SUPPORTING COLLABORATIVE CREATIVITY IN EDUCATION: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE I5 FRAMEWORK By Carmen Richardson Educational Psychology and Educational Technology—Doctor of Philosophy A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of 2018 ABSTRACT SUPPORTING COLLABORATIVE CREATIVITY IN EDUCATION: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE I5 FRAMEWORK By Carmen Richardson Creativity and collaboration in education is a topic of growing interest among scholars and educators. Teachers around the United States are being tasked with the re-design of learning experiences but these demands are seldom accompanied by processes to support the creativity that is required for any design of learning. This study merged theory and practice in an action research process that engaged teachers and instructional coaches in the development of a framework to support creativity and collaboration among teachers as they designed new learning experiences. The framework created by the team of educators is titled The i5 Framework for Education: Methods and Mindsets to Support Collaborative Creativity. The i5 Framework for Education consists of five methods and five mindsets. The methods provide a collaborative process that aims to support teams of educators working together to design and implement new ways of teaching and learning. The methods: Identify, Inquire, Innovate, Implement, and Impact provide a process for teams to follow. The mindsets: Empathy, Creativity, Value, Trust, and Flexibility, are essential beliefs to be held throughout the process to support effective collaboration. Engaging in the development and use of the framework was found to impact the creativity and collaboration of the participating teachers, their teaching, and the learning of their students. I found that creativity is a mindset inherent in effective teaching and that creative synthesis is key to innovative change. The framework provided opportunities for interdependence of thinking and co-construction; it supported the seeking and sharing multiple perspectives; and provided ongoing opportunities for reflection and feedback. The use of The i5 Framework provided teachers with a relevant and autonomous experience. It also helped teachers design new learning experiences that supported deep thinking and cultural connections in their students. These results provide evidence that effective teacher collaboration requires autonomy, is grounded in mindset, and provides meaningful professional development experiences and that collaborative creativity may be the key to innovative change in education. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Leigh Graves Wolf and Dr. Punya Mishra, my advisors, for their guidance throughout this process. They have been amazing mentors and I am thankful for their support through this doctoral journey. I would also like to express my appreciation to Dr. Janine Certo and Dr. Douglas Hartman for serving on my dissertation committee. Their willingness to provide advice and share their knowledge about educational research has been invaluable. Thank you to the four educators who participated in this study and who, for six months, took the time to work as a creative and collaborative team. I appreciate you all so much. I also want to express my deep gratitude to my EPET PhD cohort for the laughter, tears, and wonderful experiences. Thank you especially to Amy Chapman, for the invaluable feedback sessions. Finally, I’d like to thank my family for their unwavering support. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 Motivation for the Project ....................................................................................................... 1 Background of the Problem ..................................................................................................... 2 Statement of the Research Problem ......................................................................................... 7 Research Purpose and Questions ............................................................................................. 9 Definitions of Terms and Concepts ....................................................................................... 12 CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............... 14 Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................... 14 Professional Development ..................................................................................................... 18 Instructional Coaching ...................................................................................................... 19 Teacher Collaboration ........................................................................................................... 22 Creativity in Teaching and Learning ..................................................................................... 25 Teachers as Creative Designers ............................................................................................. 29 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 32 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS ........................................................... 34 Methodology – Action Research ........................................................................................... 34 Researcher’s Role and Positionality ...................................................................................... 37 Context and Participants ........................................................................................................ 39 Research Plan and Data Sources ............................................................................................ 41 Phase 1: Establishment of the team .................................................................................... 44 Phase 2: Rounds of design and testing ............................................................................... 45 Phase 3: Reflection and impact ......................................................................................... 48 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 50 Standards of Evidence ........................................................................................................... 54 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 57 Research Question 1A: The Components of the Framework .................................................. 59 v The i5 Framework v1 ........................................................................................................ 59 The i5 Framework v1 test .................................................................................................. 65 The i5 Framework v2 test .................................................................................................. 73 Research Question 1B: The i5 Framework and Teacher Creativity ........................................ 81 Creativity is a mindset inherent in effective teaching. ........................................................ 82 Creative synthesis is key to innovative change. ................................................................. 85 Research Question 1C: The i5 Framework and Teacher Collaboration .................................. 90 Interdependence of thinking and co-construction. .............................................................. 90 Seeking and sharing multiple perspectives. ........................................................................ 99 Research Question 2A: Perceived Influence on Teachers .................................................... 101 Ongoing opportunities for reflection and feedback. ......................................................... 102 A relevant and autonomous experience............................................................................ 105 Research Question 2B: Teacher Perceptions of the Impact on Student Learning ................ 101 Experiences supporting deep thinking and cultural connections. ...................................... 108 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 112 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ............................................................... 114 Discussion of Findings ........................................................................................................ 115 Research question 1B, theme 1: Creativity is a mindset inherent in effective teaching. .... 117 Research question 1B, theme 2: Creative synthesis is key to innovative change. .............. 117 Research question 1C, theme 1: Interdependence of thinking and co-construction. .......... 118 Research question 1C, theme 2: Seeking and sharing multiple perspectives. .................... 119 Research question 2A, theme 1: Ongoing opportunities for reflection and feedback. ....... 119 Research question 2A, theme 2: A relevant and autonomous experience. ......................... 120 Research question 2B, theme 1: New learning experiences supporting deep thinking and cultural connections. ........................................................................................................ 120 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 121 Effective teacher collaboration requires autonomy, is grounded in mindset, and provides meaningful professional development experiences. ......................................................... 121 Collaborative creativity enables innovative change. ........................................................ 123 Implications ....................................................................................................................... 124 Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................... 128 Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 129 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 129 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 131 Appendix A - Semi-Structured Group Interview Questions ................................................. 132 Appendix B - Semi-Structured Individual Interview Questions ........................................... 133 Appendix C - Recruitment Letter ........................................................................................ 134 Appendix D - Model for Supporting Creativity and Collaboration in Education .................. 135 Appendix E - The i5 Framework v1 .................................................................................... 137 Appendix F - The i5 Framework v2 .................................................................................... 139 Appendix G - The i5 Framework for Education ................................................................... 141 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 147 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Research Questions and Sub-Questions........................................................................... 9 Table 2: Participant Information at a Glance................................................................................ 40 Table 3: Research Questions and Data Collection Table............................................................. 43 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Research Process and Phases........................................................................................ 42 Figure 2: Timeline of the Research Process, Phases, and Steps.................................................. 49 Figure 3: Initial List of Codes ..................................................................................................... 51 Figure 4: Codes Organized by Topic and Theme........................................................................ 52 Figure 5: Matrix of Research Questions and Supporting Data Sources....................................... 55 Figure 6: Mind Map of Group Brainstorm Session During Round 1 Testing.............................. 68 Figure 7: The i5 Framework for Education.................................................................................. 77 viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Creativity and collaboration in education is a topic of growing interest among scholars and educators. Teachers around the United States are being tasked with the re-design of learning experiences but these demands are seldom accompanied by processes to support the creativity that is required for any design of learning. This study merged theory and practice in an action research process that engaged teachers and instructional coaches in the development of a framework to support creativity and collaboration among teachers as they designed new learning experiences. The framework created by the team of educators is titled The i5 Framework for Education: Methods and Mindsets to Support Collaborative Creativity (Appendix G). The development of The i5 Framework for Education is described in this manuscript. The impact of the use of the initial iterations of the framework on the participating teachers’ creativity, collaboration, and practice, as well as student learning was analyzed. The results are presented in this manuscript along with implications for practice and recommendations for future research. Motivation for the Project The idea for this dissertation emerged from a synthesis of my research interests and my career in education where I have served as an elementary classroom teacher, technology specialist, and instructional coach. In recent years, teachers around the country have been called to be innovative and creative, to teach in new ways and to design new types of learning experiences. The school at which I was employed at the time of this study is no exception. Recent initiatives required teachers to become designers of new learning experiences in order to support students’ critical thinking, creativity, and cultural connections. Schedules were changed so that teachers would have time to collaborate in order to meet these objectives but no supports were provided for how teachers should engage in this co-creation and collaboration. Therefore, 1 much of the collaboration that had been undertaken resulted in little change of practice, or was viewed by educators as ineffective. At Michigan State University, I was involved in research and writing projects related to creativity in education. My practicum research focused on ways teachers could support creativity in their classrooms (Richardson & Mishra, 2017). A key realization from that study was that teachers felt isolated and at times were not sure how to change their practice even when they felt a need or a desire to do so. After further consideration, I realized that teachers are often expected to be innovative without any robust processes to support them. Much of the creative thinking that results in innovation, across various fields and disciplines, comes from creative teams, not individuals. Distributed, or group, creativity has been shown to result in better ideas. The key to success in the fields of business, design, engineering, and more, is attributed to effective creative teams (Sawyer, 2017). But, this thinking has not transferred to the field of education. This is not to say that little research has been conducted on the topic of teacher collaboration. A significant amount of research has been conducted on the importance of teacher collaboration, some of which I discuss in Chapter 2, but current definitions and descriptions of teacher collaboration differ significantly than the teamwork that occurs in other fields, where the focus is on creativity and design. As I was contemplating the potential impact of distributed creativity on education, I realized that a framework, designed by educators specifically to support creativity and collaboration, might be a worthwhile contribution in my own professional context and beyond. Background of the Problem In this section I provide a brief discussion of the issues related to the problem that this study addresses. A detailed discussion of these topics can be found in Chapter 2 of this manuscript. 2 In one of the most viewed Ted Talks in the past 10 years, Ken Robinson argued that the very future of our society depends on the creative capacity of young people and that schools play an essential role in fostering creative potential. He argued that creative capacity, rather than being supported in schools in the United States, is often constrained and even repressed (Robinson, 2007). Every child enters school with creative potential (Runco, 2003) and many leave school having been educated out of that potential (Kim, 2011). In the current education system, the goals of schooling and the reality of student learning in many classrooms do not support creativity. This systemic climate of conformity also applies to teachers, who are sometimes treated as passive employees, given scripted curriculum and guidelines which they are required to implement (Sagor, 2000). This creates an atmosphere of compliance that results in little risk taking. In order to foster student creativity, teachers need to take pedagogical risks. They need the freedom to teach creatively. Creativity centered education, while idealized for decades, is now necessary for the future of our civilization. Along with the market driven support of creativity; Ken Robinson, Tony Wagner, Yong Zhao, Angela Meiers and others have described the need for educators to design experiences and environments through which students will become the problem solvers that our local and global societies need. This is not the desire of a few idealists, experts, or psychologists. It is imperative that schools and classrooms around the country change. To support student creativity, and to engage students in new types of learning, creative pedagogical practices are a necessity (Craft, 2006; Esquival, 1995; Lin, 2011). The call for the support of creativity in education traces its roots to Dewey, Montessori, and others who proposed an education in which children construct their own meaning and are involved in experiences that build upon their own wonders and curiosity (Jeffrey & Craft, 2004). 3 This requires innovative pedagogical approaches and a redesign of learning (Sawyer, 2015). A challenge to the redesign of teaching and learning is the tradition of instructionism that permeates schools and classrooms. Traditional forms of teaching and learning have been called a variety of things (instructionism, stand and deliver methods, transmission, etc.) but at the core of these, regardless of name, is the idea that knowledge is seen as a collection of facts about the world and that the goal of schooling is to learn those facts along with certain procedures (Sawyer, 2015). In this system the teacher's job is to transmit those facts and success is determined by test scores. Educational research, on the other hand, has shown that classrooms should be places where teachers facilitate collaboration and knowledge building to support deep learning. Curriculum should be integrated and contextual; assessment should be formative, authentic, and focused on deep understandings (Sawyer, 2015). Over the last 20 years there has been a widespread call for reform in education to support the changing needs of learners and society. But, there has been little actual change (Woulfin & Rigby, 2017). This lack of change can be attributed to a variety of factors. When faced with heavy academic and other burdens, creative teaching practices assume lower priority. When teachers are asked to be creative and teach differently but do not know how to begin or even describe what that might look like, they are unable to do it (Eckhoff, 2011). Teachers draw heavily on the models of teaching and learning that they have experienced and often continue to rely on activities and lessons that ‘work,’ especially in areas in which they are uncomfortable or unfamiliar (Beghetto, 2007). Teachers are not given enough opportunities to construct new ideas of what classroom learning could look like. Thus, while most schools in recent years have recognized the need to change, few have actually transformed learning experiences for students (Robinson, 2015). Educational leaders regard professional development for teachers as the 4 primary way to promote change in schools. However, research has shown that much professional development provided for teachers is ineffective, seen as a waste of time, or is not sustainable. This ineffectiveness can be due to a number of reasons including: professional development is provided by facilitators that are brought in with no knowledge of the context and the professionals they are servicing; professional development is not designed to help teachers make connections to their own contexts and students; and professional development is seen as a ‘must do’ rather than a natural part of teacher practice (King, 2014). The methods of professional development that are typically employed are externally imposed, obligatory, generic, and surface level. Methods of professional development that are perceived by teachers as effective attempt to move towards more voluntary, internal, and practical methods that are focused on content and students (Hulten & Bjorkholm, 2016). Teachers are being called to develop innovative practices but, by and large, teaching remains a solitary profession. Efforts have been made to increase teacher collaboration but these often come in the form of pseudo or contrived collaboration that give the appearance of collaboration without the results of critical, meaningful collaboration (Glazier, Boyd, Hughes, Able, & Mallous, 2017). In order to implement creative pedagogical practices, teachers need support. Education as a whole has not asked teachers to think beyond their own classrooms, thus reinforcing a narrow, individualized view of what it means to be a teacher rather than a holistic view that asks teachers to work collaboratively as designers of learning. When support is provided it is often in the form of frameworks or processes that have been developed by others, detached from the context of school (Herring, Koehler, Mishra, Rosenberg, & Teske, 2016). Teachers are not often given the opportunity to create the structures that will guide them through the processes they must undertake to create new types of learning. Frameworks can be a 5 powerful support tool for teachers because they help to highlight important variables, elements, and factors and the relationships among them (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Educational frameworks are often appropriated from the fields of psychology and sociology, rather than being developed in the discipline of teaching and the context of classrooms (Herring, et al., 2016). This is a systemic issue that I believe might be addressed by a team of educators working collaboratively, in context, to design a framework that is used to support their own creativity and collaboration towards the design of new learning experiences. Treating teachers as designers gives them an autonomy that is often stripped from them when they are told what to teach and how to teach it (Sagor, 2000). This study gives teachers an opportunity to design something from the bottom up, to put themselves in the design process, and to “share their own creativity, curiosity, and imagination as they explore, generate ideas, prototype, experiment, and improve processes and products of teaching and learning” (Socol, Moran, & Ratliff, 2018). Why should teachers collaborate to create a framework? To answer this question we can look to the research that has been done on the effectiveness and potential of collaborative creativity. Collaboration has been shown to improve teacher practice and student learning when it is done effectively (Reason, 2009). As teachers gather to engage in creative design, their collective ability to develop innovation from within is essential for the type of reform that is needed in the educational system. This study provides one group of educators with the chance to do just that. This was a chance to depart from the norm of solitary solutions that go unrealized because teachers are siloed and overworked. The complex problems that these teachers faced, and the high demands being asked of them, are beyond the scope of any one teacher to solve or create (Sawyer, 2011). This was a way for teachers to take ownership of the change being required of them that was relevant and meaningful (Hill et al., 2013). 6 Statement of the Research Problem Teachers are being called to be innovative, but the design of learning is challenging because it is an emergent practice for many teachers (Sawyer, 2015). It is a reconceiving of the roles of teachers and learners. Schools continue to be based on instructionist models because constructivist-based pedagogical methods present a challenge to design and implement (Sawyer, 2015). This gap exists partially because it is not enough to simply expect innovative teaching and learning without providing support for teachers to accomplish the work. Teaching continues to be a solitary profession, and teachers continue to teach in ways that are comfortable and familiar. The learning that takes place during professional development is often not implemented due in large part to a lack of supports to sustain and implement new ideas or strategies. The call for transformation in education has come with little meaningful support for teachers. If teachers are going to answer the call to be more creative in the design of learning experiences, schools need to support the design and implementation of new ways of teaching. This must be the type of support that helps teachers move through their initial ideas and brainstorming to the final phases of implementation and reflection. It is possible to support teachers in the transformation of learning experiences and this study provides evidence that The i5 Framework for Education: Methods and Mindsets to Support Collaborative Creativity, can support teachers in this goal, leading to change in practice that positively impacts both teachers and students. This dissertation was an opportunity to provides teachers with autonomy and to send a message that teachers can and should be involved in the creation of the very models/frameworks that will help move their instruction forward. My primary goal was to provide a team of educators with an opportunity to design a framework to help support their own 7 collaboration and creation of new learning experiences. An essential aspect of this work was to support educators in context on topics that were relevant and meaningful to them. The research process used in this study involved three stages: discovery, intervention, and evaluation (Glesne, 2011). The phase of discovery was a time of initial research and planning. In this phase I identified the problem and designed the plan for the research. I did research on a variety of topics including creativity, collaboration, professional development, and more (discussed in detail in Chapter 2). Using the research from the literature review I created an example framework (Model for Creativity and Collaboration in Education, Appendix D). My purpose in creating this example was to provide a potential starting off point for the team. I presented it as one of multiple examples of educational frameworks that we could review and use. The team decided to create a new framework from scratch and the model that I created was not used. The second phase, intervention, involved cycles of design and testing of the framework that the team created and refined through use in context. An initial iteration of the framework was created by the team followed by a second iteration, and then the final version. (Throughout this manuscript the first iteration is referred to as The i5 Framework v1, the second iteration is referred to as The i5 Framework v2, and the third and final iteration is referred to as The i5 Framework for Education.) Finally, the evaluation phase involved a reflection on the process and an examination of the impact of the use of The i5 Framework v1 and v2 on the participating educators. The research questions, discussed in the following section, are articulated to structure the inquiry into the design process of The I5 Framework for Education that the team undertook, as well as to analyze the impact of The i5 Framework v1 and v2 on the research team as they were using designing and using it. 8 Research Purpose and Questions The purpose of this research was to engage educators in the design and testing of a framework that supports teacher creativity and collaboration. The research questions are provided in Table 1. Table 1: Research Questions and Sub-Questions Research Questions Sub-Questions 1. In what ways does the framework, designed by educators, help support teacher creativity and collaboration? 