007).

Lastly, if external facilitators are brought on as consultants, as was the
case in this study, what qualities do they possess that make them good
moderators? I had the privilege of working with, observing and analyzing the
discourse of two senior professional development experts and what impressed
me the most was how they used language-questions and statements-to set the
tone of meetings and scaffold Ieaming. What impact does facilitator discourse
have on teacher buy-in and school change? Researchers can better inform the
evolution of a system when they are aware of their own roles and the tensions
endemic to the system (Barab & Squire, 2004). Although this research was not
conducted under the guise of design-based research, the researchers involved
did have agendas and a framework with which to start. We hoped to impact the
instructional and assessment practices of Westchester staff while contributing to
extant theory and we did so by introducing a flexible, tiered level of professional

development. When researchers involve themselves in change projects they may

102

have a greater potential for influencing theory and practice by engaging in
design-based research which highlights the researcher's role in manipulating and
monitoring a number of variables while involving and honoring local participants

(Barab & Squire, 2004).

103

APPENDICES

104

APPENDIX A

Timeline of Capstone Events

105

Table 2

Timeline of Capstone Events

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date Activity

April 1998 Staff meeting (SM) is held to help staff gain an understanding of
the purpose of CIERA and to make sure the group is "on
boar'fi

June 1998 Core Planning Team (CPT) is established to act as facilitators
for people needing help on questions and to give guidance as to
the direction the school is headed.

September 21, Goals for the West Chester project are discussed at SM.

1998 Teachers discuss the questions clients would want to have
answered from the assessment information they receive and
create a list of assessment tools used to inform each of the
stakeholders.

October 19, CIERA Survey of Early Literacy Programs in High Performing

1998 Schools (1998) is distributed among staff to verify current
practices, discover what the staff believes about literacy, and to
gain an understanding of current grade level practices.
Teachers continue their discussion of stakeholder needs and
the notion of giving a building-wide writing assessment is briefly
discussed.

November 24, Writing prompt procedures are discussed as well as reasons for

1998 administering it (i.e., to standardize instruction across the grade
level and to develop an organizational approach to writim).

January 26, Staff participates in a PMQ activity, where grade level groups

1999 discuss the "pluses" and "minuses" of holistic scoring and

additional questions.

 

December 14,
1998

Kristen joins CPT as kindergarten representative.

 

 

Leadership

Change

February 8, Staff discusses results of CIERA survey, Including what they are
1999 surprised to find, findings that were verified, and questions

 

raised with regard to assessment, curriculum, and professional
development.

 

106

 

 

March 19,

Staff creates timeline of events (Assessment Work Milestones

 

 

 

 

 

1999 activity) occurring between April 1998 and March 1999 and
focuses discussion on why certain activities were used at
meetings and how they helped them as a staff. The group also
talks about the components of writing (i.e., Ideas and Content,
Organization, and Style: Sentence Structure, Word Choice,
Voice and Conventions) and discusses how the writing
assessment could drive instruction.

May 17, 1999 Grade level adaptations to writing prompt are discussed and
followed by a brainstorming session on what should be the
focus of the next literacy assessment.

August 20, Justine joins CPT as second grade representative. Replaces

1999 Valerie, who left the school.

Leadership

Change

September Bert replaces Jerome as Superintendent.

1999

Leadership

Change

September 21, “2-4 Question Some More” activity: Teachers get together in

1999 groups and complete the following two statements about Year 1
writing prompt results: “This information lets me know...” and
“But it doesn’t tell me about. . An example from this activity is
“This information lets me know trends as a grade level, but it
doesn’t tell me about teaching steps for individuals.

October 19, CPT member gives "creative spelling test" at SM. Everyone is

1999 asked to spell the words “assessment”, “research”,

“participation , convey” and “successfully". Using these spelling
words she presents the group with the following statement:
"Research proves that increased participation in the writing
process better enables the learner to convey their thoughts and
ideas successfully". The goal of the activity is to brainstorm
evidence of good spelling skills. The staff identifies and
discusses spelling program needs.

 

 

November 16,
1999

 

In order to explore the issue of spelling further, staff engage in
an exercise related to high frequency/common patterned words.
The CPT shows the full text of a 4th grade MEAP passage, and
identifies the use of high frequency words, common patterns,
and uncommon words not included in those two groups. The
staff discusses the possibility of creating a developmental
continuum spanning all grades.

 

107

 

 

January 18,
2000

Grade level pairs assess papers scored 3 2,3,4 on the writing
prompt, looking for connections between student spelling ability
and everyday writing.

 

February 15,
2000

Staff jigsaws “Questions teachers ask about spelling”
(Templeton and Morris, 1999). Teachers form groups and read
the introduction of the article together. Next, each group
brainstorrns responses to the questions raised in the article and
shares reactions as a staff.

 

March 17,
2000

CPT walks staff through Kathy Ganske's "Developmental
Spelling Analysis” assessment. Staff score, in grade level
groups, a portion of the assessment administered to a sample of
students earlier in the week, and ponder what they learned
about their students from the assessment. Later, three teachers
share their experiences administering parts of the assessment
to their reglective classes.

 

May 22, 2000

Staff is introduced to the components of a comprehensive
spelling program-one that provides them with 1) information to
make instructional decisions, 2) developmentally appropriate
Ieaming activities, 3) a school-wide monitoring system, and 4) a
plan for developing a curriculum. Grade level groups are asked
to think more about the school-wide writing assessment (e.g.,
How do we organize the information we’re getting from the
prompt? How do we use it to inform our instruction? How do we
communicate more effectively with students?)

 

June 12, 2000

Leadership
Change

A spelling committee (CPT) is formed to identify common
phonograms, high frequency words, and morphemes (prefixes,
affixes and suffixes) for grade level spelling lists. The group
discusses how to choose words, the number of words that
should be included in a bank, the number of words to test
children on, and the reliability of the Developmental Spelling
Analysis (Ganske, 2000).

Co-principal Catherine leaves the school. Patti serves as sole
principal.

Katie joins CPT as first grade representative and works with
Margaret. Leslie joins CPT as additional third grade
representative.

 

 

September 25,
2000

 

Goals for the spelling curriculum are articulated to the entire
staff: 1) Developing a curriculum (and assessment system) that
cuts across all grade levels, 2) Designing a formative
assessment that identifies student progress along a continuum
of developmental stages and grade level benchmarks, 3)
Developing instructional strategies that help students progress
from one developmental stage to the next, 4) Developing a
summative assessment, 4) Develging instructional strategies

 

108

 

 

that help students generate correct spellings of new words
based on knowledge of spelling patterns, 5) Designing an
application spelling assessment that focuses on how students
apply spelling knowledge in their everyday writing. Members of
the committee explain the grade level components of the
curriculum and assessment system.

 

October 16,
2000

Staff brainstorms means of reporting spelling information to
parents, reflects on the benefits of the school-wide writing
assessment, and ponders the need for more professional
development in writing. Staff votes to focus on voice for their
next workshop topic.

 

November 20,
2000

The group is presented with numerous definitions and examples
illustrating voice and is asked to explore voice in student papers
in cross grade level groups. After identifying and listing the
characteristics of voice that surfaced in the papers they discuss
activities that could be used to promote that element of writing.

 

January 29,
2001

Staff meets in grade level groups to examine student writing
and identify characteristics in the samples to help them develop
a list of grade level expectations. Afterwards, each grade level
shares their lists to create a continuum of expectations for
student writing across the grade levels.

 

February 26,
2001

Staff reviews draft of the continuum of expectations for student
writing across the grade levels started at the last meeting.
Group then participates in a written and oral reflection activity in
which they consider how the writing prompt has influenced their
writing instruction. Lastly, the staff discusses how they have
been using the results from the Developmental Spelling
Analyses.