1a. What are the different components of the framework? 1b. How does the framework support teacher creativity? 1c. How does the framework support collaboration? 2. How, if at all, do teachers perceive the influence of the use of the framework on themselves and their students? 2a. How do teachers perceive the influence of the use of the framework on themselves and their practice? 2b. How do teachers perceive the influence of the use of the framework on their students and student learning? The research was conducted over the course of six months. A brief summary of the process and findings is provided here. A detailed description of the process undertaken can be found in Chapter 3 of this manuscript. Using action research as a methodology, this study centered on a problem that arose out of my own practice as an educator and instructional coach. The goal of the research was to create a framework to support creativity and collaboration among teachers and instructional coaches as they designed new learning experiences for students. A 9 total of five educators (three teachers and two coaches), including myself, participated in the study. The team of five individuals worked together to design an initial framework and then conducted two rounds of testing, using the framework in context in order to improve it and to support the new learning experiences in classrooms. The process of design and iteration is described in detail in Chapter 4 of this manuscript. After two rounds of testing, the final version of the framework was created and it was titled The i5 Framework for Education: Methods and Mindsets to Support Collaborative Creativity (Appendix G). The i5 Framework for Education consists of five methods and five mindsets designed to support creativity and collaboration among educators. The five methods include identify, inquire, innovate, implement, and impact. The five mindsets include empathy, trust, creativity, flexibility, and value. These methods and mindsets provide a structure to help guide the identification and design of solutions to topics related to teacher practice. The methods and mindsets are described in detail in Chapter 4. In addition to the creation of The i5 Framework for Education, I analyzed the way The i5 Framework v1 and v2 impacted teacher creativity and collaboration, teacher practice, and student learning. A brief summary of my findings is presented here with a detailed discussion provided in Chapter 4. I found that creativity was an essential mindset, not just for the successful use of the framework, but as a mindset by which the participants approached the craft of teaching. A creative mindset allowed the participants to view their work as an act of creation, giving themselves permission to take risks and try new things. This study also provided evidence of the power of creative synthesis in helping teachers design new experiences for students. As ideas were synthesized to create solutions, the teachers recognized that the merging of various perspectives resulted in ideas that were more creative and could not have risen from any singular 10 idea or perspective. Throughout the use The i5 Framework v1 and v2, the participants were engaging in interdependent thinking and co-construction, which supported collaboration. Each step of the process was a team effort and decisions were based on contributions of each team member. The way that the process was structured encouraged an improvisational atmosphere in which the thinking and ideas of one educator sparked thinking and ideas in the others, which then led to moments of interdependent thinking and co-design. The team purposefully sought and shared multiple perspectives, which also supported the collaboration of the team by providing a broader range of ideas to design from. Teacher practice was impacted by the use of The i5 Framework v1 and v2 in two identified ways. First, the process was relevant and autonomous. It provided educators with an opportunity to design a solution that was directly related to a problem they had identified and brought to the team. The team was not controlled or directed by any outside teachers or administrators, or by any one person on the team. Second, the experience also contained numerous and ongoing opportunities for reflection and feedback. Questioning, reflecting, and critiquing became natural behaviors that the team engaged in, in order to fully understand, explore, and create. Student learning was perceived by the teachers to be impacted in that the students were engaged in new learning experiences that supported deep thinking and cultural connections. The following chapter contains a literature review of topics related to the research questions listed in Table 1. Chapter 3 contains a discussion of the methodology of action research as well as the research process that I undertook. In chapter 4, I take a reflexive stance and provide a narrative of the results of the research, telling the story of the research using quotes and direct excerpts from the data while including my own thinking, opinions, and learning. 11 Finally, chapter 5 provides a brief summary of the findings, a discussion of my conclusions, and implications for practice and future research. Definitions of Terms and Concepts This section contains the definitions and descriptions of the major terms and concepts that are used throughout this manuscript. Collaborative emergence — The processes that arise from participation in distributed creativity which include individual creative acts, interactional dynamics, and collective group creations (Sawyer & DeZutter, 2009). Creative pedagogy — The creativity of the method and practice of teaching and the interaction of the teachers, context, and learners (Lin, 2011). Creativity — A process or product that is novel and useful in a given context. Critical colleagueship — The way a group of individuals interact when there is: critical dialogue, independent thinking, discussions of alternatives and different perspectives, productive disequilibrium, openness to new ideas, a willingness to reflect on weak practices, empathetic understanding, and a comfort with high levels of ambiguity and uncertainty (Glazier, Boyd, Bell Hughes, Able, & Mallous, 2017). Distributed creativity — Groups of individuals collaborating to generate a shared creative product (Sawyer & DeZutter, 2009). Effective collaboration – Collaboration that pushes beyond contrived or comfortable collaboration and involves elements of critical colleagueship where collaborating members discuss multiple perspectives, are open to new ideas, reflect on practice, critique ideas, and design solutions. 12 Educational framework — A structure that is created to help guide teams or individuals through processes in education. Innovation — The outcome or product of creativity. A new, effective, and relevant product, process, or solution (Couros, 2015). Professional development — Activities that are designed to help teachers develop their practice; ranging from formal structured seminars, in-service days, to informal discussions with colleagues (Desimone, 2009). Teacher creativity — The ideas, processes, strategies, pedagogy or products that are novel and useful within a teacher’s context, including individual and distributed creativity. The i5 Framework v1 — The first iteration of the framework that was designed by the participants of this study. The i5 Framework v2 — The second iteration of the framework that was designed by the participants of this study. The i5 Framework for Education — The third and final iteration of the framework that was designed by the participants of this study and has been developed to be shared with others. 13 CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE This section begins with a description of the three theories that formed a foundation for this research: social constructivism, creative synthesis, and collaborative emergence. These theories were used to contextualize and conceptualize this study, providing a guide to understand the different, yet interconnected, topics that relate to this study (Grant & Osanloo, 2014). They provided a foundation to explore the role of creativity and collaboration in the work of teachers. I begin this chapter with a discussion on social constructivism, creative synthesis, and collaborative emergence. Social constructivism, when viewed from the perspective of adult learners, provides insight into the types of experiences that teachers should be engaged in as they develop their own understanding of teaching and learning. This topic is explored later in this chapter in a section on K-12 teacher professional development. The theory of collaborative emergence supports an exploration of the way that collaboration has been viewed and researched in the field of education. The theory of creative synthesis provides an avenue to discuss creativity in teaching and learning, and the view of teachers as designers. Before I discuss each of the topics, I define these three theories. Theoretical Framework Constructivism is oppositional to the idea that knowledge is acquired merely through perception and observation (Phillips, 1995). Constructivists believe that humans are born with cognitive potential and that knowledge is constructed from experiences in which the learner is engaged. John Dewey, Jerome Bruner, Jean Piaget, and Lev Vygotsky are considered the cornerstone of constructivism (Phillips, 1995). Generally, constructivists fall into one of two camps: those who believe it is primarily the individual that constructs knowledge, and those who believe it is primarily the work of the interplay between the individual and the social context in 14 which the individual exists. The latter, known broadly as social constructivists believe that the locus of knowledge does not lie in the individual, but rather in a combination of the individual and the social and cultural context (Prawat, 1996). Piaget primarily focused on individual construction of knowledge, while Dewey proposed theories about the value of interaction and action within context, and the importance of active versus passive learning (Phillips, 1995). Vygotsky also placed importance on the social aspects of learning and argued that development cannot be dissociated from context. The way learners interact with each other and their environments, impacts, and has the potential to transform, thinking and learning (Schunk, 2011). While much of the scholarly discussion of social constructivism has focused on students in K-12 settings, research on adult learning has recognized the important role it can play in designing learning experiences for teachers (Hunzicker, 2011). Designers of adult learning draw on important foundational elements of social constructivism when they create learning experiences that are active, engaging, and meaningful to the experience of teachers (Hill, Beisiegel, & Jacob, 2013). Social constructivism is thus applicable for learners of all ages and can be used to design and evaluate adult learning experiences. The theory of collaborative emergence, developed by Sawyer (2011), is an extension of sociocultural theory and asserts that individuals cannot be separated from the social and cultural contexts in which they live and work. According to this theory, individual creative acts, interactional dynamics over time, and the emergence of collective group creations, all play an important role in group creative thinking, processes, and products. Collaborative emergence occurs when the following factors are in place (Sawyer & DeZutter, 2009): ● The activity has an unpredictable outcome 15 ● There is moment-to-moment contingency: each person’s actions are dependent on previous actions of others ● The interactional effect of any given action can be changed by the subsequent actions of others ● The process is collaborative, with equal opportunities for participant contribution Sawyer’s work began with an interest in the improvisational collaboration of musicians and actors (Henriksen & Mishra, 2016; Sawyer, 2015). After being immersed as a participant in a variety of experiences, Sawyer began to notice the similarities of distributed creative work across multiple contexts and disciplines. His identification of improvisation and structure being key components of distributed creativity across disciplines can also be translated to education. According to Sawyer, creative teaching involves designing constructivist learning experiences (Henriksen & Mishra, 2016). Theories of creativity play a fundamental role in this research because throughout the research process educators will engage in design, an act that requires creativity. Creativity can be explored from many dimensions and perspectives. Creativity theories can be organized according to Rhode’s four P’s: process, product, press, and person (1960). Process theories attempt to describe the mechanisms or structures that support the thinking and “doing” of creativity (Kozbelt, Beghetto, & Runco, 2010). Product theories measure the creativity, the novelty and effectiveness, of the outcome of creative processes. Press refers to the environmental impacts or aspects of creativity, and person focuses on creative people. For the first few decades of creativity research (the 1950s-70s) the focus was largely on individual creativity. More recently, scholars have begun to recognize distributed creativity as a key component to success and innovation across multiple fields. 16 The term creative synthesis, developed by Sarah Harvey (2014), describes a group of individuals who work interdependently towards a shared goal of developing output that is both novel and useful. Creative synthesis is developed through a process that involves collective attention, enacting ideas, and building on similarities. Collective attention refers to the process of building upon ideas with diverse perspectives. It combines cognitive, social, and environmental resources in order to support the creative output of the group. Breakthrough creativity can occur through an integration of diverse ideas and perspectives, often encouraging tension and conflict, which can result in connections between seemingly unrelated ideas and can lead to new patterns, thinking, and understanding. Enacting ideas refers to the process of taking ideas one step beyond abstract thinking. It is not a complete creation of the design. It is a low stakes attempt to bring about new understandings and perspectives by creating a bridge between thinking and creation. Building on similarities occurs when people begin to see others’ perspectives, recognize similar lines of inquiry among ideas, and develop those lines of inquiry, thus supporting creative synthesis. These theories are foundational to the design of this study and serve to support two core assumptions. First, teachers are learners, constructing their own knowledge. Teachers, like students, need to be viewed as active constructors of knowledge about teaching and learning. The collaborative work they are involved in must engage them in ways that support active thinking, creating, and designing that is relevant to the issues they face in their classrooms. Second, teachers are creative collaborators, designing new ways of teaching and learning that can be improved when they rise out of distributed creativity. While describing teachers as designers is not new, a key perspective here is provided by distributed creativity. Both creative synthesis and collaborative emergence identify collaboration as being of high import. Innovation, the 17 implementation and outcome of creative ideas, is less likely to happen if teaching is viewed as an individualistic profession, as it so often has been. Collaboration is at the core of creative emergence. The following sections provide an exploration of the research topics related to these theories. The first section, professional development, provides a description of the types of learning that teachers are often provided, with a connection made between effective professional development, the social constructivist needs of teachers (learning that is meaningful, relevant, and active), and the use of instructional coaches. Professional Development Professional development can be broadly defined as activities that are designed to help teachers develop their practice that range from formal structured seminars, in-service days, to informal discussions with colleagues (Desimone, 2009). Professional development is integral to improving the quality of schooling and budgets for professional development have been increasing as schools have recognized its centrality to change and reform (Desimone, 2009; Gallucci et al., 2010; King, 2014). Understanding what makes professional development effective or ineffective is key to understanding the success or failure of educational change. Traditional forms of professional development have been described as ‘sit and get,’ rather than sustained, relevant learning experiences. Professional development is often offered to teachers in the form of one-time workshops or after school sessions. Ineffective professional development is seen as top-down and isolated from the everyday life of teachers and classrooms, and thus, not impactful (Buczynski & Hansen, 2010). Adults, like young learners, find it hard to sit still and listen for long periods of time. Information learned from presentation style workshops is less effective and the information learned is less likely to be applied (Hunzicker, 2011). Ineffective professional development often has a short shelf-life and proceeds with little evaluation about the 18 usefulness of it in context (Hill et al., 2013). When a topic might be relevant to teachers, progress beyond the routine level of understanding is seldom made because teachers do not have sustained support that guides them through implementation (King, 2014). Effective professional development, on the other hand, is embedded in the culture and routine of the school and can provide support for teacher learning and growth. Desimone (2009) identified the following characteristics of effective professional development: a focus on content, active learning, coherence, duration, and collective participation. These types of professional learning experiences focus on content and engage teachers in active learning, discussions, and viewing of student work. Effective professional development for teachers can lead to increased knowledge and skills, or changes in attitudes or beliefs. These changes may then lead to teacher improvement in instruction or pedagogical approach, which should ultimately have a positive impact on student learning (Desimone, 2009). Adult learners are motivated by addressing problems and creating solutions that are relevant to their classrooms and the issues that they face. These types of learning experiences are authentic, integrated, collaborative, active, involve coaching and mentoring, focus on student learning, and occur best when teachers are able to share problems, viewpoints, ideas, and work together towards solutions (Hunzicker, 2011). Hill et al., (2013) identified the following elements that maximize teacher learning: a strong content focus, inquiry-oriented learning approaches, collaborative participation, and coherence with school curricula and policies. Instructional Coaching. In the past two decades, instructional coaching has been an effort to provide sustained context based professional development for teachers (Knight & van Nieuwerburgh, 2012; Kurz, Reddy, & Glover, 2017; Woulfin & Rigby, 2017). Coaching can be defined as a “conversation focused on the enhancement of learning and development through 19 increasing self-awareness and a sense of personal responsibility, where the coach facilitates the self-directed learning of the coachee through questioning, active listening, and appropriate challenge in a supportive and encouraging climate" (Knight & van Nieuwerburgh, 2012, p. 17). Gallucci, Van Lare, Yoon, and Boatright (2010) describe instructional coaching as embedded and situated work that includes observations of teaching, demonstrations of model practices, and pre and post conferences. There are a variety of instructional coaching approaches. These include problem solving coaching, cognitive coaching, reform coaching, and more. Problem solving coaching identifies and addresses concerns with student performance through a cooperative problem solving approach. Reform coaching aims to bring about school wide improvement. Cognitive coaching promotes reflective, self-directed teacher practice. Each of these types of coaching uses a set of procedures and protocols aimed at improving practice. Ultimately, all types of coaching have the end goal of improving schools (Kurz et al., 2017). This aligns with Connor’s (2017) assessment that an important theme among multiple coaching methods is the establishment of a partner relationship between coach and coachee that is based on respect. The instructional coaching model developed by Knight & van Nieuwerburgh (2012) is a combined approach that includes elements from problem solving and cognitive coaching. This model (Instructional Coaching: The Partnership Approach), is based on an equal partnership between teacher and coach and strives to provide choice in learning, respect for teacher choices, opportunities for authentic dialogue, teacher reflection, and application of practices. Coaches may support teachers with a variety of issues including classroom management, content, instruction, and assessment. In this model the goal of coaching is to help teachers identify opportunities, unleash solutions, and focus efforts (Knight & van Nieuwerburgh, 2012). The 20 process of coaching in this approach includes establishing a clear picture of the current reality and a clear goal. For example a goal could be: 90% of students will say they enjoy reading on a survey. Effective goals are specific, measurable, and compelling to those who set them. After a goal is identified the coach suggests evidence-based practices organized around four areas: content planning, formative assessment, instructional practices, and community building. In the journey towards improvement in professional development an array of coaching models have been developed. But, there is some resistance to instructional coaching because research has provided evidence that it is not completely effective. Coaches are not always able to identify effective practices and their beliefs about effective practice may differ from teachers’ beliefs (Connor, 2017). Woulfin and Rigby (2017) believe that instructional coaches are not the change agents that they could be. They identify, in particular, three ways that coaches can help enact reform: developing shared understandings, modeling practices, and brokering ideas. Coaches are in a unique position to foster common understandings of terms, strategies, and initiatives. Coaches can also model reformed practices in ways that are targeted and contextualized, providing tailored professional development to teachers. Finally, coaches can act as key intermediaries, closing gaps of communication among teachers and administrators. These collective practices of coaches, teachers, and administrators are especially needed when asking teachers to design and/or adopt new ways of teaching (Woulfin & Rigby, 2017). Instructional coaches are in a unique position to impact transformation and change in schools as they have the ability to work closely with both teachers and administrators. In an attempt to make professional development experiences more relevant for teachers, and to understand the types of experiences that will result in change in practice, schools have 21 identified teacher collaboration as one way of supporting growth among teachers. The next section provides a brief description of the types of collaborative experiences that teachers are often involved in. Teacher Collaboration Teacher collaboration often takes place in the form of teacher communities. Teacher communities are called different names in the literature (e.g. professional learning communities, communities of practice, teacher teams, study groups) but they typically have the same goals and use the same concepts with respect to teacher learning (Connor, 2017; Vangrieken, Dochy, Raes, & Kyndt, 2015). In a systematic review of the research on teacher communities, Vangrieken, Meredith, Packer, and Kyndt (2016) found that teacher communities hold promise where ineffective professional development and instructional coaching have fallen short. The formation of teacher communities is one way that schools have taken steps to create professional learning experiences that