 

March 19,
2001

Each staff member is given a passage from the Stanford-9
along with 1 of 5 different types of reading comprehension
assessments—oral retelling, multiple choice test, short answer
test, summarizing task, or relating the passage to their personal
experience. Individuals are asked to discuss their experience
with the particular assessment format they are given. For
example, what sorts of feelings did it evoke? How did the format
influence the way they read the text? What aspects of their
understanding could the format measure? How might the format
either facilitate or interfere with their ability to accurately assess
comprehension?

 

 

April 23, 2001

 

After reading “Effective Practices for Developing Reading
Comprehension” (Duke & Pearson, 2001), the staff discuss and
record the types of comprehension strategies they use in their
classrooms.

 

109

 

 

May 21, 2001

Teachers reflect on the assessments that are in place in the
areas of writing, spelling and reading comprehension. They take
stock of where they are in each of these domains, paying
particular attention to the assessments that are in place, what
seems to be working and what needs to be refined, and then
ponder next steps.

 

 

September 24, The staff is presented with an overview of the spelling program
2001 and an explanation of how it fits within their current assessment
system. Core members introduce what each grade level is
Leadership responsible for and discuss the components of the program with
Change their respective grade levels.
Jeanne no longer part of CPT.
October 22, Teachers reflect on what they know about reading
2001 comprehension and how they use that knowledge to support

individual students by answering questions about their guided
reading practices (e.g., How many times a week are students
engaged in guided reading instruction? How many different
guided reading groups do you have in your classroom? How do
you divide students into their guided reading groups? How do
you choose the texts that students are going to read in their
guided reading groups? What do you take as evidence that
students have understood what they've read? Please describe
what a typical guided reading lesson looks like for your grade
level.)

 

November 19,
2001

Staff spends time developing the beginnings of a writing
curriculum that is consistent with their school-wide assessment
by creating grade level expectations for content within the
narrative/story genre.

 

January 2002

Leadership
Change

English Language Arts Committee is formed and assigned the
task of working on a writing curriculum. Members include: Patti
(Principal), Leslie (third grade teacher), Terry (Title I Director),
Katie (former first grade teacher and Reading Recovery
teacher), Nancy (special education teacher), Andrea
(kindergarten teacher), Krista (second grade teacher), Karla
(second grade teacher), Jennifer (third grade teacher) and
Witney (fourth grade teacher).

Jinny joins CPT as first grade representative and is supported
by former first grade and Reading Recovery teachers Katie and
Margaret.

 

 

January 21 ,
2002

 

Staff analyzes student writing samples scored 1-4 for
generalities and for teaching points. Based on these
observations they begin discussing activities they could use to
address these points and move children up on the rubric.

 

110

 

 

February 19,
2002

Staff holds a writing instruction poster fair. Grade level
collaboratives chose an instructional writing goal for their
students and an accompanying activity, which they shared with
the rest of the staff. The group discusses what they Ieamed
from each of the presentations and agree upon a few school-
wide writing goals: augmenting/stretching student writing,
expecting more from students, and modeling good writing

 

March 25,
2002

Teachers are introduced to the 4th grade language arts MEAP
and discuss adaptations in content and format for each of the
grade levels.

 

April 22, 2002

Teachers review and comment on a draft of a needs
assessment chart depicting the assessment information that is
to be documented for assessing student progress. Grade level
groups also discuss appropriate themes, formats, and texts for
the English Language Arts Assessment.

 

May 20, 2002

The English Language Arts Committee shares their progress on
the writing curriculum and staff takes stock of their change
efforts by identifying 2 things that have worked well with their
students and one wish in the areas of writing, spelling, and
reading.

 

September 23,
202

The English Language Arts Committee shares their progress on
the writing curriculum and the staff assesses where they are at
with the Language Arts Assessment, clarifying content and
logistics, and raising further questions.

 

October 28,
2002

The staff is presented with an overview of the English Language
Arts Assessments and the curriculum goals for each of the
grade levels. They review their grade level ELA drafts and take
a close look at the 6 point writing in response to reading rubric,
taking time to construct text describing the features of a 4 point
papen

 

November 18,
2002

Staff reviews English Language Arts Assessments in grade
level groups.

 

 

 

 

 

January 21, The Language Arts Committee introduces the writing curriculum

2003 to the rest of the staff with “Language Arts Rock”.

February 18, Staff revises and aligns ELA rubric.

2003

March 14, Staff is introduced to the Profundity Scale, which makes sense

2003 of children’s comprehension by viewing it according to several
different planes of understanding (e.g., physical to philosophical
planes).

April 21, 2003 Staff spends time revising the ELA, and debriefing the

 

Profundity Scale activity on reading for understanding

 

111

 

 

 

 

May 19, 2003 Staff calculates classroom and grade level averages on fall and
winter DSAs to measure growth.

September 22, Staff compiles questions to ask Ganske about individualized

2003 spelling assessment and instruction.

October 21, CPT shares insights from their conversation with Ganske, and

2003 entire staff discusses chapter 2 of MOSAIC OF THOUGHT.

 

 

November 17,
2003

 

The staff discusses chapter 4 of MOSAIC OF THOUGHT in light
of present practices and meets in grade level teams to identify
big ideas/themes for students to study.

 

112

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

Interview Protocols

.' ' “hf! _ yum-.. —r}1
l
r

 

113

Teacher Interview Protocol November 1998

1. How do you monitor student progress in your classroom?
a) What kinds of classroom based and standardized assessments
do you use?

b) Which of these assessments do you find most useful in
making instructional decisions?
i) Which of these assessments do you find the least useful?

0) Which assessments do you find most useful for making placement
decisions for special programs?
IF NEED TO EXPAND--> special programs-->special
reading groups, special education, gifted programs

d) Do you feel like you have all the information that you need?
What else might you want to know?

 

2. What kinds of questions do you want your assessments to help you
answer?

3. In an ideal wor1d, not limiting yourself to the tools you described earlier in
telling me about your current practices, what additional information about
student performance would you like to have about how your students are
progressing in literacy?

a) Again in an ideal world, what other indicators of quality beyond direct
measures of student performance and achievement would you want to
include?

IF NEED TO EXPAND: Student academic performance is usually
considered that staple of most assessment systems, and for a good
reason. In most people’s minds, the quality of any program hinges
on how well students are doing on assessments of the skills and
processes that we, as educators, are trying to promote. BUT there
might be other ways to judge the quality of literacy programs, both
within the school and within the community. There might be
indicators of the ways students are putting their literacy skills to
work (such as graduation rates and books read at the library).do
any come to mind?

4) Think about the assessment practices in your classroom. Now, think
about what you know about what your colleagues use in their classrooms.
How similar do you think practices are across classrooms? How do you think
they differ?

114

5) How do you think other teachers feel about the assessment tools they use?

6) Since part of your role is to share assessment information with other people,
what do you think is the most important information to share with:
a) students?
b) parents?
0) other teachers?
d) administrators?

7) What assessment information do you think is valued most by:
a) students?
b) parents?
c) other teachers?
(I) administrators?

8) How do you think staff members as a group feel about the school’s current
assessment system?

9) We’ve talked a little about assessment systems. What do you think should be
included in an assessment system?
IF NEED TO EXPAND-->how do they feel about the set of assessment
tools used in the school, such as standardized tests and tests that are
classroom based.

10) We’ve had an interesting discussion about assessment systems and

practices. Do you have anything you would like to add that we have not yet
discussed? What would you like to add?

115

 

Teacher Interview Protocol May 1999

Let’s begin with kind of a reminder of the kinds of things that we’ve participated in
this year. If you recall, we began with the matrix activity in which we tried to
layout the various audiences with which we communicate and the assessment
tools from which we get information to communicate to those audiences. We
concluded that activity with kind of a summary of the information needs of the
various audiences. Then we all participated in the CIERA survey and we got a
sense of our collective views on curriculum, instruction, and assessment. From
there, if you recall, we began to focus on writing and a school wide assessment
tool as our focus for the year. In that process we have worked together as a
faculty in grade level groups and cross grade groups to design, implement, and
score a school wide writing assessment. We’ve reflected on this process
(reminder the PMQ meeting). We’ve reviewed anchor papers. In March, we
moved from assessment to its implications for instruction. And now we’re moving
into the second round of school wide writing assessment- with that as
background. Let’s take stock of your current thinking about assessment
practices, issues, and this project in particular.

0 Let’s begin by looking inside your classroom and your current set of
assessment practices. Thinking back to our interview in the fall, what I’m
interested to know is whether or not you have changed or are thinking
about changing or adding to any of the assessment practices you started
the year with? By practices, we mean assessment tools, procedures, ways
of reporting and communicating with various audiences, or the way you
use assessment in your classroom. (Of the tools you currently use, which
of the tools that you use to do you find most helpful and the least helpful
for instructional decisions and placing students in special programs?)

o If we asked this question about the whole school, rather than just
your classroom, how would you answer it?

o In the fall, one of the questions we asked was sort of an ideal world
question. That is, we asked you, not limiting yourself to the tools you
currently use, what additional information about student performance and
literacy would you like to have? Because we’ve explored assessment
throughout the year, I'm interested in knowing your current response to
this ideal world question.

0 If we asked this question about the whole school, rather than just
your classroom, how would you answer it?

o What do you think is the most important assessment change that occurred
this year?

116

 

 

What was your goal in participating in this assessment project? How
would you evaluate progress in meeting the goal? Where would you like to
see us go next?

Let’s look at your favorite assessment. Tell us about it. Where did you
Ieam about it? What do you use it for? How do you use it? Why do you
like it?

One of the questions we asked you in the fall is what in your view you
would like to see included in an assessment system for Westchester. I’d
like you to revisit that question in light of the issues we’ve confronted and
the activities we have carried out this year. Now, after eight months in this
project, what would you say should be included in an assessment system
for Westchester?

 

One issue that has emerged in our discussions has been the question of
similarity and differences in assessments across grade levels. What is
your thinking about that issue? What would you like to see as common to 5
all grade levels? How do you think the assessments should differ across

grade levels?

 

Now let’s turn to our primary focus for this year, the school wide writing
assessment. I would like to get your views about the impact of the writing
assessment. (So what do you think? Is it helping us achieve our goals? Is
it getting in the way? Has it been a useful exercise for us to engage in as a
whole staff?) One of the reasons we undertook this project was to
increase the usefulness of our assessment tools for informing instruction.
How do we need to reshape the project to increase our chances of
meeting this school wide goal? (Here are some things we could think
about: bring in new tools, examine cases of how individual teachers use
data to inform instruction, more time for professional development,
develop more rubrics for other areas such reading and oral language.) Do
you have anything you would like to add that we have not discussed?
What would you like to add?

117

Teacher Interview Protocol May 2000

Let's begin with kind of a reminder of the kinds of things that we've participated in
this year. We started the year with the "2-4 Question Some More" activity, where
teachers were asked to complete the following two statements: "This information
lets me know..." and "But it doesn't tell me about..." We also took a creative
spelling test given by Jean Philo at one of the staff meetings, where our goal was
to brainstorm what shows evidence of good spelling skills. In order to explore this
spelling issue further, we did an exercise related to high frequency/common
patterns, and discussed the issue of creating a developmental continuum that
spans from the earlier grades to the later grades. We got together in grade level
pairs to assess papers that were scored a 2,3, or 4 on the writing prompt, looking
for connections between students' spelling ability and everyday writing, and
comparing our results with speller categories outlined by Kathy Ganske in her
developmental spelling assessment. We read parts of an article entitled
"Questions teachers ask about spelling" (Templeton and Morris, 1999), and did a
jigsaw activity. That's a quick summary of some of the things that we did at this
year's staff meetings.

Now, let’s take stock of your current thinking about assessment practices, issues,
and this project in particular.

1. Let's begin by looking at your current classroom assessment practices and
how they may have changed since last year. By assessment practices, we
mean assessment tools, procedures, ways of reporting and communicating
with various audiences, or the way you use assessment in your classroom and
your current set of assessment practices. Have you made any changes in your
assessment practices since last spring? If you have, how would you describe
them? Are you thinking about changing or adding to any of the assessment
practices you started the year with? (Which of the tools that you use do you
find most helpful and the least helpful for instructional decisions and placing
students in special programs?) If we asked his question about the whole
school, rather than just your classroom, how would you answer it? In other
words, which tools do you think the staff as a whole find most useful and least
useful?

2. In the fall, one of the questions we asked was sort of an ideal world question.
That is, we asked you, not limiting yourself to the tools you currently use, what
additional information about student performance and literacy would you like to
have? Because we've explored assessment throughout the year, I'm
interested in knowing your current response to this ideal world question. If we
asked this question about the whole school, rather than just your classroom,
how would you answer it?

118

 

 

 

. One of the questions we asked you before was what in your view you would
like to see included in an assessment system for Westchester. I'd like you to
revisit that question in light of the issues we’ve confronted and the activities
we have carried out this year. Now, what would you say should be included in
an assessment system for Westchester?

. How are others (such as students, parents, community members, and board
members) being informed about assessment-related changes that are
occurring at Westchester? Have methods of communication changed since
the project began? Do you think students, parents, community members, and
board members are receiving the information that they need? If not, how can
we increase the communication?

1
I
-‘.’
§
I.
I

I

I

.We’ve been working on spelling a lot this year. How would you describe the
direction we are taking? What is your concept of a spelling assessment
system? What should be included in such a system? How has your concept of
spelling changed, if at all, since we first started talking about this idea? (Probe:
could mention specific aspects of staff meetings, such as the jigsaw activity,
introduction of Ganske assessment)

 

(:17

. How has the introduction of the writing prompt influenced your classroom
instruction? Describe the ways. Have you found the writing prompt useful, and
how (So what do you think? Is it helping us achieve our goals? Is it getting in
the way? Has it been a useful exercise for us to engage in as a whole staff?)

. Let's talk a little more about the overall assessment project. When we started
our project, we spent some time as a staff thinking about project goals. What
was your personal goal in participating in this assessment project? How would
you evaluate progress in meeting the goal? Where would you like to see us go
next?

. How would you describe your role in the professional development activities at
Westchester? What types of professional development activities have involved
you the most? When we began the project we asked the staff to make a
decision about their level of involvement in the project. Are you as involved as
you would like to be, or are you more involved than you would want to be?
How has your involvement changed over the first two years? How would you
describe the role of the CORE Planning Team? How would you evaluate the
importance of having'a planning team?

. As we've looked at the earlier interviews we've noticed two themes. Many
teachers have talked about the importance of having a clear developmental
continuum on which to assess individual student growth, and many teachers
have talked about the importance of describing expectations for student
performance on a grade-level continuum. They want a system that shows how
Ieaming in one grade level builds on the Ieaming in a previous grade level and

119

provides the foundation for Ieaming in the next grade level. What is your
opinion on these themes? Do you agree that we need to address both? How
would you assess our progress towards both of these goals?

10. What, in your opinion, are the strongest and weakest points of the CIERA

11.

project? What would you like to see that has not been included? How do we
need to reshape the project to increase our chances of meeting the school
wide goal of an assessment system? (Here are some things we could think
about: bring in new tools, examine cases of how individual teachers use data
to inform instruction, more time for professional development, develop more
rubrics for other areas such reading and oral language.)