positively impact practice. They are characterized by a group of practitioners who have a mission, and shared values and goals. They have a collaborative culture and participants partake in collective inquiry into best practices with an action orientation. Additionally, there is a focus on process and a commitment to continuous improvement (Mertler, 2013). As knowledge about professional learning communities has increased, their presence in schools has also increased. They have, in some cases, decreased teacher isolation and raised levels of teacher satisfaction and collaboration as well as student achievement (Vangrieken et al., 2015). Vangrieken and colleagues (2015) examined a number of teacher communities and found several factors that led to success. Successful teacher communities were safe places for collective inquiry with members who had a cooperative spirit and a willingness to share. These 22 communities contained an atmosphere of trust and respect, where members took risks and shared weaknesses without judgement. Organizations such as the National Council of Teachers of English and the National Education Association have identified teacher collaboration as a critical component to school improvement. Collaboration can take place in a variety of forms. According to Vangrieken et al., (2015), collaboration is a continuum ranging from superficial to more sustained levels of interaction. Teacher collaboration can be the means for effective, meaningful, and sustainable professional development. Deep collaboration requires touching teachers’ underlying beliefs. It includes disagreement and conflict with a high level of interdependence. It is focused on student learning with the goal of increased learning and effective and enriched teaching methods. The benefits of deep collaboration include student success, student understanding, and improved learning. For teachers the benefits include learning from each other, innovation in practice, solving complex problems, increased communication, and increased student centered pedagogical strategies (Vangrieken et al., 2015). Glazier et al., (2017) describe three types of collaboration: contrived, comfortable, and critical - based on the 1996 work of Fullen and Hargreaves. Contrived collaboration occurs on a pseudo level with surface level interaction. It involves networking and minimal communicating, with no need for trust. There is no time or space for the development of meaningful relationships, nor deep discussions. This type of collaboration occurs when people meet but do not have shared goals, or when the things they are learning and discussing are not deep. Meetings are centered around low-stakes outcomes and discussion. Contrived collaboration requires minimal effort and results in little change (Reason, 2009). Comfortable collaboration occurs when teachers solve simple problems or engage in processes that require minimal trust with easy to reach solutions 23 (Glazier et al., 2017). Comfortable collaboration does not help teachers discover or solve complex problems. The issues are short term and the solutions are usually easy to reach. During this type of collaboration teachers might share ideas and resources and encourage each other, similar to a professional learning community. Critical colleagueship is a type of meaningful collaboration where interactions are characterized by critical dialogue, independent thinking, discussion of alternatives and different perspectives, productive disequilibrium, openness to new ideas, willingness to reflect on weak practices, empathetic understanding, and a comfort with high levels of ambiguity and uncertainty (Lord, 1994). It is a move beyond a superficial sense of unity (Reason, 2009). Critical collaboration is necessary for transformational change in education as it helps build teacher expertise to solve complex problems of practice. Groups that are critically collaborative go beyond the mere forming of professional learning communities or communities of practice. There is a positive attitude and willingness to communicate, a knowledge of roles of the team, clear goals, consistent scheduled times, a supportive atmosphere, diversity in multiple areas, flexibility, focus on learning, autonomy, proactive approaches, dialogue that centers on what teachers think is important, and distributed leadership with open and honest communication (Vangrieken et al., 2015). When groups can collaborate in meaningful and thoughtful ways using strategies that promote deep learning, the results can be powerful. According to Reason (2009): The great victories in preK-12 education in the last fifty years were almost never initiated by a governor's signature on a bill or a board of education mandate. They typically came about when a motivated group of staff members at the building level decided they were going to make the mental and emotional investment to change their world. By coming together in a spirited and collaborative fashion, they did. 24 The power of collaboration has been recognized across disciplines and contexts. When groups collaborate to develop a collective creative product, the interactions among group members often become a more significant source of creativity than the thinking and creativity of any one individual (Sawyer & DeZutter, 2009). In order to better understand creativity in education, the next section describes views of creativity as related to education, and the role that creativity plays in teaching. Creativity in Teaching and Learning In the last 50 years there has been an increase in the empirical study of creativity (Runco & Albert, 2010). A recurring problem with research in the field is the lack of a standard definition of the term (Plucker & Makel, 2010). Many articles on creativity lack a specific definition of the very concept being studied, thus an essential first step is defining the term (Das, 2012; Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow, 2004; Robinson, 2011). Two common components of definitions of creativity are originality and usefulness (Runco & Jaeger, 2012). Originality may be considered the most important aspect of creativity because something must be novel or unique to be considered creative (Runco & Jaeger, 2012). If originality is not present then the process, product, or idea in question is common or mundane. Usefulness is also included in most definitions of creativity because it refers to the need for something to be effective or valuable (Runco & Jaeger, 2012). Usefulness could, for instance, come in the form of emotional value of a piece of art or could be the pragmatic value or effectiveness of a product’s design. Mishra, Henriksen, and the Deep Play Research Group (2013) built on these two components by stating that creativity has three elements: Novel, Effective, and Whole. With the addition of the third component, Whole, Mishra et al. stress the importance of context. Creativity can thus be defined as a process or product that is novel and useful within a given context (Mishra et al., 2013). 25 Innovation is often used as a synonym for creativity but a clarification is made here between the two terms. Innovation, for the purposes of this research, refers to the outcome of creativity. Therefore, creativity is a prelude to innovation. Creativity is the process, thinking, and creating that precedes an innovative product, process, or idea (Couros, 2015). Educators, philosophers, and psychologists have long discussed the importance of creativity. For centuries creativity has been seen as an essential component of human innovation, an important part of children’s learning, and has been highlighted by the business world as essential to the United States’ competitive role in the future (Sawyer, 2015). Montessori, Freud, and Dewey each discussed the central role that creativity plays in our lives, in our learning, and in our health and happiness. The World Economic Forum and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development have stressed the importance of supporting creativity (Sawyer, 2015). One argument is that to stay competitive we must be innovative, and to innovate we must support creativity. Wagner (2010) and Robinson (2015) also highlight the importance of a citizenry that is able to creatively solve problems and drive our society towards innovation. Governments all over the world are recognizing creativity as an essential component of education, and many have established policies for the support of creativity in schools. Among these are Australia, Canada, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Scotland, England, and the United States (Craft, 2006). Since the mid-1990s there has been growing recognition from policy makers that creativity is an important educational aim. This economic imperative to support creativity has helped raise the awareness of the important role that schools play in nurturing the creative potential of young people (Craft, 2001). It has been well established, and there is overwhelming agreement among experts, that all people have creative potential and that creativity can be developed (Lin, 2011; Runco, 2003). 26 The importance of creativity in education has been stressed for decades and yet there has been minimal impact on classrooms. For much of the past 50 years creativity in education has been primarily associated with the arts. To support creativity in schools, administrators established arts programs. But, the increased emphasis on measurement and high stakes testing over the past few decades, has meant that money that once went to arts programs has gone elsewhere (Sawyer, 2015). Some schools have tried to address this “creativity gap” by initiating stand-alone creativity enrichment activities. These are largely ineffective and often do not transfer to other domains like math and science (Sawyer, 2015). Students need to be taught, in specific content areas, ways to creatively think and solve problems. Creative teaching and teaching for creativity have been established in the literature as two distinct approaches to viewing creativity in education. Creative teaching is the act of combining different theories, models, and strategies in novel ways to address the needs of learners (Bramwell, Reilly, Lilly, Kronish, & Chennabathni, 2011). After a review of 15 studies on creative teachers, Bramwell and his colleagues asserted that creative teachers were those that valued creativity and were willing to take risks. They were hardworking, non-conforming, intuitive, confident, passionate, flexible, and less concerned with making good impressions. Creative teachers were important members and shapers of their environments, establishing communities of learners in their classrooms. They valued relationships and tried to help students make connections. The researchers also noted that administrative support was essential for these creative teachers, who felt they needed permission to take risks. Teaching for creativity involves the lessons, choices, environments, etc. that teachers create for learners with the purposeful intention of fostering student creativity. Much advice has been suggested on how teachers can support student creativity. After a review of 23 studies on 27 creativity supporting learning environments, Richardson and Mishra (2017) developed an instrument (the SCALE) to guide the work that teachers do in designing environments that support creativity. The SCALE describes three core areas: learner engagement, the physical environment, and the learning climate. Learner engagement includes the actual tasks in which students are involved. Tasks that support creativity involve active learning, and exploration where all members of the environment are seen as co-learners and co-teachers, with an emphasis on process and not product. Tasks that are open-ended, involve choice, or focus on authentic problems are more likely to support creativity (Cullingford, 2007). The physical environment, or space of the learning environment itself should be open, containing furniture that is flexible, allowing for multiple spaces in which small groups of students can easily work together (Warner & Myers, 2009). Teachers should have a variety of rich resources and materials readily available for student use (Peterson & Harrison, 2005). Central to the learning climate is the relationship between teacher and student, the relationships among students, and the overall atmosphere of a classroom. An open atmosphere in which students communicate freely, accept and discuss new ideas, trust each other, and support taking risks is an ideal climate for the support of creativity (Craft, 2001; Esquivel, 1995). Creativity tends to flourish when there are opportunities for exploration and when originality is valued (Kozbelt et al., 2010). Creativity can thrive when there is a climate of community, care, and cooperation that nurtures positive student and teacher relationships. Other researchers have focused on the types of behaviors and characteristics of creativity supporting teachers. Creativity supporting teachers tend to respect questions and ideas, serve as models of creative problem solvers, encourage collaborative creativity, and allow time for creative thinking. Supporting student creativity is one way to realize constructivist learning, 28 which can be described as inquiry based, dialogic, and improvisational (Sawyer, 2015). Anna Craft spent much of her career studying creativity in teaching and learning and offered a variety of suggestions to educators (2001). These pedagogical strategies include: time for idea generation and work, appropriate and inviting materials, rich resources, an atmosphere that values risk-taking and normalizes mistake making, experimentation, integration of different ways of knowing, encouraging the expression of ideas, integration of subject areas, and choosing topics that are meaningful or relevant to children’s lives. Teachers as Creative Designers An essential idea that has emerged from the work of scholars in the fields of educational psychology and educational technology is the recognition that much of what teachers do is design work. This is the work that teachers do outside of the classroom, and it is just as important as the work that teachers do inside the classroom (Carlgren, 1999). This idea implies a change in the teacher’s role as one of implementer and doer to someone who “actively constructs, invents, develops, and designs the practice of schooling” (Carlgren, 1999, p. 50). Scholars have suggested that the field of teaching can be informed by design (Cross, 2001). This view of teaching as an act of design is significant. Herbert Simon, the founding father of design, stated that everyone designs who “devises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones. The intellectual activity that produces material artifacts is no different fundamentally from the one that prescribes remedies for a sick patient or the one that devises a new sales plan for a company or a social welfare policy for a state” (Simon, 1969, p. 130). Teachers are designers - of experiences, learning, curriculum, lessons, environments, and more. Schön, one of the seminal thinkers in design, saw design as a central component of teaching and learning and described educational practice as being design-like (Waks, 2001). 29 Schön regarded teachers as designers because they are involved in conceiving, planning, and creating new procedures and activities. Norton and Hathaway (2015) noted that teachers are increasingly being called to create new and innovative experiences for students. The new view of a teacher is one that requires the ability to invent, create, and design learning experiences. With this view of teacher as designer, it is important to recognize the powerful role that frameworks can play in guiding teachers through design work. In education there are frameworks for lesson planning, classroom management, effective teaching, levels of thinking, and many more. These frameworks provide educators with a guide, highlighting important elements and functions of the work (Herring, et al., 2016). Frameworks provide a high-level view of making sense of the various elements that are at play in the many decisions that are made by teachers (Maxwell, 2012). One such framework that has seen increasing use in the field of education is the Stanford d.School model of design thinking. The Stanford d.School design thinking model involves five stages: Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test. Designers, students, and others can cycle through the process or re- enter modes as needed, to understand or explore problems and solutions. The Stanford model is one of several design thinking models that have been increasingly used in multiple fields, including education (Plattner, 2015). Henriksen and Richardson (2017) used design thinking to support teachers in their solving of educational problems. One of the broad takeaways from the research was the notion that teachers do not often view themselves as designers until they engage in design work. The teachers in that study began with a view of themselves as doers and implementers but, after going through a process of design thinking and using it to solve a problem of practice, left with the knowledge that they were designers, capable of creating powerful solutions and experiences for their students. Teachers are surrounded by human 30 centered problems. When they view themselves as designers, they see their own potential in tackling those problems and creatively solving them. Design thinking is a process that has been growing in use in recent years in education, as teachers use it to solve problems that they encounter in their settings. There are other frameworks that have been used to support collaborative creative or learning experiences among educators. The Impact Cycle and The Spiral of Inquiry, are two more examples of frameworks that have been developed for educators to support the work of teaching and learning. The Impact Cycle developed for use by instructional coaches by Jim Knight (2018) consists of three main stages: Identify, Learn, and Improve. Throughout the process a coach and teacher work closely together with the goal of improving instruction. In the Identify stage, time is spent articulating goals and creating a clear picture of the current reality by conducting interviews or doing observations. In the second stage, Learn, the teacher implements the strategy and the coach observes and models. In the final stage, Improve, the coach works with the teacher to continue to make improvements towards the goal identified in the first stage. The goal of the process is to provide a structure for both coach and teacher to set goals and work towards the improvement of instruction. The Spiral of Inquiry (Tinperley, Kaser, & Halbert, 2014) is an interconnected set of six phases: Focusing, Developing a Hunch, Learning, Taking Action, Checking, and Scanning. It is a research and development process that supports the identification of a topic, learning about it, taking action on it, checking on how much of a difference has been made, and then scanning for how the work has impacted learners. The Spiral of Inquiry is a shared collaborative approach that aims to provide a sense of coherence and structure to improve learning in schools to solve a range of educational problems. 31 The frameworks described above provide a sampling of the structures that are available for teachers. What is missing from the field of education is a framework that supports collaboration and creativity, commonly a focus in business collaborative teams, but not in education. Frameworks provide a structure by which teachers can identify important elements in a process (Miles & Huberman, 1994). To my knowledge, no frameworks currently exist that help teachers work collaboratively and creatively to design new learning experiences for students. So, the main work of this dissertation has been to engage educators in the development of a framework that supports their own creativity and collaboration, in context, as they design new learning experiences for their students. Summary In summary, teachers are being called to teach creatively and to support creativity in their classrooms. This creative teaching and learning requires a change from traditional practices to new practices (Robinson, 2011; Sawyer, 2015; Wagner, 2010). Administrators and educators alike see the need for this transformation in education and have initiated various forms of professional development to address it (Gallucci et al., 2010). Traditional forms of professional development have proven to be largely ineffective. Research has shown that effective professional development involves sustained active learning on the part of teachers with a focus on content that is relevant to their classrooms (Desimone, 2009). The need for educational change has also been answered by the development of teacher communities, with two common types being professional learning communities and communities of practice. This move towards teacher collaboration has lessened teacher isolation, but in many cases has only been implemented on a superficial level (Vangrieken et al., 2015). Critical colleagueship is needed for a change toward innovative practices and solving complex 32 educational problems. This turn toward effective collaboration must also include the belief in the importance of seeing the teacher in the role of a designer who creates and designs learning experiences (Glazier et al., 2017). Around the United States, teachers are being called to be creative designers, but do not have the professional support to do design and implement new pedagogical practices. Using what research has revealed about collaboration and creativity, one way of tackling this problem is to engage educators in a design process to create a framework that will provide themselves and possibly other groups of educators with a process to support critical collaboration and creativity in order to make new ways of teaching and learning a reality in classrooms. While there are frameworks being used in education to solve problems and conduct research, what has been lacking is a framework that supports collaborative creativity. The framework developed in this study, The i5 Framework for Education, attempts to provide a structure to support creativity and collaboration among educators. In the next chapter, I describe the methodology and research process taken to develop The i5 Framework for Education. 33 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS The purpose of this was study was to design a framework to support teacher creativity and collaboration in context. In this chapter I begin with a description of and rationalization for selecting action research as a methodology. Throughout this study I sought a deep understanding of the process and experiences of the participants and a qualitative approach allowed for this type of detailed exploration (Creswell, 1998). In this chapter I provide details about action research; my role as both researcher and participant; and the context and participants. Following that are sections on the research process, the data sources, and the data analysis process. Methodology – Action Research This study is situated within the field of action research, which has been identified by educators and scholars as one way to address the reform that is needed in education (Kemmis, 2009; Rust, 2009; Sagor, 2000; Ulvik, Riess, & Roness, 2018). Action research is rooted in context, focused on what educators in classrooms believe to be important, and can be engaged in by a single educator, a group of colleagues, or an entire faculty (Sagor, 2000). There are a variety of action research approaches including participatory, practical, critical, classroom, action learning, action science, industrial, and more. These approaches differ in the types of problems and issues they address, their settings, and the people involved in the research. This study falls within the category of practical action research. Practical action research focuses on educating or enlightening practitioners with the goal of improving practice (Kemmis, 2009). Action research involves studying a situation in context in order to acquire actionable knowledge that enables improvement. As such it is important to maintain a reflexive and aware approach throughout the action research process (James, 1999). The participatory nature of action research makes it an ideal choice for a study of this nature where a team of educators is 34 involved in a design process, in context, that is relevant to their professional practice (Majgaard, Misfeldt, & Nielsen, 2011). The three purposes for engaging in action research as articulated by Sagor (2000) are: 1) Building the reflective practitioner; 2) Making progress on schoolwide priorities; and 3) Building professional cultures. As teachers reflect on their own practice, they develop a greater “mastery of the art and science of teaching” (Sagor, 2000, p. 7). Action research presents an opportunity to professionalize teaching, to help educators and others recognize teaching as a non-routine, complex practice that requires collaboration and creativity (Sagor, 2000). The process used in this study involved three stages: discovery, intervention, and evaluation (Glesne, 2011). The phase of discovery was a time of initial research and planning. In this phase the problem was identified, the context described, and a research plan was designed. The second phase, intervention, involved cycles of testing of the intervention (in this case, the framework) in context. Finally, evaluation involved a reflection on the process and an examination of the impact of the use of The i5 Framework v1 and v2. Sagor’s (2000) action research process was used as a guide throughout this study. The first step is to identify a focus for the research. This can be done through a variety of methods including a reflective journal, interviews, or an examination of student work. It is important that educators choose a topic that is particularly relevant to their work and is within the scope of an educator’s authority (Sagor, 2000). In step 2, the researcher(s) identifies and clarifies the theories that may play a significant role in addressing the issue to be studied and conducts a literature review. The third step involves identifying the research questions that will guide the study. In step 4 data is collected, ideally using a variety of data sources in order to achieve triangulation in 35 order to establish the truth and accuracy of claims. In step 5 the data is analyzed and the results are shared in step 6. Action research aims to empower teachers by promoting the interaction