- ". .. . fish n l
50
o‘

Do you have anything you would like to add that we have not discussed?
What would you like to add?

 

120

Teacher Interview Protocol May 2001

. I’d like to begin by asking you to share your views of our journey over this
past year as we’ve continued to build a school-wide assessment system.
Here is a timeline of some of the things we’ve done since May of last year
(show 2000-2001 timeline). How have these activities fit into your classroom?

. Now I’d like to hear your views of the longer journey that started two years
ago. This second timeline lists some of the things we’ve done over the course
of the entire project (show project timeline). As you look over the timeline,
describe how these activities have fit into your own classroom.

. As you consider how this journey of building a school-wide assessment
system has fit into your own classroom, how would you describe where you
are in terms of your capacity to use assessment to Ieam more about student
progress?

. Now I’d like to ask you to consider the broader school goals as they are listed
on this sheet (show school goals). As you think about these goals and about
what we’ve done in the process of building an assessment system (refer to
project timeline), how do you think we’ve done in terms of meeting school
goals? Where would you like to see us go next?

. How can we now broaden our focus to include not only assessment, but also
the communication of assessment? How are students, parents, other Leslie
teachers, community members, and board members being informed about
assessment related changes that are occurring at Westchester? Have
methods of communication changed since the project began? Do you think
these other people are receiving the information that they need? If not, how
can we improve communication?

. (If this is just the teacher’s second interview, ask this version of the question):
We’ve continued to work on spelling a lot this year. How would you describe
the direction we are taking? How has your concept of spelling changed, if at
all, since we first started talking about this idea? (Probe: Could mention
specific aspects of staff meetings) (If the teacher’s been around since the
project began, ask this version of the question): Now that we are into our
second year of working on spelling, we are curious about how your views of
spelling may be evolving through the process. Has your concept of spelling
changed since we last spoke? If so, how?

. (This question can be skipped if it was addressed in questions 1 — 4) How
has the implementation of the writing prompt influenced your classroom
instruction? How is it helping us to achieve our goals (refer to school goals)?
On a scale from 1 to 5, one being not very useful and five being very useful,
how would you rate the writing prompt as an exercise for the whole staff?

121

 

 

 

 

Why do you say so? Are you using information gleaned from the writing
prompt? What is it telling you about student writing? How are you using that
information? Can you provide a specific example of something you learned
about the writing of a particular student and how you used that information to
guide your instructional response to that student? (If possible, bring samp/e(s)
to the interview that will help illustrate your answer to this question.)

8. An outsider sitting in one of our staff meetings might describe our work as a
professional development project, rather than an assessment project. Some
professional development aspects of the project include staff meetings,
collaborative meetings, (if CORE member, list Core Group planning "“—
meetings), and informal conversations with colleagues. Which of these
activities have worked to advance your knowledge and level of comfort with
assessment? Can you describe the ways in which these activities have been :,
helpful? What other experiences might we add to make it better for you? How
would you describe the role of the CORE Planning Team? How would you
evaluate the importance of having a planning team?

3 ‘5‘). ‘ l

 

r

9. As we’ve looked at the earlier interviews and participated in staff meetings,
we’ve noticed a few themes. One issue we’ve started to explore is how
teachers are using assessment information to meet individual student needs.
What do you do (or what would you hope to do) in your classroom to meet
individual student needs? What is done (or what do you hope can be done) in
the school as a whole?

10. What other assessment tools do we need to add to our assessment system
to get a complete picture of where we are in language arts?

11.Do you have anything you would like to add that we have not discussed?
What would you like to add?

122

Timeline of Westchester Staff Activities:

APRIL 1998
This meeting was held to help the staff gain an understanding of the purpose of
CIERA and to make sure the group was "on boar ".

JUNE 1998
Core Team Planning Group is established to act as facilitators for people

needing help on questions and to give guidance as to which direction we are
headed.

SEPTEMBER 21, 1998

The goals for the Westchester project are discussed, (1) to create and
implement classroom assessment plans for grades k-4, (2) to identify
performance standards that are aligned with the Leslie English Language Arts
Curriculum for each grade level and link them to assessment tools, (3) to design
a plan for reporting student progress to all constituents-students, parents,
teachers, school-board members and administrators, (4) to design strategies for
using assessment results to plan instruction and increase student literacy and (5)
to identify a set of pilot assessment tools to use in a school-wide assessment
system. The group then discussed what questions clients would want to have
answered from the assessment information they received and created a list of
assessment tools used to inform each of the stakeholders.

OCTOBER 19, 1998

The CIERA Literacy Survey was distributed to the staff to verify current
practices, to discover what the staff believes about literacy and to gain an
understanding of current grade level practices. Teachers continued their
discussion of stakeholder needs and the notion of giving a building-wide writing
assessment was briefly discussed.

NOVEMBER 24, 1998

Writing prompt procedures are discussed as well as reasons for administering
it (i.e., to standardize instruction across the grade level and to develop an
organizational approach to writing).

JANUARY 26, 1999

The staff participated in the PMQ activity, where grade level groups discussed
the "pluses" and "minuses" of holistic scoring in addition to any questions that
remained.

FEBRUARY 1, 1999

The staff discussed the results of the CIERA literacy survey, including what they
were surprised to find, findings that were verified, and questions that were raised
with regard to assessment, curriculum and/or professional development.

123

 

 

 

rr- _-_n -———-

 

MARCH 19, 1999

The staff created a timeline of events (Assessment Work Milestones activity)
occurring between April 1998 and March 1999 and focused their discussions on
why certain activities were used at meetings and how they helped them as a
staff. The group also talked about the components of writing (i.e., Ideas and
Content, Organization, and Style: Sentence Structure, Word Choice, Voice and
Conventions) and discussed how the writing assessment could drive instruction
in the classroom.

MAY 17, 1999
Grade level adaptations to the writing prompt were discussed and followed by a I"
brainstorming session on what should be the focus of the next literacy i3
assessment.

SEPTEMBER 21, 1999

“24 Question Some More” activity: Teachers got together in groups and were
asked to complete the following two statements about Year 1 writing prompt
results: “This information lets me know...” and “But it doesn’t tell me about...”. An
example from this activity is “This information lets me know trends as a grade
level, but it doesn’t tell me about teaching steps for individuals.

 

W“. ..—-...

OCTOBER 19, 1999

One teacher gave a "creative spelling test" at the staff meeting. She asked
everyone to spell the words assessment, research, participation, convey,
successfully. Next, using these spelling words, she presented the group with the
following statement: "Research proves that increased participation in the writing
process better enables the learner to convey their thoughts and ideas
successfully". The goal during this activity was to brainstorm what shows
evidence of good spelling skills. The staff identified and discussed spelling
program needs.

NOVEMBER 16, 1999

In order to explore the issue of spelling further, we did an exercise related to
high frequency/common patterned words. We showed the full text of a 4th
grade MEAP passage, and identified the use of high frequency words, common
patterns, and uncommon words that were not included in those two groups. We
then discussed the possibility of creating a developmental continuum that spans
from the earlier grades to the later grades.

JANUARY 18, 2000

We got together in grade level pairs to assess papers that were scored a 2,3,4
on the writing prompt, looking for connections between students’ spelling ability
and everyday writing.

124

FEBRUARY 15, 2000

We read parts of an article entitled “Questions teachers ask about spelling”
(Templeton and Morris,1999), and did a jigsaw activity. Teachers formed
groups and read the introduction of the article together. Next, each group
brainstormed responses to one of the many questions raised in the article. They
shared their responses with the full group afterwards.

MARCH 17, 2000

Teachers were walked through Kathy Ganske's "Developmental Spelling
Analysis" assessment. The staff scored, in grade levels groups, a portion of the
assessment administered to a sample of students earlier in the week, and were
asked to ponder what they Ieamed about their students from the assessment.
Later, three teachers shared their stories and experiences administering parts of
the assessment to their respective classes.

MAY 22, 2000

Staff is introduced to the components of a comprehensive spelling program-
one that provides them with information upon which to make instructional
decisions, one that provides them with Ieaming activities that are
developmentally appropriate, and one that provides them with a school-wide
monitoring system-as well as a plan for developing the curriculum. Grade level
groups were also asked to think more about the school-wide writing assessment
(e.g., How do we organize the information we’re getting from the prompt? How
do we use it to inform our instruction? How do we communicate more effectively
with students?)

JUNE 12, 2000

A spelling committee is formed to identify common phonograms, high
frequency words, and morphemes (prefixes, affixes and suffixes) for grade level
spelling lists. The group discussed how to choose words, the number of words
that should be included in a bank, the number of words to test children on, and
the reliability of the Developmental Spelling Analysis (Ganske, 2000).

AUGUST 23, 2000

Spelling committee finalized what would be presented to the entire staff at the
first meeting. They decided which of Ganske’s word features would serve as the
core for each of the grade level programs.

SEPTEMBER 25, 2000

Goals for the spelling curriculum were articulated to the entire staff: 1)
Developing a curriculum (and assessment system) that cuts across all grade
levels, 2) Designing a formative assessment that identifies student progress
along a continuum of developmental stages and grade level benchmarks, 3)
Developing instructional strategies that help students progress from one
developmental stage to the next, 4) Developing a summative assessment, 4)
Developing instructional strategies that help students generate correct spellings

125

 

of new words based on knowledge of spelling patterns, 5) Designing an
application spelling assessment that focuses on how students apply spelling
knowledge in their everyday writing. Members of the committee explain the grade
level components of the curriculum and assessment system.

OCTOBER 16, 2000

Staff brainstormed a means of reporting spelling information to parents, reflected
on the benefits of the school-wide writing assessment, and pondered the need
for more professional development in writing. A vote was taken on what the next
workshop topic should be and the majority chose voice.

NOVEMBER 20, 2000

The group is presented with numerous definitions and examples illustrating voice
and is asked to explore voice in student papers in cross grade level groups. After
identifying and listing the characteristics of voice that surfaced in the papers they
discussed activities that could be used to promote that element of writing.

.w'Aer. - ml-

 

ran-1.?

JANUARY 29, 2001 a
The staff met in grade level groups to examine student writing and identify

characteristics in the samples to help them develop a list of grade level

expectations. Afterwards, each grade level shared their lists to create a

continuum of expectations for student writing across the grade levels.

FEBRUARY 26, 2001

The staff reviewed a draft of the continuum of expectations for student
writing across the grade levels that was started at the last meeting. Then the
group participated in a written and oral reflection activity in which they considered
how the writing prompt has influenced their writing instruction and what goals
they have. The staff discussed how they use the results from the Developmental
Spelling Analyses.

MARCH 19, 2001

Each staff member was given a passage from the Stanford-9 along with 1 of 5
different types of reading comprehension assessments—oral retelling, multiple
choice test, short answer test, summarizing task, or relating the passage to their
personal experience. Individuals were asked to discuss their experience with the
particular assessment format they were given. For example, what sorts of
feelings did it evoke? How did the format influence the way they read the text?
What aspects of their understanding could the format measure? How might the
format either facilitate or interfere with their ability to accurately assess
comprehension? And finally, at what grade levels would the format be
appropriate?

126

APRIL
liter rr
Dale
:2le

APRIL 23, 2001

After reading “Effective Practices for Developing Reading Comprehension”
(Duke & Pearson, 2001), the staff discussed and recorded the types of
comprehension strategies they use in their classrooms.

127

 

 

MI. m.-
. {i'

Teacher Interview Protocol May 2002

1. Thinking back across the 4 years of this project I’d like you to reflect on the

products we’ve created (i.e., the assessment tools we’ve developed) and the
processes we’ve used to create these products (i.e., the activities we’ve
engaged in at staff meetings, the discussions that have taken place outside
of staff meetings during collab time or more informally). What parts of this
project have been most valuable and rewarding to you and why?

. When we started this assessment project we began with a model that
delineated three types of involvement in the school change process. Teachers
at the first level would participate in staff decisions and implement assessment
tools, teachers at the second level, in addition, would allow us to observe
classroom instruction and interview students from their classes, and teachers
at the third level (the Core Planning Team) would be committed to facilitating
the professional development process. These distinctions were never meant
to be static, as individuals' roles change over time, as they’ve done here. From
what you’ve experienced, how would rate the effectiveness of this division of
responsibility? What roles have you assumed in this process? Would you
consider yourself an active participant in this project? Why/why not? Have you
participated in this process to the degree you would have liked? If no, why
not?

. Prior research and experience has revealed that school change can be quite
challenging without the appropriate leadership. Are there particular individuals
within and/or outside of the school who have been particularly helpful in
facilitating change? If yes, who are these individuals, what qualities do they
possess, and how have they helped?

. One of our goals since the start of this project was to develop a model of
school change that could perhaps be used in other school districts. If we were
to use this model in another school, what components would be worth keeping
and what components might we have to change?

. Our observations, interviews and informal conversations with you reveal that
there has been some change here at Westchester. How would you describe
the impact this project has had on the whole school? You might consider
curricular changes, including assessment and material adoption and/or
abandonment, levels of communication among staff members, the structure
and content of other staff meetings outside of CIERA involvement, and the
overall school environment.

. How do you think this project has influenced your own knowledge of content,

assessment and instruction? How would you describe your own growth and
progress in understanding issues of literacy assessment? What evidence do

128

 

 

 

you see of that growth and progress (e.g., look at your teaching practices, the
conversations you have had with others, the products you've created, etc.)
Are there things you've learned as a result of this project that you wished you
would have known prior to becoming a teacher? Explain. Has this project
encouraged you to engage in other kinds of professional development? For
example, have you sought out or are you hoping to seek out readings or
conferences around literacy related topics?

7. How has the implementation of the writing prompt influenced your classroom
instruction? How has it helped you meet individual student goals and the goals
you've set for all children in your classroom? What is the information gleaned
from the writing prompt telling you about student writing? How are you using
that information? How do you know what to teach next? Can you provide a
specific example of something you Ieamed about the writing of a particular
student and how you used that information to guide your instructional
response to that student? (If possible, bring sample(s) to the interview that will
help illustrate your answer to this question.)

8. How has the implementation of Kathy Ganske's Developmental Spelling
Analysis (DSA) influenced your classroom instruction? How has it helped you
meet individual student goals and the goals you’ve set for all children in your
classroom? Are you using information gleaned from the DSA? What is it telling
you about student spelling? How are you using that information? How do you
know what to teach next? Can you provide a specific example of something
you Ieamed about the spelling of a particular student and how you used that
information to guide your instructional response to that student? (If possible,
bring sample(s) to the interview that will help illustrate your answer to this
question.)

9. Over the last four years we've talked about the school-wide assessments that
we've been creating and implementing, though we haven't talked much about
the more informal assessments that are frequently used in the classroom such
as anecdotal records, checklists, teacher made tests, assignments, student-
teacher conferences, etc. What kind of informal assessments do you use to
assess literacy in your room? How would you rate the usefulness of these
assessments in helping you to make instructional decisions? How does their
utility compare to the school wide writing and spelling assessments?

10. To what extent do you. use assessments to evaluate your own instruction?
What kinds of information do you rely upon when making decisions as to
whether or not a student has met or is working towards meeting a particular
standard or instructional goal? Do you factor in information you receive from
other teachers, the student's home life, whether or not the student happened
to have a bad day, motivation, etc. Please explain.