between theory and practice through creating space for systematic reflection on practice related to theory and providing a focused professional development experience (Rust, 2009; Ulvik, Riese, & Roness, 2018). Action research can be an effective professional development experience: focused on issues that meet teachers’ needs, integrated in the school day and year, and sustained over time (Rust, 2009). To teachers, reform that is precipitated by outside research is often divorced from the day to day actions of teaching (Rust, 2009). Thus, action research can serve as a powerful tool to bridge the divide between theory and practice. Action research, “speaks to teachers with an authenticity that many teachers find absent from research on or about teachers because in teacher research, teachers recognize themselves and their settings” (Rust, 2009, p. 1886). Professionals in other areas, e.g. engineers, are expected to tackle complex problems through processes of creativity, collaboration, and design. They routinely create the knowledge that moves their profession forward. Teachers, on the other hand, often employ safe or risk-free methods and are often treated as employees who are told to buckle down and work harder (Sagor, 2000). It is important that research in education is grounded in the life of teachers and students in the current practices within schools (Kuntz et al., 2013). Action research closes the gap between the role of theorist and practitioner as it allows practitioners to be researchers, to give them “intellectual and moral control over their practice” (Kemmis, 2009, p. 468). Deep- rooted change takes time and must involve teachers in a central and integral role to be successful (Rust, 2009). Indeed, action research is a meta practice: a practice that changes other practices. It is a critical and self-critical process supporting change “through individual and collective 36 transformation of self, practices, our understanding of practice, and the conditions that enable or constrain our practice” (Kemmis, 2009, p. 463). Action research, then, provides a methodology that aligns with the one of the goals of this study: to support educators in context on topics that are relevant and meaningful to them. Researcher’s Role and Positionality During the course of this study I played multiple roles, which is standard in action research as practitioners strive to solve educational problems within their own context. This study was centered around a problem of practice that my colleagues and I (coaches, teachers, and administrators) had previously identified and discussed. This study was a unique opportunity to use my role as both participant and researcher, to help create an experience that could push us, the research team, collectively towards improvement in our practice. I negotiated three distinct roles throughout the research process: researcher, facilitator, and participant. As a researcher, I spent time examining the literature and preparing materials for the team. For the first team meeting, I moved into the role of facilitator as I explained the purpose of the research study and the goals of our meetings. I was also a participant, a functioning member of the community (Glesne, 2011), stepping into my role as an educator at the school. I stepped back into my researcher role as I conducted the group and individual interviews, reflected on the framework and the research process, and engaged in data analysis. I strove to be especially cognizant of my participation in the team meetings as one of equal participant because this component is identified by Sawyer (2011) as an essential factor for collaborative emergence, the breakthrough ideas that can only result from group creativity. I continuously assessed my own role and made every effort to step out of the researcher and facilitator role, and into the role of equal collaborator. One of the most common critiques of 37 qualitative research is the intense researcher involvement which potentially biases the process and results. It could be argued, though, that this intense involvement is the best way to thoroughly understand the systems at work in the project. I have sought to minimize researcher bias through careful documentation of the process of data collection and analysis, by inclusion of clear descriptive examples, and by an acute awareness of my own role and perspectives throughout the process (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Rawson & Hughes-Hassell, 2015). Action research is often presented from a realist perspective in which the researcher “omits mention of strategic choices about data and the layer of elusive meanings and interpretations that are constructed in the process” (James, 1999, p. 95). A realist narrative is not the perspective through which I have presented the story of my experience, in this study, with action research. I have deviated from the typical reporting of action research by taking a reflexive stance, providing commentary throughout the presentation of results, illustrating how the data constitutes the research, and sharing my own opinions and connections to practice. This reflexive perspective proves an “antidote to a realist ontology that presupposes a found world and a positivist epistemology that purports to discover it” (James, 1999, 95). It is a holistic view that includes reflexive commentary and is informed by my own thinking in order to make sense of the complexity of experiences during the study. Articulating these changes in thinking, and the development of insights throughout the research process provides a narrative perceived through my own point of view, which is embraced and made explicit. One way this is made explicit is through the use of italics in chapter 4 of this manuscript. Italics are used to differentiate the ideas and thinking that come from a reflexive standpoint and include opinions, reactions, feelings, and connections. The use of italics is an attempt to delineate this reflexive thinking, and while all thinking about research is not either reflexive or realistic, it is an attempt to show the reader how 38 this type of reflexive narrative is woven in to the narrative of this study. This holistic and reflexive perspective is a way to portray the value of my position in the process and to record and embrace the evolving narratives of change that occurred throughout the process (James, 1999). Context and Participants The participating school was a private school with several campuses in Hawaii that primarily serves children of Hawaiian ancestry. The school had recently rolled out an initiative that called for a change in teaching and learning towards new practices that would support creativity, communication, collaboration, and problem solving while connecting learning to the students’ unique Hawaiian cultural background. This made it a prime environment to undertake this research study, as teachers, administrators and coaches were looking for ways to support teachers in their shift from traditional ‘sit and get’ teaching styles, that were very structured and prescribed, to new practices. The administration at the school was supportive of this research study and provided time during the school day for the research team to meet. The administration recognized the potential positive influence that the outcome of this study could have on the faculty at the school. They committed to assisting throughout the process by providing space, time, and resources. The participants in this study were five educators at the participating school. Participants were intentionally chosen as they represented the population that is invested in and impacted by the designed intervention (Brown, 1992). Participants were recruited via an email invitation to participate in the research (Appendix C). The goal was to obtain five participants, including myself, who would commit to the research process, meeting consistently over the course of 6 months. Short profiles for each participant are provided here. Pseudonyms are used to preserve anonymity except for the case of myself. All quotes and interactions that include me are 39 presented transparently, with my own name, so that the reader may clearly see my role throughout the process. Table 2: Participant Information at a Glance Participant Name Carol Sharon Rebecca David Carmen Position at the School Teaching and Learning Coach STEAM Teacher K-5 Science Teacher K-5 Second Grade Teacher Teaching and Learning Coach Years of Experience 30 Education BA in Elementary Education 10 11 10 14 BS in Environmental Studies, MS in Tropical Biology Conservation and Environmental Science BS in Education and BA in Geography AA in Early Childhood Education, BA in Organizational Management, Master’s in Education BA in Drama, Master’s in Education Carol had been teaching in K-12 settings for over 30 years. She had taught all grades, Kindergarten through fifth grade, and taught in a variety of settings and schools. She had been at the participating school for 16 years as a second grade teacher. The year in which the study was conducted, Carol moved out of the classroom and into a new role as a teaching and learning coach, primarily working with second and third grade teachers and students. Her background was in elementary education and she held both her B.A and her M.A in Education. Her self- identified areas of strength were literacy, writing, and classroom management. Sharon was in her third year of teaching K-5 STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Math) during the time of this study. She had previously worked as a science literacy support specialist in grades K-3 for 8 years and spent two years as a science curriculum developer for K-12 students. She held a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Science and a 40 Master’s degree in Conservation Biology and Environmental Science. She was passionate about science and about collaborating with colleagues to create STEAM experiences for students. Rebecca was in her 11th year teaching elementary (K-5) science during the time of this study. She also had experience working with high school students, having served as a lab assistant before receiving her Bachelor’s degree in Education. Rebecca had spent the last year redesigning her curriculum so that it was more project based and integrated with other content areas. Rebecca described herself as passionate about integrating technology into her curriculum and was often the “go to” person that teachers asked for help with integrating technology. David, at the time of the study, had just moved into the role of a second grade teacher. He had previously spent five years teaching first grade. Prior to teaching first grade, David taught pre-Kindergarten for five years. David received his Bachelor’s degree in Early Childhood Education and was pursuing his doctorate in curriculum and instruction. Being a fluent Hawaiian language speaker, David was passionate about integrating culture into teaching and learning in order to help students develop their cultural identity. The final participant was myself. At the time of this study I had been working in education for 14 years, beginning as a third grade teacher. After that I taught technology to grades K-5 and then became an instructional technology specialist. In the year that this study was conducted I had just moved into the role of teaching and learning coach, working primarily with students and teachers in grades 4 and 5. I received a Bachelor’s in Drama, a Master’s in Education, and was pursuing my doctorate. Research Plan and Data Sources This study was carried out in three phases (Glesne, 2011): discovery, intervention, and evaluation (Figure 1). The discovery phase involved initial research and planning. In this phase 41 the research goal was identified, the context described, and a plan for the work ahead was designed by the participants. The second phase, intervention, involved cycles of design and testing of the framework. Finally, evaluation involved a reflection on the process and an examination of the impact and practical and scholarly implications of the use of The i5 Framework for Education. Figure 1: Research Process and Phases A variety of data collection methods were used throughout the three phases of the research process. These included audio recordings of team meetings (11 total ranging from one hour to two and a half hours), individual interviews with the participants, group interviews with the participants (two total), meeting notes, and lesson plans that were created by the participants. Table 3 provides a list of the data sources by research phase that were used to answer each research question. Creative design is a decision making process (Simon, 1969); therefore, a qualitative research design was appropriate to highlight instances of design decision-making, 42 learning, and creativity (Yin, 2011). The particular data collection techniques were chosen purposefully. Interviews are appropriate methods for capturing in-depth and nuanced data. They also provided narratives, examples, and anecdotes that helped answer the research questions (Desimone, 2009). Audio recording the interviews and the meetings ensured that the words of the participants were preserved (Seidman, 2006). The data that is presented in chapter 4 is taken verbatim from the data sources, in an unfiltered way, to ensure that my interpretation is based on reality and to provide clear examples of the interactions, voices, and ideas of the participants. Each of the phases in described in the following section. Table 3: Research Questions and Data Collection Table Main Research Questions Sub- questions Phase 1 Data Sources Phase 2 Data Source Phase 3 Data Sources 1. In what ways does a framework, designed by educators, support teacher creativity and collaboration? 1a. What are the different components of the framework? 1b. How does the framework support teacher creativity? 1c. How does the framework support critical collaboration? Meeting notes, audio recordings of meetings Meeting notes, audio recordings of meetings Meeting notes, audio recordings of meetings 2. How, if at all, do teachers perceive the influence of the use of the framework on themselves and their students? 2a. How do teachers perceive the influence of the framework on themselves and their practice? Meeting notes, audio recordings of meetings 2b. How do teachers perceive the influence of the framework on their students and student learning? Group interviews with team, meeting notes, audio recordings of meetings Group interviews with team, meeting notes, audio recordings of meetings Group interviews with team, meeting notes, audio recordings of meetings Group interviews with team, meeting notes, audio recordings of meetings Group interviews with team Individual interviews with participants, audio recordings of meetings, framework Individual interviews with participants, audio recordings of meetings, framework Individual interviews with participants, audio recordings of meetings, framework Individual interviews with participants, audio recordings of meetings, framework, meeting notes, lesson plans Individual interviews with participants, audio recordings of meetings, framework, meeting notes, lesson plans 43 Phase 1: Establishment of the team. Phase 1 began with identifying the focus of the research, conducting a literature review, and creating the research questions. The research team (participants) was established. During the first meeting of the team, the goals of the study were shared, the context was described, and a plan for the work ahead was created. The primary methods of data collection in this first phase were audio recordings of the meetings and meeting notes. The objectives for phase 1 were: 1. Identify participants 2. Conduct first meeting of team a. Share research from literature review b. Discuss current beliefs about creativity and collaboration c. Share definition of critical collaboration, distributed creativity, creative synthesis, and creative emergence d. Clarify goals of the research e. Describe the reality of the current context 3. Establish plan for the work ahead . a. Plan future meeting dates and goals Create timeframe for design and testing 4. Review frameworks used in education I began phase 1 by establishing the goal of the research study. During the first meeting, I shared much of the findings of the literature review that described the ineffectiveness of current professional development and teacher collaboration practices intended to support teachers in the design and implementation of new teaching methods. During the first meeting the team engaged in a short discussion on the current reality of collaborative experiences in our context. The team 44 agreed that there were a variety of barriers that limited collaboration including a lack of time, a lack of support or structure to guide the collaboration, and a lack of a common understanding of the purpose for collaborating. Overall, the team felt that the collaborations we had previously participated in were largely at a superficial level, and not typically effective in pushing teachers towards trying new things. The team agreed that a framework to guide collaboration among teachers would be a useful support structure. The team spent time looking at a number of models and frameworks that have been used in education to support collaboration, research, and problem solving. These include the frameworks described in Chapter 2 as well as other frameworks that were searched for and shared in that meeting. I had previously created an example framework (Appendix D) based on the research in the literature review of this dissertation (as described in chapter 2). I did not want to heavily influence the work of the team so this framework was presented as one of multiple examples. All the frameworks we reviewed, including the initial framework that I created on my own, were put aside by the team as we were in favor of creating one together from scratch. The first meeting concluded the first phase of the research process. Phase 2: Rounds of design and testing. The goal of phase 2 was to engage in the work of design and testing as the team created The i5 Framework v1 and then conducted two rounds of implementation, and revision. The primary sources of data in the second phase were audio recordings of meetings, meeting notes, and a group interview with the team after each iteration of the model was tested. The group interview questions are included in Appendix A. These rounds of design and implementation were carefully documented (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012). Throughout the design process I strove to support the group as we sought others’ perspectives, 45 recognized similar lines of inquiry among ideas, and developed those lines of inquiry, thus supporting creative synthesis (Harvey, 2014). The objectives in the second phase were: 1. Collaboratively design the first iteration of the framework, The i5 Framework v1 2. Test The i5 Framework v1 by using it to support one or two teachers on the team 3. Reflect on the first round of design and implementation (group interview #1) 4. Develop the second iteration of the framework, The i5 Framework v2 5. Test The i5 Framework v2 by using it to support one or two teachers on the team 6. Reflect on the second implementation (group interview #2) 7. Develop the third and final iteration, The i5 Framework for Education Phase 2 began with an opportunity to design the first iteration of The i5 Framework and test it in context. The guiding question that led the initial development of the framework was: What elements should be in a framework that supports teacher collaboration and creativity so that it is effective, meaningful, and supports change towards new, improved types of teaching and learning? A brief summary of the process is included here with a detailed description provided in Chapter 4. The team began by brainstorming some of the essential components of a structure that could support collaboration and creativity among teachers. We recognized that the types of collaboration we were often involved in were surface level and ineffective. The goal was to develop a framework that supported a deeper, more effective, level of collaboration. We identified the first stage as being one that should center on the identification of the topic the group would be focusing on. This was termed the Topic of Practice. The team then spent time 46 developing the following five phases that became The i5 Framework v1: Identify, Research and Learn, Innovate, Plan and Implement, and Reflect (Appendix E). After The i5 Framework v1 was created, the team tested it with a topic of practice (TOP) that of one of the teachers on the team, Sharon, suggested. Sharon’s TOP centered on promoting visible thinking in her STEAM class. We followed the process outlined in the framework to help address the TOP while also noting elements of the framework that should be clarified or changed for the second iteration. In the first stage, Identify, the team spent time defining and understanding the TOP by asking Sharon questions about the types of thinking she wanted to support in her STEAM class. After coming to a common understanding of the TOP, we went on to stage 2, Research and Learn, which was done individually. The team then shared resources and learning at meeting #3. After sharing our learning, the team engaged in the next stage of the process: Innovate. We shared ideas in a group brainstorming session, and then moved into the next stage as we created a plan that would address the TOP. The team decided to use a skill called sketchnoting to help students share their thinking in a more visual, reflective, and culturally relevant way. Because we understood Sharon’s concerns about her limited time with the students, we implemented the plan during David’s class time. Using David’s class time served to reinforce the learning happening in STEAM. The team implemented the plan and held a final reflection meeting for the first round of the process. At the end of that meeting (#5), group interview #1 was held and suggestions were made for changes and additions in order to create The i5 Framework v2. The second round of testing focused on a TOP provided by Carol, who wanted to make her math instruction more collaborative, hands on, and culturally connected. We went through 47 the process to help Carol address her TOP. During the first meeting of the second round of testing (meeting #6), we helped Carol identify and clarify her TOP. Through our discussion we came to a common understanding of the TOP which was to create a fractions unit for third graders to support collaboration, problem solving, and cultural connections. In the second stage of the process, Research and Learn, we sought multiple perspectives and used multiple resources to gather information. We also brought in a cultural expert who had taught mathematics from a Hawaiian cultural perspective. After sharing our learning, we brainstormed a variety of ideas with the cultural expert (meetings 7 and 8). The idea resulting from the brainstorm was then planned using collaborative and open-ended activities, integrating the Hawaiian Star Compass into the unit. The plan was implemented with a class of third graders. The second round concluded with group interview #2 and a reflection on the use of version 2 of the framework to address the TOP and on the changes that needed to be made to produce the final version of the framework (meeting 10). Phase 3: Reflection and impact. In phase three, the team gathered to design the third and final iteration of the framework. Individual interviews (Appendix B) were also conducted during this time to assess the impact of it the use of the first two iterations of the framework on teacher practice and student learning. The objectives in the third phase were: 1. Reflect on the use of The i5 Framework v1 and v2 2. Reflect on the impact of The i5 Framework v1 and v2 on teaching, teacher creativity, collaboration, and student learning 3. Develop the final version of the framework, The i5 Framework for Education 48 The meeting transcripts and the individual interviews were used as data sources in this phase as the team reflected on the process, and developed the final version, The i5 Framework for Education. The final step in this phase was an individual interview with each participant to gather their thoughts on the process and provide further data to examine the use and impact of versions 1 and 2 of the framework on teaching and learning. Figure 2 provides a timeline of each of the phases and the major work of each phase. Figure 2: Timeline of the Research Process, Phases, and Steps 49 Data Analysis Thematic analysis, a foundational method for qualitative research, was used to explore the range of data collected. I conducted the analysis from a realist standpoint, using the experiences of participants to discern meaning and come to conclusions (Braun & Clarke, 2006). During thematic analysis, data was analyzed and coded with the goal of identifying essential aspects of the data (Glesne, 2011). The thematic analysis I undertook involved multiple steps including: assembling all notes and transcriptions and reading through them to mark what was relevant in the text; reviewing the data in an effort to analyze, interpret, and make meaning from it; and organizing and coding the text in order to come to overarching conclusions and themes (Seidman, 2006). I specifically followed the six step process described by Braun and Clarke (2006) that includes: 1) familiarizing oneself with the data through transcribing, reading, and re- reading; 2) generating initial codes; 3) searching for themes; 4) reviewing themes; 5) defining and naming themes; and 6) producing the report. In order to become familiar with the data in the first stage, I transcribed all of the meetings, the group interviews, and the individual interviews. I then read through the transcriptions. My goal was to ensure familiarity with the depth and breadth of the data corpus through active and repeated reading (Braun & Clarke, 2006). In phase 2, generating initial codes, I read through the data corpus (all the data collected for the research study), and generated an initial list of what I found interesting and relevant about the data (Figure 3). I systematically worked my way through the data, coding and labeling. There were some sections of the data that were coded multiple times. For example, an interaction between two team members at a meeting was coded for the following: reflecting on teaching, and building on ideas. 