129

 

11. If you were to apply for another teaching position (and we are not, by any
means, encouraging you to do so) and were putting together a professional
portfolio, what would your assessment section look like? To elaborate, what
would you tell a potential employer about your views on literacy and literacy
assessment? How would you describe your teaching and assessment
philosophy? What issues are you passionate about in relation to literacy
assessment?

12. Please describe the impact, if any, that this project has had on student
Ieaming. How have the school-wide writing and spelling assessments
affected student Ieaming?

13. How would you describe the impact this project has had on parents’
understandings of curriculum and their children’s progress? How would you
describe the impact this project has had on the school board's understanding
of curriculum and school progress? What challenges and successes have
you encountered when reporting curricular changes and student progress to
parents, students, other teachers, and board members? 5::

 

14.Although we've spent much of this year focusing on writing and spelling we
have managed to continue our discussion of reading comprehension which
began at the end of last year and which will likely consume most of our time
next year. How would you describe the direction we are taking? Where would
you like to see us go next?

15. Do you have anything you would like to add that we have not discussed?
What would you like to add?

130

REFERENCES

131

 

:11»-
:3

3:»
112

8a

BE

REFERENCES

American Library Association. (2007). The state of America’s libraries:
A report from the American Library Association. Retrieved November 14,
2007, from
http://www.ala.org/ala/newspresscenter/news/pressreleasesZOO7/march20
07/SAL_AnnualReport-FlNAL.pdf

Amerin, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and r...
student Ieaming. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18). Retrieved
October 31, 2000 from http:/lepaa.asu.edulepaa/v10n18/

Asp, E. (2000). Assessment in education: Where have we been? Where are we
headed? In R. S. Brandt (Ed.), Education in a new era (pp. 123-157).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

 

m7. l’t i-..V: . 5‘
\‘

Barab, S., Barnett, M. & Squire, K. (2002). Developing an empirical account of a
community of practice: Characterizing the essential tensions. The Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 11(4), 489-542.

Barab, S., Barnett, M., Yamagata-Lynch, Squire, K. & Keating, T. (2002). Using
activity theory to understand the contradictions characterizing a
technology-rich introductory astronomy course. Mind, Culture, and Activity,
9(2), 76-107.

Barab, S. & Duffy, T. M. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice.
In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning
environments (pp. 25-55). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Barab, S. A., Evans, M. A. & Baek, E. (2003). Activity theory as a lens for
characterizing the participatory unit. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), International
handbook on communication technologies, Vol. 2 (pp. 199-214). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.

Barab, S. & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the
ground. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14.

Blase, J. (1998). The micropolitics of educational change. In A. Hargreaves, A.
Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of
educational change (pp. 544-557). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Bogdan, R.C. & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theory and methods (3rd edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

132

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher Ieaming: Mapping the
terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.

Brown, J. 8., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture
of Ieaming. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Bush, G. W. (2000, October 3). Transcript of first Bush-Gore presidential debate:
Part II. Retrieved October 31, 2000, from
httpzllwww.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/10/4/02307

Buzzeo, T. (2007). Literacy and the changing role of the elementary library media It
specialist. Library Media Connection, 25(7), 18-20.

I ‘VI.

Carnegie Corporation of New York. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the j
21“ century. New York: Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy.

Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research. (2004). The
activity system. Retrieved September 20, 2006, from .
http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/activity/pages/chatanddwr/activitysystem "

 

Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement. (1998). CIERA
survey of early literacy programs in high performing schools. Ann Arbor,
MI: Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement.

Clark, C. M. & Florio-Ruane, S. (2001). Conversation as support for teaching in
new ways. In C. M. Clark (Ed.), Talking shop: Authentic conversation and
teacher learning (pp. 1-15). New York: Teachers College Press.

Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and
lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3-12.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and
practice: Teacher Ieaming in communities. In A. lran-Nejad and P. D.
Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 251 -307).
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2001). Beyond certainty: Taking an inquiry
stance on practice. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Teachers caught in
the action: Professional development that matters. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Cohen, D. K. & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity and improvement (CPRE
Research Report No. RR-043). Philadelphia, PA: University of
Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. A once and future discipline. Cambridge,
MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

133

Cole, M., & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed
cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and
educational considerations (pp. 1-46). New York: Cambridge University
Press.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches. California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Policy and change: Getting beyond bureaucracy. In
A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International
handbook of educational change (pp. 642-667). London: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.

Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J. & Falk, B. (1995). Authentic assessment in
action. New York: Teachers College Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support
professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8),
597-604.

Dorfman, A. B. (1997). Performance assessment and teacher professional
development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor.

DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. E. (1998). Professional learning communities at work:
Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN:
National Education Service.

Duke, N. K. & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading
comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds), What research
has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed) (pp. 205-242). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.

Elmore, R.F. (April 2001). Psychiatrists and lightbulbs: Educational
accountability and the problem of capacity. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Washington,
DC.

Engestrém, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-
konsuflfi.

Engestrbm, Y. (1993a). Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity
theory: The case of primary care medial practice. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave
(Eds), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp.
64-103). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

134

Engestrém, Y. (1993b). The working health center project: Materializing zones of
proximal development in a network of organizational innovation. In T.
Kauppinen & M. Lahtonen (Eds), Action research in Finland (pp. 233-
272). Helsinki: Ministry of Labour.

Engestrom, Y. (1998). Reorganizing the motivational sphere of classroom
culture: An activity-theoretical analysis of planning in a teacher team. In F.
Seeger, J. Voight, & U. Waschescio (Eds), The culture of the
mathematics classroom: Analyses and changes (pp. 76-103). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Engestrom, Y. (1999a). Activity theory and individual and social transformation.
In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds), Perspectives on
activity theory (pp. 19-38). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

mum‘s-r.

Engestrom, Y. (1999b). Expansive visibilization of work: An activity-theoretical
perspective. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8, 63-93.

 

It“. .Ll'w' ‘l ’ " ‘2-
in]
'4

Engestrom, Y. (1999c). Innovative Ieaming in work teams: Analyzing cycles of
knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R.
Punamaki (Eds), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377-404).
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Engestrbm, Y. (2001). Expansive Ieaming at work: Toward an activity-theoretical
reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.

Engestrbm, Y. (2008). The future of activity theory: A rough draft. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Society for Cultural
and Activity Research, San Diego, CA. Retrieved April 19, 2009 from
http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/lSCARkeyEngestrom.pdf

Engestrom, Y., Engestrom, R. & Suntio, A. (2002). Can a school community
Ieam to master its own future? An activity-theoretical study of expansive
Ieaming among middle school teachers. In G. Wells & G, Claxton (Eds),
Learning for life in the 21“ century: Sociocultural perspectives on the
future of education (pp. 21 1-224). Oxford: Blackwell.

Engestrbm, Y. & Miettinen, R. (1999). Introduction. In Y. Engestrom, R.
Miettinen, & R. Punamaki, (Eds), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 1-
18). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Falk, B. (1998). Using direct evidence to assess student progress: How the
primary language record supports teaching and Ieaming. In C. Harrison
& T. Salinger (Eds), Assessing reading I: Theory and practice (pp. 152-
165). New York, NY: Routledge.

135

Finnigan, K., O’Day, J., & Wakelyn, D. (2001). Buddy, can you lend us a hand?
The provision of external assistance to Chicago elementary schools on
probation. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

FIorio-Ruane, S. (2002). More light: An argument for complexity in studies of
teaching and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education 53(3), 205-
215.

Fullan, M. G. (1982). The meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Fullan, M. G. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform.
London: Falmer Press.

Fullan, M. G. (1996). Turning systemic thinking on its head. Phi Delta Kappan,
77(6), 420-423.

Fullan, M. G. (1998). The meaning of educational change: A quarter of a century
Ieaming. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds),
International handbook of educational change (pp. 214-228). London:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Fullan, M. G. & Hargreaves, A. (1991). What’s worth fighting for in your school?
Toronto: Ontario Public School Teachers’ Federation.

Gallagher, M. C., Goudvis, A., & Pearson, P. D. (1988). Principles of
organizational change. In S. J. Samuels and P. D. Pearson (Eds),
Changing school reading programs: Principles and case studies (pp.11-
39). Newark, DE: lntemational Reading Association.

Ganske, K. (2000). Assessment-guided phonics, spelling and vocabulary
instruction. NY: The Guilford Press.

Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies of
qualitative research. London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson.

Goertz, M. & Duffy, M. (2003). Mapping the landscape of high-stakes testing and
accountability programs. Theory into Practice, 42(1), 4-11.

Grossman, P., Wineburg, S. & Woolworth, S. (2000). What makes teacher
community different from a gathering of teachers? (CTP No. O-00-1).
Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Retrieved July 1,
2004 from http:l/depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/Community-GWW-
01-2001.pdf

136

 

 

 

 

 

Haladyna, T. M., Nolen, S. B., & Haas, N. S. (1991). Raising standardized
achievement scores and the origins of test score pollution. Educational
Researcher, 20(5), 2-7.

Halverson, R. (2003). Systems of practice: How leaders use artifacts to create
professional community in schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
11(37). Retrieved September 7, 2007, from
httpzllepaaasu.edu/epaa/v1 1n37/

Halverson, R. (2006). A distributed perspective on how leaders use artifacts to
create professional community in schools. (WCER Working Paper No.
2006-4). Madison: University of Wisconsin—Madison, Wisconsin Center
for Education Research. Retrieved September 7, 2007, from
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/papersphp

Halverson, R., Grigg, J., Prichett, R., & Thomas, C. (2005). The new instructional
leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in schools. (WCER
Working Paper No. 2005-9). Madison: University of Wisconsin—Madison,
Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Retrieved September 7, 2007,
from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/papers.php

Halverson, R., Grigg, J., Prichett, R., & Thomas, C. (2007). The new instructional
leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in schools. Journal
of School Leadership, 17(2), 159-194.

Hallinger, P. & Hausman, C. (1993). From Attila the Hun to Mary had a little
lamb: Redefining principal roles in restructured schools. Paper presented

at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association,
Atlanta, GA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED359 647)

Hamilton, M. L. & Richardson, V. (1995). Effects of the culture in two schools on
the process and outcomes of staff development. Elementary School
Journal, 95(4), 367-385.

Herman, J., & Golan, S. (1991). Effects of standardized testing on teachers and
learning—Another look (Center for the Study of Evaluation Rep. No. 334).
Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles.

Hoffman, J., Roser, & Worthy, J. (1998). Challenging the assessment context for
literacy instruction in first grade: A collaborative study. In C. Harrison & T.
Salinger (Eds), Assessing reading I: Theory and practice (pp. 166-181).
New York, NY: Routledge.

Hutchins, E. (1993). Learning to navigate. In S. Chaiklin & Lave (Eds),

Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 35-63).
New York: Cambridge University Press.

137

 

 

 

Johnston, P. H. (1998). The consequences and the use of standardized tests. In
S. Murphy (Ed.), Fragile evidence: A critique of reading assessment (pp.
89—101). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Knight, P. (2002). A systemic approach to professional development: Learning as
practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 229-241.

Lambert, L. (1998). Building leadership capacity in schools. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.

Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership, rm-
59(8), 37—40.

Lane, B. (1992). After the end. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

 

J.M. Levine & S.D. Teasley (Eds), Perspectives on socially shared
cognition (pp. 17-36). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.

Lave, J. (1993). Situating Ieaming in communities of practice. In L.B. Resnick, . .

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral
participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational
Administration Quarterly 30(4), 498-518.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Steinbach, R. & Ryan, S. (1997). Distributed leadership
in secondary schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED407411)

Leithwood, K., & Menzies, T. (1998). Forms and effects of school—based
management: A review. Educational Policy, 12(3), 325-346.

Lieberman, A. ( 1995). Practices that support teacher development. Phi Delta
Kappan, 76( 8), 591 -596.

Lieberman, A. (1998). The growth of educational change as a field of study:
Understanding its roots and branches. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M.
Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds), International handbook of educational change
(pp. 13-22). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

 

Lieberman, A. & Grolnick, M. (1996). Networks and reform in American
education. Teachers College Record, 98(1), 7-45.

138

 

Lieberman, A. & Miller, L. (1990). Teacher development in professional practice
schools. Teachers College Record, 92(1), 105-122.

Lieberman, A. & Miller, L. (2000). Teaching and teacher development: A new
synthesis for a new century. In R. S. Brandt (Ed.), Education in a new era
(pp. 47-66). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Lieberman, A. & Miller, L. (2001). Introduction. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds),
Teachers caught in action: Professional development that matters (vii-x).

New York: Teachers College Press. E‘s»

Lieberman, A. & Wood, D. (2001). When teachers write: Of networks and
Ieaming. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds), Teachers caught in action:
Professional development that matters (pp. 174-187). New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.

 

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage ;

Publications.

Linn, R. L. (1998). Assessments and accountability (Report No. CSE-TR—490).
Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Betebenner, D. W. (2002). Accountability systems:
Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
Educational Researcher, 31(6), 3-16.

Louis, K. S., Kruse, S. & Marks, H. (1996). Schoolwide professional community.
In F. Newmann and Associates. Authentic achievement: Restructuring
schools for intellectual quality (pp. 179-203). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Maple Grove Properties. (2002). Community resource guide. Leslie, Ml: Maple
Grove Properties.

Marks, H. M. & Seashore Louis, K. (1997). Does teacher empowerment effect
the classroom? The implications of teacher empowerment for instructional
practice and student academic performance. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 19(3), 245-275.

Maxwell, J. A. (1992) Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research.
Harvard Educational Review, 62(3), 279-300.

McCotter, S. S. (2001). Collaborative groups as professional development.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(6), 685-704.

139

 

McGill-Franzen, A. (2000). The relationship between reading policy and reading
instruction: A recent history (Report No.13004). Albany, NY: National
Research Center on English Learning and Achievement.

McLaughlin, M. W. (1998). Listening and learning from the field: Tales of policy
implementation and situated practice. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M.
Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds), International handbook of educational change
(pp. 70-84). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. (2001). Professional communities and the work of
high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McLaughlin, M. W. & Zarrow, J. (2001). Teachers engaged in evidence-based
reform: Trajectories of teacher’s inquiry, analysis, and action. In A.
Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds), Teachers caught in the action: Professional
development that matters (pp.79-101). New York: Teachers College
Press.

Mehrens, W. A. & Lehmann, I. J. (1991). Measurement and evaluation in
education and psychology (4“ ed. ). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson
Learning.

Meisels, S. J., Jablon, J. R., Marsden, D. B., Dichtelmiller, M. L., & Dorfman, A.
(1993). The Work Sampling System (3” ed. ). Ann Arbor, MI: Rebus
Planning Associates, Inc.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: SAGE
Publications.

Miller, L. (1998). Redefining teachers, reculturing schools: Connections,
commitments, and challenges. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan
& D. Hopkins (Eds), International handbook of educational change (pp.
529-543). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Mortimore, P. (1998). The vital hours: Reflecting on research on schools and
their effects. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins
(Eds), International handbook of educational change (pp. 85-99). London:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Mulford, M. (1998). Organizational Ieaming and educational change. In A.
Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds), International
handbook of educational change (pp. 616-641 ). London: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.

Murphy, J. Hallinger, P. (1988). Characteristics of instructionally effective school
districts. Journal of Educational Research, 81(3), 175-181 .