50 Figure 3: Initial List of Codes · Current reality of collaboration: ineffective · Barriers of collaboration: time, support, value, fear of risk taking, how to collaborate · Mindsets: trust, vulnerability, sincerity and respect, team mentality, creativity · Culture of collaboration · Flexibility · Importance of collaboration in education · Creativity in teaching · Framework design · Building on ideas · Converging ideas · Ideas for the future · Questioning · Autonomous decision making · Defining and understanding creativity · Defining and understanding collaboration · Iteration · Ideating · Diverse Perspectives · Timeline of process · Multiple resources · Designing learning experiences · Sharing personal experiences · Problem identification · Sharing resources · Digital space to collaborate · Face to face collaboration · Cultural connection · Co-planning, creating, designing, teaching · Critiquing ideas · Broader impact on practice · Impact on learning: hands on, engaging, deeper thinking · Effective collaboration · Supporting creativity Phase 3, searching for themes, involved sorting the codes into larger categories in order to arrive at the themes. I began by organizing the codes according to the following broad topics related to the research questions: Framework, Creativity, Collaboration, Teaching, Learning. In this manuscript, the word theme is used to indicate and to group examples that capture something significant in relation to the research questions. The themes identified here occurred throughout 51 the data corpus and can be described through evidence from a variety of data sources. They are prevalent across each data set (see Figure 6). The codes that I identified occurred from the bottom up, or inductively. These codes were sorted within the broader categories into potential themes based on the research questions. In Phase 4, reviewing themes, the themes were refined and combined. The data extracts for each theme were studied to ensure alignment with the theme, and to determine whether they formed a coherent pattern. Next, the data corpus was examined for two purposes, 1) to ascertain whether the themes aligned to the data set and 2) to codify any additional data within themes that had been missed earlier (Braun & Clarke, 2006). In phase 5, defining and naming themes (Figure 4), I defined and further refined the final themes that are presented in this manuscript. I spent time determining the distinct aspects of the data set which best represented the themes through a process of organizing them into a coherent account, with accompanying narrative. The final themes were created and narratives were written. In phase 6, producing the report, I completed the final writing of the analysis with the goal of providing a concise and coherent account of the story within and across themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The data analysis was ultimately a process of working with the excerpts of the data, connecting them, explaining the connections, and building interpretative categories to create a consistent and coherent narrative that answered the research questions (Seidman, 2006) through a reflexive approach. Figure 4: Codes Organized by Topic and Theme The Framework · Mindsets: trust, vulnerability, sincerity and respect, team mentality, creativity · Culture of collaboration · Flexibility · Framework design · Timeline of process · Problem identification · Current reality of collaboration: ineffective 52 Figure 4 (cont’d) · Barriers of collaboration: time, support, value, fear of risk taking, how to collaborate Creativity Theme 1: Creativity as a mindset inherent in effective teaching · Creativity in teaching · Mindsets: creativity · Defining and understanding creativity · Supporting creativity Theme 2: Creative synthesis as key to innovative change · Building on ideas/Converging of ideas · Iteration · Ideating · Designing learning experiences Collaboration Theme 1: Interdependent thinking and action · Questioning · Defining and understanding collaboration · Face to face collaboration · Effective collaboration · Importance of collaboration in education Theme 2: Seeking and Sharing Multiple Perspectives · Diverse Perspectives · Multiple resources · Sharing resources · Digital space to collaborate Teaching Theme 1: Opportunities for feedback and reflection · Sharing personal experiences · Questioning · Problem identification · Critiquing ideas · Broader impact on practice Theme 2: Relevant and autonomous experience · Ideas for the future · Autonomous decision making · Designing learning experiences · Co-planning, creating, designing, teaching Learning Theme 1: New learning experiences · Cultural connection · Impact on learning: hands on, engaging, deeper thinking 53 Standards of Evidence Due to the qualitative nature of this study, the terms validity and reliability are not used. Rather, a qualitative view that looks at credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability has been implemented (Anfara, Brown, & Mangione, 2002). These terms describe the ways in which this research can be regarded as trustworthy and useful. Triangulation is one way in which the confirmability of the findings was ensured. Multiple data sources that point to the same conclusions can lead to a confidence in the story that the data tells (Sagor, 2000). Triangulation can also serve to illustrate differing perspectives on a topic (Yardley, 2014). Triangulation provides support for credibility, dependability, and confirmability of the research (Anfara et al., 2002). Triangulation was reached in this study by the multiple data sources used including interview, meeting notes, and transcriptions of meetings (Figure 6). In depth, prolonged engagement with the topic and thorough data collection also contributed to the commitment and rigor of the research process (Yardley, 2014) as well as the dependability and credibility of the research (Anfara et al., 2002). Other methods used include: transparency in the analysis of data - providing a detailed description of how data is initially coded and then how codes are modified and themes are created to support confirmability (Yardley, 2014). The description of the coding and recoding strategy used in the thematic analysis also contributes to the dependability of the research. Finally, rich, thick description provides a transparency to the data and supports the transferability of the findings (Anfara et al., 2002). To support the transparent triangulation of data, a matrix of the research findings and data sources was created and is shared in Figure 5 (Anfara et al., 2002). 54 Figure 5: Matrix of Research Questions and Supporting Data Sources Research Question Meeting Transcriptions Group Interviews Individual Interviews Meeting Notes, Shared digital resources, and Lesson plans RQ1A RQ1B RQ1C RQ2A RQ2B X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X As with any methodology, this study contains elements that are particularly challenging and open to criticism. This includes difficulties arising from the complexity of real world situations (Collins et al., 2004). One of the most common critiques of action research is the intense researcher involvement which potentially biases the process and results. It could be argued, though, that this intense involvement is the best way to understand the systems at work in the project, and that minimizing researcher bias can be done through careful documentation and rich, thick description (Rawson & Hughes-Hassell, 2015). Conducting research in context, in real world situations, provides opportunities for immediate impact on practice and transferability of research to the classroom. The methods described in this chapter provide a transparent look at the process and procedures that were undertaken in this study. In the next chapter, I provide specific examples and direct quotations from the data in order to support the credibility of the research and to reliably answer the research questions. I do this from a reflexive standpoint with the firm belief that action research is a statement of faith in the innate ability and capacity of educators (Sagor, 2000). It is through my own intuitions, and the examples pulled verbatim from the data that I strive to tell the story of this research experience. To “deny emotions is to exclude from the consciousness a most powerful inhibiting or energizing aspect of the research 55 endeavor” (James, 1999, p. 100). A detailed description of the process of developing The i5 Framework for Education and the results of data analysis from questions 1B through 2B are presented in the following chapter. 56 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS The results of this study were generated using thematic analysis, as described in Chapter 3. The data sources used to answer the research questions were collected over the course of six months and included the transcriptions of team meetings, group interviews with the team, individual interviews with each of the team members, and artifacts that were produced by the team (including meeting notes and lesson plans). Throughout this section I use the technique of direct quoting in order to provide the type of rich, thick description that is a hallmark of reliable qualitative research (Yardley, 2014). Also included are segments that illustrate the interaction among participants as they used the framework to collaborate and create. Providing substantial sections of these interactions allows the reader access to the data itself, in order to make judgements about what the data might show in relation to the research questions. It also provides the reader an opportunity to reflect on my own conclusions and form an opinion about those conclusions that is based on data. I present these results from a reflexive viewpoint, including my own thinking along with the data so that my ideas and opinions are transparent. Articulating these provides a narrative perceived through my own point of view, which is made explicit through the use of italics throughout chapter 4. The use of italics is an attempt to show the reader how this type of reflexive narrative is woven in to the narrative and to identify those moments when I take a step away from the data to share my own ideas, opinions, connections, and learning. Before I discuss my findings, I am going to describe the way I have chosen to portray this narrative. The results in this chapter are presented cohesively and coherently to tell the story of the development of The i5 Framework and the impact of its use on teachers and learners. Any design process is messy, and the development of The i5 Framework was no exception. In order 57 to tell a smooth narrative of this process, moments of uncomfortableness, disagreement, etc. have not bubbled to the surface in this narrative. But, I would like to make it clear that these types of messy moments are necessary; they are inherent in collaborative creative processes where people come together, with varying perspectives, in order to work towards a novel and shared outcome. These moments should be valued and used to help propel the work forward, rather than seen as an obstacle or barrier of progress. They are, in fact, critical moments, as some of the best ideas might arise out of conflict. These moments are not highlighted in this chapter in order to get to the core of the decisions that were made by the team as we developed The i5 Framework and to share the process and impact of the use of the framework in a concise and cohesive manner. The process of developing the framework involved sharing multiple perspectives, listening to others’ ideas, and merging those ideas to come to solutions together. For example, during the creation of the first version of The i5 Framework, some members of the team felt that the process should be limited to four stages. But after further discussion and taking the time to explore that possibility, the team decided to include five stages in the first version, creating a separate stage for planning and implementation. These types of moments were necessary and occurred often and are not always included in this narrative in order to present a succinct description of the development process. The research questions are discussed in order, beginning with an in depth description of the design process and each iteration of The i5 Framework (Question 1A) before moving on to the impact of the use of the framework on the participants (Questions 1B, 1C, 2A, and 2B). Research question 1: In what ways does a framework, designed by educators, support teacher creativity and collaboration? 1A. What are the components of the framework? 58 1B. How does the framework support teacher creativity? 1C. How does the framework support effective collaboration? Research Question 1A: The Components of the Framework The major outcome of this study, and the answer to this research question, is a framework designed to support effective collaboration in education. Through a process of design and iteration, the research team created and refined the framework that is described here. To answer question 1A, details about the evolution of the framework through the iterations of design are provided followed by the final version of the framework, The i5 Framework for Education. The following two sections describe the process that we undertook and the evolution of the framework through the rounds of design and testing. The i5 Framework v1. During Phase 1, after I completed the initial research stages of identifying the topic, conducting a literature review, and creating the research questions, the team gathered for the first time to review the goals of the study and to discuss the current reality of our previous collaborative experiences with other teachers at our school. The discussion shed light on a number of barriers and provided evidence of the need for a structure to support deeper collaboration. This was something that I had previously recognized independent of the team. Based on several conversations I had with teachers, I knew that many teachers at the school felt that our collaboration practices needed improvement. The rest of the team echoed these feelings, noting that collaboration usually occurred at a superficial level. One of the barriers identified was time, with members of the team saying that when a limited amount of time was spent, the collaboration occurred at a surface level. Rebecca noted, "Collaboration and creativity really take time and if you aren’t willing to do that, then the product isn’t going to be as good. But when you put the effort in, and you put in the time to think of all the details, it’s a lot of work, but it is 59 worth it. If you value it, you’ll put the time in.” Sharon described the importance of devoting time to collaboration. She said, “In this moment I might lose time, but in the long run the outcome for the learner is so much more. Sometimes we feel like we don’t have enough time with our kids for our content, but if we collaborate it feels like we have more time.” When time is invested in collaborative planning, the time spent with students is more intentional. The team felt that when collaboration was valued, teachers were more willing to devote time to it. During this discussion I also realized that we, as a school, had been provided time built into our school day for collaboration with our grade levels and beyond. The issue, I thought, was not so much one of finding the time, but rather of using time wisely. This further supported my belief that a framework to support teachers would help collaborative time be used more effectively. Another barrier was mentioned by Sharon, “It doesn’t feel like there are enough structures in place or training to know norms of collaboration. We don’t know what those things are that can help us focus on effective or deep collaboration.” Carol also believed that human obstacles were inhibiting collaboration. She shared, “We have the capacity, we have the resources and the staff, but we don’t understand how to do it.” David identified a fear of risk taking as being a possible barrier, and the rest of the team agreed that a lack of knowledge about how to collaborate as well as a fear of making mistakes were barriers to effective collaborative experiences. Carol noted that educator’s differing conceptions about collaboration impacted the quality of it. When people do not know how to collaborate deeply, they are often satisfied with surface levels of interacting and networking (Glazier et al., 2017). This thinking, introduced by the team, provided further support for the need of a guiding structure to support collaboration. During the second meeting, we created The i5 Framework v1. Carol felt that a potential first stage would involve selecting a common topic or focus related to teacher practice that the 60 team would tackle together. Rebecca suggested that the common focus be termed a Topic of Practice (TOP). The term “problem of practice” is often used in problem solving methods, such as Design Thinking (Henriksen and Richardson, 2017), but the team agreed that problem was not an appropriate word because one does not have to consider something a problem in order to improve upon it. Effective educators are those who think about their teaching consistently and continuously, reflecting on the impact they are having on student learning, even when lessons go well (Go, 2012). The team agreed that another important part of the first stage would be having a common understanding of effective collaboration. David stated that the first order of business should be to ensure that everyone understands what collaboration is, “because if we have different understandings, then I don’t think we can move forward.” The team created a definition of collaboration that was based on one used by our school, which was based on the work of Arthur T. Himmelman (Himmelman, 2002). The definition reads: Our goal as collaborators is to exchange information, alter activities, and share resources in a combined effort to learn from each other, integrate our perspectives and ideas, and help address the common topic or issue. In so doing the team will ensure that there are high levels of trust, shared values, and an environment where the team can engage in co-construction and co-creation. The team began discussing ideas about the types of activities that should occur after a TOP had been selected. It became clear that the process must also be guided by a number of mindsets to help create an environment that supported trust and risk-taking. The idea that mindsets would be key to the implementation of the designed framework came up in the initial meeting. David described his thinking, “I wonder if these are things that need to be in place before you start collaborating. What are those mindsets that you need to come with?” Carol 61 agreed that mindsets were important and that they would establish the culture of the group working together. The team decided that an essential component of the first stage would be to agree to the mindsets that would create a space for collaboration and co-creativity. As the team continued their work on designing the first iteration of the framework, a digital brainstorm space was created to list ideas for mindsets. During our initial discussion about including a set of mindsets, Sharon explained her thoughts about the essential role they would play. “It’s important that one is ok with feeling vulnerable and getting feedback because it’s not about me, it’s about whatever we are creating. So, in order to build a culture like that it might have to start with those things. Like being ok with vulnerability and making mistakes.” I was surprised that mindsets were something that the team immediately began discussing and believed would play an important role in the process. I recognized that the importance that was placed on these mindsets was a reflection of the experiences these teachers had with colleagues who either had or lacked the types of thinking and attitude the team members felt were necessary for successful collaboration. The following ideas for mindsets to include were listed throughout the first two meetings: flexibility (in roles and in thinking), adaptability, uncomfortableness, vulnerability, sincerity, respect, collaboration as an expectation, belief in the team, trust, learning centered, on task, creativity, and empathy. The brainstormed list was condensed and the following six mindsets were included as part of the first stage of the process: 1) expect to collaborate; 2) believe in the work of the team; 3) focus on learning; 4) embrace flexible roles and multiple perspectives; 5) welcome states of uncertainty and vulnerability; 6) stay focused on the topic. The importance that the team placed in these mindsets has been proven in research to be an essential element in successful teacher collaborations. Vangrieken and colleagues (2017) examined a number of 62 teacher communities and found that a cooperative spirit with an openness and willingness to share was critical to success. The effective collaborators in their study provided emotional support in an atmosphere of trust and respect, where teachers felt safe taking risks and sharing weaknesses. It was important that the team members remained flexible, “always willing to defer to the emergent flow of the group” (Sawyer, 2017, p. 57). With the mindsets being a prominent discussion point during the first few meetings (and throughout the process), the team had immediately brought to the forefront a way to combat some of the barriers that had previously prevented effective collaboration. The team titled the first stage, Initiate. In this stage, the group using The i5 Framework would agree to the mindsets, discuss and understand the definition of collaboration, and spend time creating a collective understanding of the topic of practice (TOP) (which could be brought forth by any individual in the group). Sharon felt, and the team agreed, that there should be a facilitator guiding the collaboration process, keeping people focused on the TOP, and that perhaps it would be best if it were someone who was not the person that brought forth the TOP. This idea shared by Sharon has been reflected in research on the types of leaders that occur in effective creative teams. Leaders of innovative teams function more as peers, participating in the work of the group, and facilitating rather than leading or acting as traditional supervisors (Sawyer, 2017). I felt that an important aspect of this process was that the facilitator was selected by the team based on who was participating and the TOP they would be addressing. The facilitator was not chosen based on job title, as has often been the case in my experience with those who take leadership roles. David mentioned the need for a phase where research is done about the TOP and suggested that it be the next stage; a time for learning about the TOP before designing a solution 63 to it. In this stage Sharon felt that it was important to gain multiple perspectives on the topic. I agreed that at this stage it would be important to extend the learning beyond the knowledge currently held. Consequently, the second stage of the process became Research and Learn. The main purpose of this stage was to learn extensively about the TOP through multiple types of learning and research including, if relevant, school visits or observations, interviews, and consulting with experts. Rebecca noted that an important component of this stage would be a common digital space to share resources and learning and we included that as an objective in this stage. Sharon thought that in stages 1 and 2 diverse perspectives were important. Carol suggested that “diverse perspectives might be important throughout” the process, so this was recorded on the mindsets brainstorming sheet. The team agreed that following the time of learning in the second stage, the third stage would be a time of collective creativity, with the group using their learning to push their thinking in new directions. During our discussion, I noted, “this should be a time to strive for wild ideas and connections that are not readily apparent.” I wanted to ensure some of the ideas that I knew were successful, based on research, were included in our discussions so they could be considered by the team. Overall, the team felt that during this time of collective creativity it would be important to emphasize new ideas while retaining the focus on the TOP. It was also important for Sharon that the non-judgment of ideas be articulated in this stage. An attitude of critique towards ideas, she feared, would harm the team’s creativity. The team agreed that this could constrain creativity, and identified it as a key component of this stage. This practice of non-judgment of ideas has shown to be essential for successful brainstorming (Sawyer, 2017). In this stage I shared that it was important to remember one of the goals of the process, which was to be innovative and creative around teacher practice, and so the team agreed that in this stage 64 there was a need to push into new territory, and to engage in risk-taking. I also wanted to bring in the theories that I felt were the foundation of this work: creative synthesis and collaborative emergence. I stated, “there should be a purposeful time and place where the goal is to merge different ideas” and I suggested that as we used the framework for the first time we might look for those opportunities to harness and build on each other’s thinking. The third stage was titled Innovate. The team felt it was natural that the stage of Innovate would be followed by a stage in which one or more ideas were planned and implemented (Plan and Implement), and a final stage of reflection (Reflect). The team discussed the importance, in the final stage, of assessing if the ideas that were implemented impacted the TOP. As the team discussed the possible elements of the last stage in the process, Sharon asserted that it would be important to look at the impact of the work on student learning. The result of the first two meetings, was the first iteration of the framework, The i5 Framework v1. It consisted of five stages: Initiate, Research and Learn, Innovate, Plan and Implement, and Reflect. While the team identified five specific stages, there was also an agreement that the process should remain flexible, allowing the space to change what we were doing as we needed to best fit the work we were doing. A shared online document of the framework was created and used as a guide for the first round of testing, which is discussed in the next section. The i5 Framework v1 test. After brainstorming a list of possible topics to use for the first round of testing, the team decided to assist Sharon with a TOP that focused on creating more opportunities