140

 

f.‘

4.sz nut-(.1 ...___ ..m

‘—

 

 

Nardi, B. A. (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-

computer interaction. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk.
Retrieved September 20, 2002, from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters

most: Teaching and America ’3 future. New York: Teachers College Press.

New Standards. (1999). Reading and writing grade by grade: Primary literacy
standards for kindergarten through third grade. Washington, DC: National
Center on Education and the Economy.

Nicholson, J. M. (2000). Examining evidence of the consequential aspects of
validity in a curriculum-embedded performance assessment. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Olson, M. R. (2001). Opportunities and challenges in the development of
teachers’ knowledge: The development of narrative authority through
knowledge communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 667-684.

Palinscar, A. S., Magnusson, S. J., Marano, N., Ford, 0., & Brown, N. (1998).
Designing a community of practice: Principles and practices of the GlsML
community. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14( 1), 5-19.

Paris, S. G., Lawton, T. A., Turner, J. C. & Roth, J. L. (1991). A developmental
perspective on standardized achievement testing. Educational
Researcher, 20, 12-20.

Pearson, P. D. (1998). Standards and assessments: Tools for crafting effective
instruction? In J. Osborn & F. Lehr (Eds), Learning to read (pp. 264-288).
New York: Guilford.

Pearson, P. D., Vyas, S., Sensale, L. M. & Kim, Y. (2001). Making our way
through the assessment and accountability maze: Where do we go now?
The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and
Ideas, 74(4), 175-182.

Peterson, K. D. & Deal, T. E. (2002). Shaping school culture fieldbook. San
Francisco: Jossey—Bass

Putnam, R. & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking

have to say about research on teacher Ieaming? Educational Researcher,
29 ( 1), 4-15.

141

 

 

 

 

Richardson, V. (1990). Significant and worthwhile change in teaching practice.
Educational Researcher, 19, 10-18.

Richardson, V., & Hamilton, M. L. (1994). The practical-argument staff
development process. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Teacher change and the
staff development process: A case in reading instruction (pp. 109-134).
New York: Teachers College Press.

Richardson, V. & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (4“ edition) (pp.905-948). Washington, ’7'
DC: American Educational Research Association. ’

Riel, M. & Poplin, L. (2001, April 10). Communities as places where learning
occurs. Paper presented at the American Educational Research
Association annual conference. Seattle, WA.

 

 

 

Roehler, L. (1992). Embracing the instructional complexities of reading if
instruction. In M. Pressley, K. Harris & J. Guthrie (Eds), Promoting
academic competence and literacy in schools. San Diego: Harcourt,
Brace, Jovanovich.

Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Praeger
Publishers.

Roth, W., & Lee, Y. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-
Historical Activity Theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186-
232.

Sacks, P. (1999). Standardized minds: The high price of America ’3 testing culture
and what we can do to change it. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.

Salinger, T. (1998). Developing an early literacy portfolio for district-wide use. In
M. Coles & R. Jenkins (Eds), Assessing reading 2: Changing practice in
classrooms (pp. 8-24). New York: Routledge.

Schlecty, P. C. (1990). Schools for the 21“ century: Leadership imperatives for
educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass Inc.

Schlecty, P. C. (1997). Inventing better schools: An action plan for education
reform. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass Inc.

Seashore Louis, K., Kruse S. D., & Marks, H. M. (1996). Schoolwide professional
community. In F. M. Newmann (Ed.), Authentic achievement:
Restructuring schools for intellectual quality (pp. 179-204). San Francisco:
Jossey—Bass.

142

 

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Doubleday.

Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a Ieaming culture. Educational
Researcher, 29(7), 4-14.

Sirotnik, K. A., & Kimball, K. (1999). Standards for standards based
accountability systems. Phi Delta Kappan, 81 (3), 209-214.

Smith, M. L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers.
Educational Researcher, 20, 8-11.

Spandel, V. & Stiggins, R. (1995). Creating writers: Linking assessment and
writing instruction. Boston: Addison Wesley.

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R. & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school
leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher,
30(3), 23-28.

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R. & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of
leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 36(1), 3-34.

Spiro, R.J., Vispoel, W., Schmitz, T., Samarapungavan, A., & Boerger, A. (1987).
Knowledge acquisition for application: Cognitive flexibility and transfer in
complex content domains. In B.C. Britton (Ed.), Executive control
processes in reading (pp.177-199). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Stokes, L. (2001). Lessons from an inquiring school: Forms of inquiry
and conditions for teacher Ieaming. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller
(Eds), Teachers caught in action: Professional development
that matters (pp. 141-158). New York: Teacher’s College Press.

Superfine, B. M. (2005). The politics of accountability: The rise and fall of Goals
2000. American Journal of Education, 112(1), 10-43.

Taylor, D. L & Bogotch, I. E. (1994). School-level effects of teachers’ participation
in decision making. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(3),
302-319.

Templeton, S. & Morris, D. (1999). Questions teachers ask about spelling.
Reading Research Quarterly, 34(1), 102-112.

143

 

 

 

 

Thomas, G., Wineburg, S., Grossman, P., Myhre, O., & Woolworth, S. (1998). In
the company of colleagues: An interim report on the development of a
community of teacher Ieamers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 21-
32.

Tierney, R., Tucker, D., Gallagher, M., Crismore, A., & Pearson, P. D. (1988).
The Metcalf project: A teacher-researcher collaboration. In S. Samuels &
P. D. Pearson (Eds), Changing school reading programs (pp. 207-226).
Newark, DE: lntemational Reading Association.

United States Department of Education. (2000). Goals 2000 legislation and
related items. Retrieved October 20, 2002, from http://www.ed.goleZK/

United States Department of Education. (2001, January). No child left behind:
Executive Summary. Retrieved October 20, 2002, from
http://www.ed.govlnclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html

Valencia, S. W. & Place, N. A. (1994). Literacy portfolios for teaching, Ieaming
and accountability: The Bellvue literacy assessment project. In S. W.
Valencia, E. H. Hiebert, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds), Authentic reading
assessment: Practices and possibilities (pp. 1 34-1 56). Newark, Delaware:
lntemational Reading Association.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wells, G. (2002). Inquiry as an orientation for Ieaming, teaching and teacher
education. In G. Wells & G, Claxton (Eds), Learning for life in the 21“
century: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education (pp. 197-
210). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Wells, G. & Claxton, G. (2002). Sociocultural perspectives on the future of .
education. In G. Wells & G, Claxton (Eds), Learning for life in the 21“
century: Sociocultural perspectives on the Ithure of education (pp. 1-17).
Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R. & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of
practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated
action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

144

 

 

 

 

Williams-Boyd, P. (2002). Educational leadership: A reference handbook. Santa
Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc.

Worthy, J., Hoffman, J. V., Roser, N. L., Rutherford, W., McKool, S., & Strecker,
S. (1998). Teachers changing the system: Alternative assessment of first-
graders’ literacy. In M. Coles & R. Jenkins (Eds), Assessing reading II:
Changing practice in classrooms (pp. 40-53). New York: Routledge.

Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2001). Using activity theory for the
sociocultural case analyses of a teacher professional development
program involving technology integration. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.

Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2007). Confronting analytical dilemmas for
understanding complex human interactions in design-based research from
a cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) framework. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 16(4), 451 -484.

Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. & Haudenschild, M. T. (2009). Using activity systems
analysis to identify inner contradictions in teacher professional
development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 507-517.

Yin, R. K. (2003).Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Yukl, G. A. (1981) Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.

Zoltners, J. S. (2006). School leadership practice: Putting school subjects into the
leadership equation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern
University, Evanston, IL.

145

 

   

M'1IIIIIIIIIIIII lllllll 1111111111 11111111155
3 1293 03062 9947