for her students to show their thinking in her STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Math) class. Rebecca suggested using David’s second-grade class since he 65 was on the team and it could lead to a potential partnership between the two teachers. His class was taught by Sharon once every six days for STEAM. There were two primary goals for the first testing of the framework. The first was to address Sharon’s TOP, and the second, to be metacognitive about the process, considering improvements that could be made for the next iteration of the framework. The team suggested that I be the facilitator as I was detached from the actual TOP, since I worked primarily with 4th and 5th graders, and not with David’s 2nd graders. I agreed, and we embarked on our first use of the framework. In Stage 1: Initiate, the team spent time discussing the TOP with Sharon to get a sense of the types of thinking she wanted to support in her STEAM class. She explained that her intent was to provide more opportunities for students to share their thinking and to make it more visible to themselves, their peers, and to her. After the discussion, the team proceeded to stage 2, Research and Learn. Independently, the team explored the topic of thinking routines and visible thinking, and then came together to share their learning. I shared a variety of print resources as well as several technology tools that could help students share their thinking. Sharon described her learning about habits of mind and the importance of asking well-crafted questions. Rebecca brought a range of student resources and showed the team a video that described a strategy called sketchnoting. Carol shared some connections to math congress and David described a cultural perspective as he talked about the significance of petroglyphs, songs, chants, and hula dancing as ways of making thinking visible in the Hawaiian culture. During the meeting, team members prefaced their sharing with statements that they had not been sure what they were looking for when they were doing their research. It became evident that there was not a common understanding of the TOP among the group, because not enough time had been devoted to discussing it in the first stage. Sharon noted, “we picked a problem and then researched it but 66 even I needed more time to understand it.” It was suggested that the end of the first stage should culminate in a statement that was written by the team to clearly articulate an understanding of the topic, a TOP definition statement. At the same meeting, I shared with the team that as I was conducting research and learning more about the topic, I immediately began to think of ideas. I described my thoughts to the team, “I think that ideation is a part of research, you automatically start thinking of ideas.” Carol agreed that this was the case for her as well and that as she was researching she thought of some ideas that could be tried in the classroom. Sharon felt that after conducting research, she had a better understanding of how to articulate the topic and suggested that an important step in the second phase might be to revisit the TOP definition statement from the first stage to determine if the problem could be better understood and articulated. The team agreed then that there was a reciprocal nature to Stages 1 and 2, with the second stage informing the first, and there was also a reciprocal nature to Stages 2 and 3, as research was conducted and people naturally began thinking of ideas they could contribute. This was a key moment in my own thinking regarding the entire framework. I realized that the final version of the framework must have flexibility. We could design a structure, but movement within and through the structure should be based on the needs of the group using it. In Stage 3, Innovate, the team gathered for a group brainstorming session. As facilitator, I felt it was appropriate to share suggestions for successful group brainstorming that I had discovered while writing the literature review. These included the following: share many ideas, build on each other’s ideas, encourage wild ideas, be visual, and no blocking or judgment (Sawyer, 2017). The team agreed that these would positively support a brainstorming session and 67 moved forward with them in mind. In order to be visual Carol suggested that the team create a mind map of our ideas on the whiteboard (Figure 6). Figure 6: Mind Map of Group Brainstorm Session During Round 1 Testing After a period of brainstorming, Carol asked the team if there were criteria for when to stop brainstorming, “How do we know when we have brainstormed enough?” Rebecca thought the team should stop when there was something worth trying and was confident in the ideas brought forth thus far. Carol asked if it should be the person with the TOP who decides whether more ideas are needed and the team agreed that this made sense. Sharon and David were consulted and when they felt there enough ideas to move forward, the brainstorming session was concluded. This was a time in the process when the team felt that flexibility was important. It might be that after a session of brainstorming one or two ideas were fleshed out a bit more but then proven to be impractical, which would require additional brainstorming, emphasizing the importance of fluidity within the process. The team then spent time reviewing and synthesizing ideas in order to select the solution to carry to the next stage. The team moved forward with the combined ideas of using the thinking strategy of sketchnoting in David’s classroom during his language arts block to 68 reinforce the learning in STEAM and support visible thinking. It was during this stage that the team recognized the importance of a convergence of ideas. Each person on the team contributed their own ideas, but the solution moving forward was a convergence of multiple ideas. The team agreed there should be intentional converging of ideas during this stage. Sharon noted that the idea that proceeded to the planning stage was one she would not have created on her own, thus emphasizing the importance of creative synthesis in providing the final merged idea taken forward to the next stage (Harvey, 2014). It was my hope at this stage that the team would acknowledge and articulate the important role that creative synthesis played during this stage. It was something that I tried not to force on the team. Rather as it occurred I described what I believed to be happening; which aligned with both collaborative emergence and creative synthesis, as ideas were suggested, critiqued, combined, explored and synthesized. It was an improvisational process which relied on the openness of the participating individuals as well as on the quality of the ideas being shared and discussed. In Stage 4: Plan and Implement, the team created a plan to introduce sketchnoting to David’s class. The team implemented the plan together, supporting Sharon and David as they taught. The team gathered one final time in this round to reflect on the process, assess the impact on learning, and discuss the changes that needed to be made to the framework. During the reflection on the process, it was apparent that the mindsets were an essential component. As Sharon reflected, “I think it’s that I’m willing to be vulnerable. I was totally fine with whatever was coming my way and I tried to make sure that it wasn’t about me at all or my idea, it was about the collective and taking that risk and seeing what happens.” Carol agreed that accepting vulnerability as well as trust was essential. Reflecting on the mindsets that the team suggested, I also recognized that the members of this team were open-minded and willing to take risks. These 69 qualities were simply part of the way they interacted with each other to make decisions, and resulted in a space where everyone felt that they could contribute, share, and collaborate effectively. It was clear that mindsets would play a central role in the framework. Based on our work during the first round of testing, the team came up with a number of suggestions for the second iteration of the framework. Carol suggested that a part of both stages 4 and 5 was refinement, “It’s really about making it better. It’s not always done, it could just be the first step.” Sharon suggested the need for more time spent during defining, and circling back to it after stage 2 so that a thorough understanding of the topic was developed. According to Sharon, We picked a problem and did not spend time defining… We were actually defining as we were researching…and then had to backtrack. Because some problems can be really complex and hard to articulate, I think that the key is the defining. I think that’s the hardest part but the most important part. Because otherwise you are creating solutions or giving suggestions that aren’t really the problem...And we often want to jump to a solution. But we have to slow ourselves down. The team decided that this was an area that needed to be articulated by including the creation of a shared understanding of the TOP as an objective of stage 1. I described the importance of researching multiple perspectives during stage 2, especially those that might not be apparent or be underrepresented. In this testing process, it was David who brought in the Hawaiian cultural connection and the importance native Hawaiians placed on visuals as a way of telling stories or conveying meaning. The team felt that it was something that could have been missed by the team if David had not provided that perspective. It proved to be an important connection for the students and the team recognized that unless there was an 70 intentional search for unapparent perspectives, important thinking about the topic could be missed. I believe we often approach problems in education using the knowledge we currently hold, or using resources that are well-known, found easily, are common modes of thinking and ways of operating. Our recognition that we must move beyond this, especially given our unique context, was, for me, a breakthrough moment in this process, and a pivotal component of the framework that makes it unique. In the group reflection on the process the team discussed the timeline of the process. Here is a section of the discussion: Sharon: One thing I liked was that we were kind of on a short time schedule. I liked the time limits. You could really drag this out, but then where’s the action? You could brainstorm for like a year… David: Which I think is often the problem at our school. Rebecca: And then we forget what we said! Sharon: Or the kids are different and you realize that you can’t use the idea, it’s no longer valid. Carol: It’s important that it’s fresh and limited. Carmen: Yeah, you feel that sense of urgency. We don’t have five years just to create a plan! This discussion shows the importance of the facilitator’s role in ensuring that the collaboration is advancing, and highlights the current reality for educators as we often find ourselves in processes that are overly time consuming. An important aspect here is that the timeline was self- imposed rather than imposed by administrators. An essential component of professional development that is meaningful for teachers are experiences that are self-guided (Hill et al., 71 2013; Hunzicker, 2011). We agreed to the timeline, thought it was realistic, and did our best to move towards implementing the plan so that student learning could be impacted. The first cycle of testing ended with a number of changes that were made to The i5 Framework v1. The changes resulted in the second iteration, The i5 Framework v2 (Appendix F). The changes included: · An emphasis was placed on spending time defining during the first stage to ensure a thorough understanding of the TOP · During stage 2 it was added that multiple perspectives and viewpoints should be researched. · A shared digital space for resources was added as an objective in stage 2. · The cyclical nature of stages 1 and 2, and stages 2 and 3 were described. · Brainstorming guidelines were included in stage 3 (Sawyer, 2017). They included: § Refrain from evaluation and judgement. § Aim for wild ideas. § Look for combinations of ideas. § Build on other’s ideas. § Be visual. · · · The mindsets were re-written, ensuring a broader notion of flexibility, and a focus on value, collaboration, and vulnerability. In stage 3 the team added that one of the actions taking by the team during this stage should be an intentional merging of ideas. The importance of meeting face to face, especially during stage 3, was emphasized. 72 These changes were reflected in The i5 Framework v2, which the team used to address a second TOP, as described in the following section. The i5 Framework v2 test. The i5 Framework v2 was tested with a TOP offered by Carol. After teaching for 30 years, Carol described her teaching as effective but traditional. In her role as an instructional coach working with third grade students and teachers, Carol was seeking to implement new ways of teaching and learning in mathematics. She wanted to venture into a type of mathematical learning that was “open-ended, hands-on, and non-traditional.” The team began stage 1 by asking Carol to share more about the TOP. Carol discussed her goals with the team which included incorporating more hands-on math activities, with less direct instruction and more student discussions and exploration. She also wanted to incorporate the Hawaiian culture into their learning in math. All of these goals were aligned with the new learning outcomes of the school. The team then asked Carol to talk more about the topic so that a TOP definition statement could be created. The resulting statement was: The TOP is focused on figuring out how the learner outcomes can guide math instruction (in particular a unit on Fractions) in the areas of problem solving, collaboration, and integrating the Hawaiian culture. The team suggested that Carol focus in on a specific upcoming unit and she chose a unit on fractions. As we moved into stage 2: Research and Learn, the team began thinking of resources that we could use, both material and human. Sharon suggested that the team bring in a cultural expert to discuss the ways that she had been successfully integrating math and culture at the high school level. Carol and I agreed to share resources we had received during a workshop on visual mathematics and to spend some time gathering additional resources that could be used to develop a unit. 73 In stage 3, Innovate, the team came together to share our resources and learning and to brainstorm ideas to help address Carol’s TOP. The cultural expert joined the group during this session. Bringing in an expert on the topic was identified by Rebecca as an important part of the process during the second round because one of the goals was integrating Hawaiian culture in math, which went beyond the collective knowledge of the group, “When you have experts on the topic they can help to see those connections that you won’t be able to see without the background knowledge that they have.” The team recognized, in both rounds of testing, that a defining moment was the point in stage 3 when the team brainstormed ideas together. This was valuable face to face time when the team engaged in conversations that allowed ideas to build off of other ideas and in which the team shared, reflected, and created together. The team recognized the power in sharing multiple perspectives and the unique ideas that resulted from collaborative ideation (Harvey, 2014; Sawyer, 2017). As a participant in these meetings, I felt especially excited because the work we engaged in differed from any other work I had previously done with groups of educators at my school. As I analyzed what made it different I began to realize that a huge part of it was the autonomy that the group felt. We were not being held accountable by anyone, we were not being guided by outside mandates. We were focused on impacting learning and our entire process was geared to support that. During the second round of testing the interconnectedness of the stages was of particular importance. Stages 1 and 2 were interconnected in that the team became more informed and thereby was better able to understand and define the TOP. In stages 2 and 3, the team began ideating while researching and then shared ideas during stage 3. In the second round of testing, the team recognized the interconnectedness of stages 3 and 4, and stages 4 and 5. Stages 3 and 4 were seen as potentially involving a process of selecting ideas to develop and going back to do 74 more innovating. Finally, stages 4 and 5 were potential places for refinement; with implementation, reflection, and refinement closely linked in those stages. As Carol said, “You should be reflecting as you implement your plan.” These stages are flexible, allowing movement across them as the team addresses the TOP. Rebecca likened each stage to a gear, able to move forward or backward as the need arose. The team felt that it was important to have guiding questions throughout the process to advance the collective thinking of the group. The questions and the changes noted above resulted in the final version of the framework. The team decided that the mindsets were absolutely essential to the successful use of the framework. As Rebecca stated, “You can have a process but the mindsets are what make it work.” David shared, “I don’t know if [our success] was because of the process. It was the mindsets we came with that made it work.” The team then spent time identifying and defining the five mindsets that are part of the final version of the framework. Based on the second round of testing the following changes were made to create the final iteration of the framework: · In stage 2, an objective was added to ensure that underrepresented or unapparent views are researched. · A description of the cyclical nature of stages 3 and 4 was added. · A description of the cyclical nature of implementation and refinement between stages 4 and 5 was added. · Guiding questions were included for teams to ask themselves at the end of each stage to assess their readiness for proceeding. 75 · The mindsets were removed from stage 1 and listed as their own, equally important, set of habits of thinking to be used throughout the entire process. Descriptions were created for each mindset. · Each stage of the framework was titled, and the team decided on the title for the final version of the framework. · A set of suggestions for use was developed Lastly, the team created the final description, titles, and suggestions for each stage. The final version of the framework was titled The i5 Framework for Education: Methods and Mindsets for Collaborative Creativity. It is described in the following section. The i5 Framework for Education. The i5 Framework for Education: Methods and Mindsets for Collaborative Creativity consists of five methods and five mindsets that have been designed by educators to support effective collaboration in education (Figure 7). The framework outlines a collaborative process that aims to support teams of educators working together to design and implement new ways of teaching and learning. The five methods of Identify, Inquire, Innovate, Implement, and Impact provide a process for teams to follow. The five mindsets of Empathy, Creativity, Value, Trust, and Flexibility, are essential throughout the process to ensure effective collaboration and are pivotal to a successful outcome. The methods and mindsets are described below. 76 Figure 7: The i5 Framework for Education i5 Framework Methods The first method, Identify, is the first stage of the process. It involves a team of educators who gather to support any one or more members of the team with a Topic of Practice (TOP). The TOP can be any area of focus related to educational practice. The objectives are: · Discuss, understand, and commit to the i5 Framework mindsets · Define, describe, and establish a common understanding of the TOP · Create a TOP description statement This is a period of problem identification and exploration when the participants spend time having conversations about the topic in order to understand it and to identify any gaps in knowledge. It is important that time is spent in this stage developing a solid understanding of the TOP because problem identification provides a basis for action taken by effective collaborative teams (Scribner et al., 2007). Something to consider in this stage is writing the TOP statement as 77 a learning goal (for students or teachers) in order to keep the focus on the impact that the process will have on learning. Before moving to Inquire, the team should ask: Does everyone have a clear understanding of the TOP? The second method, Inquire, is a period for research and discovery. This stage is linked to the first stage in what is potentially a cyclical process that involves learning more about the TOP and then revising the teams’ definition of it. The objectives are: · Learn about the TOP from multiple perspectives · Seek out underrepresented or unapparent views · Employ various methods of learning (e.g. print or digital resources, experts, observations, professional development, interviews, etc.) · Create a common digital space for sharing resources This is a period of intentional learning and sharing, with the goal of broadening the team’s collective understanding of the topic in order to understand and define it before moving forward. At the end of this stage the team should ask: Have we sought out multiple perspectives? Has our learning impacted the TOP definition statement? If necessary the team returns to the previous stage to modify the TOP definition statement or redefine the TOP. It is essential that the team has a deep understanding of the TOP at this stage, informed by multiple perspectives. The third method, Innovate, is a time for ideating with an eye towards creative connections and solutions. The objectives are: · Imagine many solutions · Encourage unique ideas · Refrain from judgement · Synthesize ideas to create possible solution(s) 78 This method is closely linked to the previous method of Inquire. As the team is conducting research it will be natural to record ideas that come to mind. These ideas should be brought to a team ideation session. Research has shown that the most innovative ideas have risen from creative synthesis (Harvey, 2014; Sawyer, 2017). There should be intentional thought and action in this stage towards creative synthesis, so that a solution arises out of the merging of multiple ideas. Before moving on, the team should consider the question: Have our ideas pushed the boundaries of our thinking? The fourth method, Implement, is a time for planning and implementation. The team works together to take one or more idea from the Innovate method and create a plan of action. The goals of this stage are: · Develop a plan · Implement the plan Before moving on, the team should consider the following: Has our solution effectively addressed the TOP? This stage is interconnected with stage 3, Innovate. The team may find that the plan that is implemented does not adequately address the TOP. The team could then cycle between stages 3 and 4 as ideas are shared, merged, and elaborated upon. The fifth and final method, Impact, is a time to reflect on the process and the impact of the solution on teaching and learning. The objectives for this stage are: · Determine the impact of the solution · Refine any elements of the plan for future use or for reimplementation · Share any results with necessary stakeholders This method is connected to the previous method in that it creates space for reflection, refinement, and thus an opportunity to return to the previous stage and implement the solution 79 with a refined plan, perhaps multiple times depending on the TOP. A question to consider is: What was the impact on student learning? Ultimately the goal is to create a support system for educators to implement new practices, but it is important that the outcome is considered based on the impact on student learning. i5 Framework Mindsets There are five mindsets that form the core of The i5 Framework for Education and are essential to the success of the methods. They are purposefully discussed in the first stage, but they are to be followed for the duration of the collaboration. The descriptions here are relevant to this process, in an educational context. The mindsets help establish the culture of the group working together. Successful collaboration hinges on these mindsets and have been identified by researchers as the key components to successful collaboration (Glazier et al., 2017; Sawyer, 2017, Vangrieken et al., 2015; Vangrieken et al., 2017). Empathy. Empathy throughout the process is a way to step out of one’s own thinking and to embrace multiple perspectives. It is a recognition that in diverse perspectives there is strength, and that those perspectives must be sought out. Empathy is also a reminder to keep learners at the center of the process. Learning about a topic from multiple perspectives allows one to better understand the topic and think of creative solutions (Harvey, 2014). Creativity. A mindset of creativity allows risk-taking and innovative thinking which then leads to unpredictable solutions. Viewing creativity as a mindset means placing value in the act of creation and searching for ideas and information that will support that act. It is knowing that the process is unpredictable and that creativity is a necessary component of effective teaching and learning (Robinson, 2011). 80 Value. For the process to be successful each member of the team should value it and regard the commitment to the process as time well spent. Valuing the process means sharing one’s thoughts, time, and energy and believing that the team is engaged in important work. Trust. With trust comes vulnerability, and to learn requires vulnerability. Placing your trust in others and allowing them to trust you in return requires respect and sincerity. It also means welcoming spaces and times of uncertainty and having a willingness to explore new things. An atmosphere in which educators feel that it is safe to take risks is key to successful teacher communities (Vangrieken et al., 2017). Flexibility. Embracing flexibility means recognizing that an open-mind is a learning mind. It is being adaptable, willing to take on different roles, and willing to let go of ideas or allow them to morph and change. The autonomous quality inherent in this flexibility allows teachers to make decisions that impact them, and supports collaboration (Vangrieken et al., 2015). These methods and mindsets should be viewed as connected structures that support collaborative action and thinking. This is ultimately a process of co-creation and inherent in the process there must also be flexibility. This process is not set in stone. It is for the team that is using it to hold discussions about how the process will be used or even changed to best fit their needs. It is recommended that the team develop a timeline for the whole process so though not rushed, there is a sense of urgency and a thought towards action. Research Question 1B: The i5 Framework and Teacher Creativity Research question 1B was an inquiry into the way that the use of The i5 Framework v1 and v2 impacted teacher creativity. I identified two themes during the analysis of the data: creativity as a mindset inherent in effective teaching, and creative synthesis as key to innovative 81 change. These research questions, though not an analysis of the impact of the final version of the framework, provide insight into the way that The i5 Framework may impact teacher practice and student learning through an analysis of the way the first two iterations of the framework impacted teacher creativity. Creativity is a mindset inherent in effective teaching. Creative teachers have been described by researchers as educators who respect diverse ideas and perspectives, model creative problem solving, encourage collaboration, and allow for creative thinking (Craft, 2001). Creativity was identified by each participant as an essential mindset or way of thinking and behaving that was important for the process as well as an integral part of their teaching practice. During the first two team meetings, as the first version of the framework was being created, creativity was added to the brainstormed list of mindsets. Rebecca described creativity as, “using resources to build or create something unique” and felt that throughout the entire process, this would be what the team was engaged in. David felt that it was an important mindset because it, “in a sense, gave permission for risk-taking and failure.” By including creativity as a mindset the team articulated the need for everyone to place value in the process as an act of creation and to be comfortable with feelings of uncertainty. It was an effort to establish creativity as central to the work at hand and structure an environment where idea generation and experimentation would be valued (Craft, 2001). Viewing creativity as a mindset is not a common perspective, but researchers have described creativity among teachers in the same way. Henriksen (2016) interviewed National Teacher of the Year Award winners and found that they described creativity as a mindset, a way of open-minded thinking with which they approached their craft. Identifying creativity as one of the essential mindsets, in my opinion, allowed us to mitigate some of those barriers that can often limit people’s thinking. For example, because we knew that we 82 were engaging in an act of uncertainty we did not think about how others would react to what we were doing, we were able to embrace being open and willing to try new things because there was no fear of being criticized by colleagues or administrators. I could not have predicted that the team would identify creativity as an essential way of thinking, but each of the teachers, during their final interviews, clearly stated that this perspective was fundamental to the successful use of the process. For Sharon, having a creative mindset set the team up for success as we were going through each stage of the process. She said, “Creativity is looking at something in multiple perspectives and being able to communicate in some way these amazing things that are going on inside your head.” And in a way, that’s what the entire process was all about. Throughout the research process, the need for a creative mindset was reinforced in multiple ways and at various points in each round of design and testing. During the second round of testing, the team recognized that in order to create something new, an added perspective was needed. The team reached out to a cultural expert and thus did not have to struggle with, as Rebecca described, “creating our own plan and then getting stuck.” Throughout the process it was important that the team have an awareness of the emphasis on atypical solutions. The team understood something that many experts have articulated: the need for creative pedagogical practices in order to prepare students for an unpredictable future (Robinson, 2011; Wagner, 2010). Sharon shared her thoughts in her interview about the importance of viewing creativity as a way of thinking, “I think that creativity is in everything teachers do. It is in the way we plan, implement, in the opportunities we give, it is what motivates me, is that we basically have this place where we can be as creative as we want and create something that didn’t exist before.” 83 Carol found this to be true during the second round of testing as she designed her fractions unit using constructivist pedagogy. She felt that the change in pedagogy required creativity. In her planning of the fractions unit she used multiple resources but still found herself relying on traditional curricula and methods. It required creativity to take a step back and think about how she could do things differently. In her interview she reflected on the process: As I thought about [the unit], I realized I wanted it more open ended. And knowing how much time I had, I was trying to use every minute to its fullest so I did more open-ended performance tasks and discussions. I was constantly developing, getting feedback and revising, which I think all required creativity. What I felt proud about was [the students] seemed more engaged. I really tried to pose a question and then stand back. I think that’s creative teaching. Carol’s math unit went through a dozen revisions as she reflected on it, got feedback, and revised it, an inherently design based process that required creativity. This aligns with the view of teaching as an act of design that requires active constructing, inventing, and developing of learning experiences (Carlgren, 1999). It is a role that teachers are being increasingly placed in as schools are requiring teachers to design innovative experiences (Norton & Hathaway, 2015). Rebecca felt that teaching is an inherently design based, creative endeavor. She shared in her interview: I think teachers are creative all the time but we might not recognize it. When we change in the middle of a lesson. When we try to create something new. That’s creativity. Or when we are planning new things, or taking something that’s old and changing it to fit the uniqueness of our kids. It’s there all the time but we don’t see it that way. We have to creatively engage our students and pull them into lessons and activities. 84 These teachers were not just creative because they were involved in a process that required creativity. Creativity was an inherent component of their approach to teaching. They were flexible, passionate, valued relationships, and were willing to take risks (Bramwell et al., 2011). David drew on his experience in Pre-K to describe the essential role that creativity plays in teaching, “With my background in early childhood I think it is part of the equation that teachers have to innately be creative. The important thing is not to lose it but to keep it an important part of learning for themselves which transfers to students. Creative teachers are more effective.” Carol’s thinking was similar, “I think creativity isn’t being creative for the sake of it. It’s understanding that every child is different and trying various things to address their strengths and needs. Society keeps changing and we have to be open minded. I think with creativity comes letting go and being open minded.” Having a creativity mindset encouraged the team members to approach The i5 Framework for Education as one would approach their teaching practice, with excitement for new ideas and experiences. It was a mindset of curiosity as they sought other ideas to help them improve their own practice. Effective teams are guided by the drive to be creative and original (Sawyer, 2017) and it was clear to me that the team saw this as an opportunity to ground the work in a creative mindset in order to address issues related to practice. Creative synthesis is key to innovative change. Throughout the rounds of design and testing one essential way that the creativity of the participants was supported was through distributed creativity, an example of creative synthesis in action. Creative synthesis (Harvey, 2014) occurs when a group of individuals work interdependently towards a shared goal of developing output that is both novel and useful. As Rebecca described during our second group interview, “The process helped us to be creative and think out of the box. Our ideas that we 85 implemented occurred because we came together. That’s the value of it – everyone has different experiences and ideas so if you are willing to share, just imagine what comes out of that. It’s being willing to be open, take risks, and being willing to share.” I shared, “You often don’t think of other ways of doing things until you are on a team and someone has an idea that you just would never have thought of. That is a very exciting moment because as soon as they share their idea, you start thinking about how the new idea interacts with your own ideas, and then even more ideas are created.” Using creative synthesis as a foundational theory in the study provided an avenue for me to recognize and articulate the experiences that I witnessed during our team meetings. Because I was familiar with the theory I was able to recognize when it was occurring, and thus able to identify creative synthesis as one of the key collective experiences of the team. The act of creative synthesis occurred multiple times throughout the rounds of design and testing as we had discussions, shared ideas, and then synthesized those ideas to create and pursue solutions or avenues of inquiry (Harvey, 2014). Carol referred to it as a culture of creativity, when the team was having conversations that inspired more ideas. The conversations that the teachers had during the team meetings proved to be an essential part of the process and were the avenue through which creative synthesis occurred. According to Sawyer (2017), conversations are the key to breakthrough creativity. Conversations are the engines that drive collaboration as team members contribute and then spark ideas in others. One specific example of this occurred in the Innovate stage of the first round of testing. Here is a section of a group brainstorm session that illustrates the interplay between team members and the scaffolding of ideas: Sharon: One thing we did say we were going to research was how people in other industries reflect or make their thinking visible. What do doctors do to share their thinking, engineers, cultural practitioners? 86 Carol: That’s a great question. Rebecca: I tweeted the question. To see what others were doing. I don’t have any tweets back. Pause. Rebecca: Are we talking about the long term for this problem? I was thinking about how scientists share their research and their thinking at conferences. Maybe we could have a student conference where they share out. But that might be like an end product. Sharon: Well, that could also be during. Rebecca: Just like how we go to conferences. They could share and learn and you could hear what they are thinking. Just thinking, what do we do to share. At environmental conferences they share their research and we could try to make it like that a little bit. Carol: I’m thinking you could have a board. Like a thinking board. Sharon: I like this doodle thing. (Points to whiteboard where Rebecca has written Doodling.) Carmen: If you asked me to doodle I’d be like – no! Sharon: For me, that’s why I have to type. I have to physically do something when I’m listening otherwise I forget it. So, I have to type or write it down. It’s not so much the visual, but it’s like I have to physically do it. Some kids might prefer something oral. Carmen: But that might be hard to capture unless they are… Carol: Too bad it couldn’t be portable. Rebecca: It could be! Carol: Then it could go back and forth. And the doodling is a reflective strategy? Sharon: Right. 87 Carol: If it is reflective thinking a lot of people take time to do that. So, maybe it’s something they have access to other than right then. Maybe it’s something in the pod. (The pod is the common area between classrooms.) Rebecca: I think whatever strategy we are going to use we need to model the expectations. Just so they don’t have a misconception of what we are asking. Carol: And it could be reinforced at home too. That strategy, they could talk to their parents about something. Carmen: They could doodle at home! Carol: Productive doodling! Sharon: (Refers to the whiteboard.) What if we start to organize these a little. We have different categories. Rebecca: We have one that is strategies. Sharon: I feel like there are multiple strategies. They could doodle, do one of these (points to the whiteboard) like teams or congress.... Carmen: It could be something they then do in his class, before they come back to STEAM. Like maybe doing a center in David’s class with a strategy to think about the learning in your class? Rebecca: How about doodle! Although, I think we should call it sketchnoting – more sophisticated than doodling. It’s making choices of what’s important. Drawing pictures of what’s important. Carmen: Ok, so, there could be a center in David’s room. And the students could use the strategy of sketchnoting in order to reflect on their learning in STEAM. Carol: Isn’t he doing Daily 5 – it could be a station in Daily 5. 88 This discussion occurred at the end of the Innovate method. After spending time brainstorming, the team synthesized the ideas to create a solution: using sketchnoting as a part of language arts in David’s class. The interaction between myself, Sharon, Rebecca, and Carol provides insight into how building on others’ ideas can lead to a solution that no one individual could have thought of on their own. This type of collective attention emphasizes the connection between ideas which can lead to new thinking (Harvey, 2014). The notion that innovative change comes from the convergence of ideas has been realized throughout history in multiple fields (Sawyer, 2017). It is no wonder that the same thing should also occur in education. As teachers gather to engage in creative design, their collective ability to develop innovation from within is essential for the type of reform that is needed in the educational system. The teachers described creative synthesis in various ways. Rebecca referred to is as a “meshing of ideas” and Sharon referred to it as a combination of ideas that required the team and could not have been accomplished alone. Rebecca and David recognized the importance of this process in moving their school towards more innovative practice. Rebecca shared that creative synthesis was “especially useful when trying to make a significant change.” David felt that it was “vital to get to where we want to be as a school, recognized for our innovative practices.” Sharon shared this belief, saying, “It spoke to the power of diverse ideas and how when those ideas come together, they make a larger impact than just you alone.” I felt a sense of pride from the team, in the recognition that together we had planned experiences that the students had not had before and that the key component of our success was the fact that we created solutions together. 89 Research Question 1C: The i5 Framework and Teacher Collaboration Research question 1C provided an opportunity to investigate how the use of the first two iterations of the framework supported collaboration among the team. A primary reason for developing the framework was to help create a structure that would encourage effective collaboration among educators, rather than the superficial type of networking and planning that was often a reality for the participants. There were two themes that I identified during data analysis that provide insight into how the use of the first two iterations of the framework impacted collaboration among the participating teachers. They are 1) interdependence of thinking and co-construction and 2) seeking out and sharing multiple perspectives. Interdependence of thinking and co-construction. Effective collaboration is characterized by a team that participates in critical colleagueship, where there is an openness to new ideas, critical discussions, empathetic understanding, and comfort with ambiguity and uncertainty (Lord, 1994). As the team in this study began designing the first iteration of the framework, these qualities of critical colleagueship were essential to the entire process and were reflected in the mindsets that the team developed. These mindsets, or ways of thinking, provided a structure that identified the importance of pursuing an approach that research has shown promotes deep collaboration. The team also noted that it was essential that the mindsets were used interdependently. If any member of the team became uncomfortable, or felt they could not be open to others ideas, then the effectiveness of the collaboration would be in jeopardy. It seemed there was a genuine belief that we needed each other to help us more successfully address these issues. The group members relied on each other to equally participate in the process. We worked together to identify, define, and create solutions that were meaningful to ourselves and our practice. Throughout our time together the team engaged in dynamic processes 90 of co-construction, an essential act of successful collaborative teams (Etelapelto & Lahti, 2008). By identifying trust as a mindset, the team unknowingly articulated one of the most crucial components of effective collaborative teams. Trust is respect for others’ different perspectives, goodwill, and a confidence in other’s ability to contribute. “Trust is the foundation for the kind of collaboration that allows the development of true sharing, openly negotiated conflict, and long term relationships even when uncertainties and risks are present” (Etelapelto & Lahti, 2008, p. 228). An essential mindset throughout the process that allowed for co-creation was trust. In addition to establishing the mindsets as key supports of effective collaboration, the data showed that there were times in which collaboration towards action supported a higher level of collaboration. This is an important component of Sawyer’s (2011) theory of collaborative emergence, which is reliant on the interactional dynamics over time of the group that is collaborating. The work of the team during the design process supported the theory in that there was an unpredictable outcome and there were equal opportunities for participant contribution. The process also provided evidence that the following elements of Sawyer’s theory are essential for effective collaboration: · There is moment-to-moment contingency: each person’s actions are dependent on previous actions of others. · The interactional effect of any given action can be changed by the subsequent actions of others. These elements helped me view the experience from an improvisational intuitive perspective. I began to recognize the types of interactions that occurred between participants. There was an unpredictability inherent in the entire process that provided opportunities for improvisational conversations and thinking to occur. This interdependence of action and thinking was important 91 during the first stage in the first round of testing as the team sought to define Sharon’s TOP and discussed the various resources they could use to gather information. Here is a section of their discussion: Sharon: I just don’t have an idea of what the best way to do this is. To fit STEAM into their thinking process, to have them document their thinking in a way that – to bring more meaning to them but also help and engage with others. Carmen: So, you are thinking the others in the classroom? Home? Sharon: Focus on classroom for now. Rebecca: We have to think about their level of skills too – their writing skills. Sharon: Or is writing the best way? David: It might not capture their thinking Rebecca: Maybe they can choose how to share their thinking. Like acting, telling a story, doing a play, etc. Sharon: But I also don’t want the whole learning to be about them and the activity. Rebecca: Ok, they might get carried away with a play. Sharon: Yeah, the culmination thing – they do that. But along the way...how do I see their thinking. David: Even if it’s just small documenting. David: Stephanie Harvey might be a really good resource. She has suggestions for making thinking visible through language arts, but that may apply to Science. Carmen: There’s also a book called Making Thinking Visible. I have it. I can look at that. David: And I’m wondering if there’s something else, non-western, that we can look at. Sharon: Like what are cultural ways of sharing? 92 David: Yeah, like mele (songs) or oli (chants) …. Along the way you might be writing your verse – as you make your way through the learning and thinking. Sharon: That would be cool, if they had to write a verse every class. “I touched a sea cucumber! It was slimy and squirted water!” Carmen: Ok, so when we leave we will do research so that when we gather back on the 16th we will share what we learned about how to make thinking visible. David: I could talk with my teacher friend [name removed]. Carmen: I bet she will have a lot of good ideas. Sharon: Traditionally, I did it through science notebooks. Pause. Rebecca: Well, how do professionals document stuff? How do they document their learning? Carmen: Yeah – like if they are working in a team – how do they share? Sharon: Yeah – let’s look at multi-industry, multiple careers. Rebecca: Yeah, doctors, bakers, engineers. How do they all document their thinking and share it? Carmen: Yeah! This discussion provides an example of interdependent thinking towards action. As each participant began to think more about the TOP, the team began to share various ideas for resources they could use to learn more about the topic. As they described different ideas, others were inspired to share as well. What resulted from the discussion was a list of ideas each member of the team would spend time researching individually in order to share at the next meeting. As the team engaged in conversations, they were suggesting ideas and pathways for future thinking. 93 This type of active discourse, where conversations lead to ideas, products and/or decisions, is a hallmark of effective collaborative teams. It is in opposition to the type of discourse that less effective teams participate in: passive discourse, which focuses on sharing knowledge without thought towards unprescribed action (Scribner, Sawyer, Watson, & Myers, 2007). Improvisational interdependence is characteristic of effective teacher communities. The outcome of the interdependent conversations, sharing, disagreements, and discussions lead to deeper collaboration. In this study, this impacted the teachers and coaches, helping us create a solution to a complex problem (Vangrieken et al., 2015). Another example of interdependence of thinking occurred as the team co-planned the initial lesson for Sharon’s TOP in stage 4, Plan and Implement, of the first round of testing. Here is a section of the planning discussion on how to introduce sketchnoting to David’s class: Sharon: Maybe we could show an example of the week and model a question and then have them do it altogether. Then they could talk about how they’re all different as part of their reflection. David: Yes, we could come up with one question. A practice question. Sharon: Yeah, maybe we could do a reading or watch a video about an animal. Then the question can be something like: What is it like to be this animal? That’s related to what they’ve been working on, learning about different plants and animals. For example, they’ve learned about sea urchins. Carmen: Did they see any sea urchins on their field trip? Sharon: Oh yeah, they saw a ton. Carmen: Do have a picture of one, or video? Sharon: Yeah, I have both. 94 Carmen: So, then we could show them the photos or videos and then we can use those to help their thinking. Sharon: Maybe we could have a really short reading. Carmen: Like a poem or something? Sharon: Yeah, just something simple to read. Carmen: Ok, so the poem should be simple but evoke thinking. Like… “ouch!” (laughs) David: As simple as that! “Ouch!...What happened?” (laughs) Carmen: Yeah. So we will have the pic of the sea urchin, and then we could just put up a sentence. Or do you want it to be more scientific? Sharon: No, it could be anything. David: We could concentrate more on the habitat. Sharon: This is a reading about sea urchins. (Shows team a book she got from the shelf.) We could pick something from here. Carmen: Maybe they could just look at the pic? No, but they need a question. Maybe the pic is enough and they can just answer the question based on their learning and their experiences. Sharon: But is this sketchnoting? Carol: Yeah, they need more information. Seems like it’s processing information. Carmen: Well, what is the actual thing they are going to do in the center? Sharon: Right now they are working on empathy – What it’s like to be the different animals that are in the different parts of the ocean. Or what is it like to live in a coral reef? And the bigger question is - How does marine debris impact plants and animals? Carmen: So, what do you want them to reflect on this week? 95 Sharon: I’m not sure, I guess I wanted to see what you guys thought. Carol: So maybe something small? Since you want to head to the big? Sharon: Yeah, I mean it’s a way to make their thinking visual. …. Carmen: Oh! What if they watch this video! (Plays video clip about sea urchins.) What do you think? We could play that and then just ask the question. Sharon: Yeah! That works. Carmen: I can be there and make sure that it’s all ready to go. David: So, I’m thinking this is good practice. But, what will the real question be? When they are working the rest of the two weeks in the center. Sharon: Do you think the question would be how does marine debris affect animals? David: Yeah, maybe. Sharon: And then maybe at the station we have some of the things they have experienced. Carol: Yeah, maybe there will be a few things they have to synthesize. Sharon: Maybe we will focus it on the coral reef and how those animals are impacted. We’ve talked about how the marine debris problem could affect you differently. Carmen: So, what would the question be? Sharon: How does marine debris affect the plants and animals in a coral reef? That will be good to have that and post it up. We can use some pics and a short video. And then the marine debris they have found, we have pics of that. And they saw the honu (turtle) there – we could show pics of the honu (turtle) with plastic. Carol: Maybe some before and after pics, that would be impactful. 96 Sharon: So, we will show them the video, the examples, ask the question, then they’ll do it, and then we will have them share. Sounds great! This example of interdependence of thinking towards action shows how the group was able to plan the initial lesson introducing sketchnoting to David’s class in order to prepare them for the following two weeks of having it as one of their choices in language arts. This type of interaction with new ideas arising and alternate views being expressed and elaborated upon was a collaborative, supportive behavior (Etelapelto & Lahti, 2008) that occurred frequently throughout both rounds of testing as the team worked together to understand and address the TOP in each round. This interaction and interdependence were essential as the team was meeting and was highlighted by many of the participants as key during the implementation of the plan in David’s class. As Carol described in her interview: When we were with David in his classroom teaching together I thought it was amazing. I felt like if I had a partner there and we could bounce off ideas. He was presenting that he was learning from me and I told the kids I was learning from him. We expect the kids to work together but they don’t see teachers working together, team teaching and questioning each other. You want the kids to see the teachers questioning each other, they need to see that. To see that teachers are working together and thinking. As Carol and Rebecca reflected on the second phase of testing during group interview #2, the two realized how essential those moments of face to face interaction were: Carol: For me it has to be face to face. There’s such a difference between sitting and sharing or coming into a classroom. Instead of doing it online. 97 Rebecca: Without talking what do we have. Hearing other people’s ideas makes you think of new things. But if you are just given other people’s ideas it’s different. You have to be willing to put yourself out there and open up and be willing to receive. It’s not one person’s ideas, it’s our idea. Carol: Yeah, and normally a lot of the time, people bring an idea and defend it. Carmen: Totally different than us together creating. Rebecca: I think that trust is key. I don’t think you can collaborate without good relationships. I think that’s why there have been many bumpy roads. I don’t have a comfortableness with certain grade levels and I stay away. Carol: I’m glad you are being so honest. If we are really team teaching we should be working together closely and that helps us build those relationships. The interaction of the participants helped build trusting relationships, but was also reliant on the strengths of those relationships and the ability of the participating members to commit to the mindsets of the framework and be open, trusting, and flexible. The emphasis was on shared knowledge and action, rather than individual performance - a departure from the norm. The complex problems that these teachers faced, and the high demands being asked of them, are beyond the scope of any one teacher to address (Sawyer, 2011). The framework provided a context and structure as the team consistently listened, reflected, and built upon their own and other’s previous thinking. Carol described it as an impactful time where the participants were learning and creating together. As an instructional coach my own feelings at this time were of excitement as this kind of interaction with teachers was a departure from the norm. I began to see potential for the way I viewed my own position in support of teachers. And I realized that while, in the past I had thought of myself as more of a collaborator than a coach, that the reality 98 was that I had never veered far from the traditional coaching role of helping a teacher self- reflect on their practice. In this new type of interaction I saw potential for a variety of new experiences with teachers, where I could be a true collaborator. Seeking and sharing multiple perspectives. A second theme related to the collaborative experiences of the participants was the extent to which multiple perspectives supported the effective collaboration of the team. This is a component of critical colleagueship - discussions of alternatives and multiple perspectives are sought out and shared (Glazier et al., 2017). This diversity in thought is important because it opens avenues of inquiry and potentially places teams in a space where new ideas will emerge (Vangrieken et al., 2015). Groups are more effective when they have a variety of perspectives and knowledge (Sawyer, 2017). The positive impact of sharing multiple perspectives was evident during phase 2 in the first round of testing. The team brought in diverse perspectives which included thinking routines for students, videos on how to support thinking, ways that professionals (doctors, engineers, etc.) record and share their thinking and learning, as well as cultural connections. David included a cultural component by describing the importance of pictures and images in Hawaiian culture and by sharing some of the practices of ancient Hawaiians including the way symbols were used to communicate ideas and feelings. I shared a number of technology tools that might be useful in supporting thinking. Carol provided a connection to mathematics instruction and a new method that some teachers had been experimenting with that involved students creating posters displaying their mathematical thinking. We brought in a variety of perspectives to explore and deepen the understanding of the whole team. The conversations that arose from multiple views helped drive the team towards more creative ideas (Sawyer, 2017) and provided a broader foundation from which to move into the next stage, Innovate. 99 In round 2, the team invited an expert to provide the diverse perspectives needed to address the TOP. The cultural expert, a colleague at the school, was enlisted during the Innovate stage to discuss and brainstorm with the team. Her ideas about integrating Hawaiian culture into the fractions unit inspired us to see other possibilities. I realized that there were ways that Hawaiian art and quilt making could be used to model fractions visually. Rebecca felt that the sharing of multiple perspectives was an essential component to the effectiveness of the collaboration, “Using diverse resources to come to a common goal. Sharing ideas, taking turns in doing a task. Putting those ideas to work. Helping each other, listening, refining ideas. I think that’s what it’s all about.” The cultural expert shared the Hawaiian Star Compass and the team realized that it could be one of the foundational models used with students when learning about fractions. An essential support piece for the team was the shared digital space we created. The team was more productive in our collaboration by creating a space for shared resources and planning. During the first testing of the framework we created a common online space in Google Docs. This allowed the team to access resources throughout the research process. There were identifiable moments when the shared digital space contributed to the productivity and effectiveness of the collaboration. Sharon was especially excited about being able to “build the lesson together” for the Implement stage of the first round of testing. It felt more collaborative to her, rather than feeling like the team had come up with the idea and then she was on her own to plan and implement it. The use of a shared digital space allowed us to capitalize on the time that was spent together and to do individual work in a collaborative way when we were not face to face. We used the online space for a variety of tasks. We kept track of the process of each round of design 100 and testing, shared resources, brainstormed, shared research, and developed lesson plans. According to Carol, “It helped me to have the resources, videos, samples, etc. I think it’s good for the learning to continue if you have a place where you put resources. A common place online that we can individually peruse through.” I shared that during the first round of testing Rebecca placed some research in the shared digital space that inspired me to think of other resources to explore. It was a way for us to collaborate and connect when we weren’t together, and it played an important role in moving the process forward as there were times when a digital collaboration was more efficient than a face to face collaboration. The team was selective about what things needed to happen face to face, and what could be done individually (e.g. research, lesson planning), but still in a collaborative fashion through the shared digital space. Good teams alternate solitary time with group interaction, resulting in more creativity (Sawyer, 2017). It was also a recognition that our overall productivity would be better if we did certain things individually, and used the time we had together for those activities that required a face to face experience. Research Question 2A: Perceived Influence on Teachers Research question two required an analysis of the perceived impact of the use of the i5 Framework v1 and v2 on teachers and students. In this section, the perceived impact of the use of the first two iterations of the framework on teaching and learning is evaluated. I begin with the analysis of question 2A, followed by question 2B. Research Question 2: What, if any, is the perceived impact on teachers and students? 2A. What is the perceived impact on teachers and practice? 2B. What is the perceived impact on student learning? 101 To answer question 2A, data from the team meetings, the group interviews, and the individual interviews was used. During data analysis, I identified two themes that present a description of the perceived impact on teachers and their practice. They include 1) Ongoing opportunities for reflection and feedback, and 2) A relevant and autonomous experience. Ongoing opportunities for reflection and feedback. During the beginning of the first round of testing, Sharon reflected on her teaching goals as related to the TOP of helping support visible thinking in her students. She talked through the topic in order to help the team, including herself, better understand it, “I know I am trying to have them think about their thinking – yes. But we do that already. This needs to be something better. [Better than] verbal conversations and discussions and through their work. So, I’m thinking about how to best support that.” Sharon spent time reflecting on the TOP, which made her think about her teaching and the types of tasks she was asking of students. This involved much questioning by the team to help Sharon think about and articulate the TOP. In stage 1 of both rounds of testing the team conversations during meetings involved questioning as a key way to engage in reflection on the complexity of the topic and thus led to a better understanding of it. Through the feedback that Sharon received, she could better articulate her own instructional needs and hopes for her students in relation to the TOP, “I’d really like to see their thinking, and allow them to see other’s thinking…I’d also like it to be personal, for them to be able to share their thinking in a way that is comfortable for them.” She shared that through the refining of the TOP she developed a more focused idea of the outcomes she wanted from students. Questioning was a key way in which we encouraged reflection in each other throughout the process. During the Innovate stage of the first round of testing, the questions that the team 102 asked each other were often based on the pedagogical goals that were related to the TOP (to help students show their thinking). In our sharing of resources and learning from the research stage, the team discussed multiple ideas in support of strong pedagogical practices. I shared, “I read that a lot of times the questions we ask students are more about them telling us what they did rather than having them show what they think. So, when you are asking kids questions you have to push for higher level ones, beyond recall.” As we were recounting our learning we continually questioned practices that were shared, reflected on our own previous experiences, and freely shared our opinions with each other. David and Sharon felt that the reflective exchanges that took place during meetings were helpful to their overall teaching. Sharon thought that much of what she learned was transferable to other aspects of her practice, not just the TOP the team was addressing. David found that the level of research and development of the team led to the view that the team saw themselves as learners, sharing information, and reflecting on previous experiences for the benefit of everyone on the team. As an active participant in this process, I realize now, that we were actively reflecting on our own and other’s practice throughout the process. We had created an experience where reflection was built into the process as reflection on practice was needed in order to articulate our understandings and learning with each other. Dewey maintained that when educators combine reflection with experience, we become more aware of our practice and grow as educators (Farrell, 2012). Schon referred to this as ‘reflection in action’ and regarded it as a necessary part of practice (1983). It was a special experience to see and experience these behaviors with my colleagues knowing that our learning was a result of decisions and guidelines we had created together. Carol found that reflection on her own practice occurred during the first round of testing, even though the TOP was related to something David and Sharon were doing. She realized that 103 the solution the team was developing for Sharon and David’s class could be used and adapted for her students as well. She shared, “I learned so much. I think my role was to listen, and to learn something that I didn’t know I wanted to learn. After I watched you folks and tried to understand then I went back and used what I learned, which was unintentional.” She incorporated sketchnoting during reading lessons with one of her third grade classes and she felt that it noticeably helped some of her struggling learners process information in a way that was more engaging as well as visual. David and Sharon agreed that the first round of testing provided much learning that transferred back to the classroom for lessons unrelated to the actual TOP. Sharon used the sketchnoting skills she learned to plan a project for another grade level. She also incorporated sketchnoting into her first grade classes because she was so impressed with the way that her second graders began showing their thinking. The first round of testing had a significant impact on David’s class in particular because it became a skill that they used for the rest of the year to show their thinking. Ultimately, it provided both David and Sharon a strategy to use with students to quickly assess thinking. During the second round of testing, Carol’s goal was to improve math instruction. Through the support of the framework she developed and implemented a fractions unit that involved using open ended problems, connecting to students’ cultural identity, and incorporating multiple views and ways of understanding. It was a dramatic departure from the way she would normally teach and assess math. She talked about her process of redesigning the math unit as going through multiple iterations while using a variety of resources and getting feedback from members of the team as well as other teachers. Without the team supporting her, she would have been independently designing the fractions unit, and felt that she might have “given up and gone 104 back to the traditional teaching” familiar to her. She wouldn’t have gone through stages of testing and iteration. Research has shown that teachers who do not have the support to try new things often fall back on or rely on lessons that have worked, especially in situations that are unfamiliar to them (Beghetto, 2007). Because Carol knew that the team was there to support her she felt comfortable having others give her feedback. Without the team as a support structure, it would not have made sense for her to do so. This widening of her teaching allowed her to be more reflective and intentional, and the feedback she received allowed her to improve her unit before she implemented it with students. Feedback was a natural and necessary part of the process as the team supported each other’s thinking and felt comfortable offering critical feedback to any idea that arose. It was through the ongoing opportunities for reflection and feedback that we developed our understanding of the issues we were tackling, created solutions, implemented them together, and then reflected on the process. Through both rounds of testing we had a shared vision and an orientation towards action (Mertler, 2013). The experience served as an opportunity to be a part of a teacher community, with a culture of collaboration and sharing, and it fulfilled many of the elements identified by Vangrieken et al., (2017) in that it was an open space where teachers and coaches worked in an atmosphere of trust and respect. A relevant and autonomous experience. During the rounds of design and testing of the framework, the teachers took on the role of active learners. It was a relevant professional development experience as we were able to focus on something that was meaningful to us in our own context. The autonomy inherent in the work created a social constructivist experience for the teachers where we learned about our practice from and with each other (Prawat, 1996). The work engaged us in ways that supported active thinking, creating, and designing that was 105 relevant to the issues we faced in our classrooms. Effective professional development is embedded in the routine of what teachers do (Desimone, 2009) and The i5 Framework for Education provides an example of one way that this could be a routine part of teacher practice. The i5 Framework supported autonomy in a variety of ways. First, it provided the teachers on the team complete control over which topics we wanted to pursue. This flexibility also meant that any type of topic related to practice could be identified and addressed by the team. For Carol, this was an exciting prospect because her only experiences with collaboration were when planning specific projects with other teachers. This was an opportunity to collaborate around math, something that she usually planned and taught alone. The benefits of having the autonomy to direct the focus of the framework in whatever direction we chose, led to the tackling of complex problems that focused on student centered pedagogical strategies (Vangrieken et al., 2015). The experience was also autonomous in that there was a purposeful stepping out of traditional roles and typical ways of collaborating. Some of the teachers on the team were often “forced” into collaboration because of the content and grade levels they taught, other members of the team would never have worked with each other outside of this opportunity. The team saw this as a freeing experience, allowing us to come together as colleagues, with experience and ideas about teaching and learning, not necessarily related to our job title. Sharon described that the flexibility in roles allowed her and others to change and adapt to the process. In the first round of testing, the entire team supported the learning in David’s second grade class by brainstorming ideas and developing the lesson plan together, even though the content was STEAM. In the second round of testing, the entire team focused on math as we sought to understand how teaching and learning in mathematics could be done differently. In order to put 106 ourselves into these other roles, we had to let go of the idea that we were there for a specific purpose or to serve a specific role. As I stated, “the way we collaborate now is totally dependent on our job at this school.” The experience using The i5 Framework for Education took us out of that pre-defined role and allowed us flexibility and freedom in our involvement in the process. It was a new way of interacting for all of us, teachers and coaches, as put aside our preconceived notions about the types of work we were expected to do at our school. The i5 Framework for Education provided a structure by which the teachers could achieve a change in practice through a process that involved autonomy and was directly relevant to their practice. It was a way to take ownership of the change being required of them by administration that was relevant and meaningful to teachers, an essential component of adult learning (Hill et al., 2013). An essential aspect of the structure was the flexibility within it. The team found this flexibility within structure to be important. It was ultimately a process that would always be evolving, based on the topic and the team. The process was not designed to lock a group into a certain way of doing things, but rather to suggest that this is one way to structure interaction and thinking to move educators toward more innovative classroom practices. But, that structure must always be flexible, able to be tweaked and changed by the team using it. Carol shared that an important part of the success of the process was its inherent flexibility. The team constantly thought about how it needed to change or bend to meet the needs of the team. Sharon said, “we were struggling together, celebrating together, and learning from one another.” She described the process as “authentic, personal, and relevant.” Ineffective professional development is often top-down or provided by outsiders with limited knowledge of the teachers’ context (King, 2014). This experience was a grassroots professional development experience driven by the needs of the team, and outside knowledge and expertise was sought because it 107 arose as a need during the process. It was an experience that placed a focus on students and content with practical implications for teachers and their students (Hulten & Bjorkholm, 2016). Research Question 2B: Teacher Perceptions of the Impact on Student Learning The data used to answer this question came primarily from the group and individual interviews as the participants reflected on the learning experiences that were provided to the students. The major theme identified here is that the use of the framework resulted in experiences that supported deep thinking and cultural connections among students. Experiences supporting deep thinking and cultural connections. During both rounds of testing students were engaged in activities that they had never previously experienced. As the team reflected on the first round of testing, Sharon and David shared their experience and the perceived impact on student learning. Teaching the students how to use drawings and visuals to synthesize and share their thinking was an eye opening experience for both the teachers and the students. David explained, “we push writing so much that there was some hesitation on their part. We had to confirm that this is what we wanted as opposed to a more traditional way of them showing their thinking.” Sharon agreed, “Yeah, this was difficult for them. They wanted to write because it was easier to just write. Sketchnoting was great because I realized that we were asking them to think a lot deeper. Even in first grade I did something and they were like, ‘I have to draw a picture? No words? That’s really hard!’ and I was like ‘Yeah, that’s why I’m asking you to do it!’ It’s making you think deeper about what the image is that’s making all those words come together.” Sharon explained that once they “got the hang of it,” it was actually liberating for them because they could freely and creatively express their thinking. They were engaged and did not feel stifled or limited. Carol recognized that sketchnoting was a challenge in the beginning because “it is a higher level of thinking. So, in the beginning they were very literal.” Sharon also 108 noticed that in the first few weeks of using the strategy the students would write more than draw. She did mini-lessons on how to turn thinking into a visual representation. It provided students with an opportunity to think deeply about a topic because it required them to communicate their understanding through visuals and symbols. According to David, the practice of sketchnoting became a “norm of their learning space” as students often had the option to create a sketchnote as a way of showing their understanding. Sharon also found that there was a huge impact on learning from the first TOP. Overall, David felt that the impact of the first round of testing was clearly observed in his students. In particular, sketchnoting was a way of synthesizing and documenting understanding of information. Sharon also noticed the impact on David’s students: I see the kids able to express themselves in a very personal way. And I would not have been able to do that myself. I would not have thought of that as a way to solve that problem. And we use it all the time. When we take notes or express our thinking. And they just keep improving and improving. And they say how hard and challenging it is, but they love it because they make it their own. But I can look at it in two seconds and I know what they know. It’s an easy assessment. All my students are creating different things, so it helps with that variety. I love it. Carol reflected on student learning during the second round of testing, which was focused on her math fractions unit. She explained the challenge she had trying new methods of teaching that the students had not experienced before. She realized that she was asking students to think about math in a deeper way that had not been asked of them before. She described the reaction of her students as they were provided with an open-ended math task: 109 A couple of them gave up and didn’t know where to start. It was hard because it was exhausting trying to develop that grit. I don’t know if I nurtured that grit before I expected them to do this. But I didn’t have the time. So, they need more open ended questions in their other math units. As a teacher one thing that I learned is that I have to think ahead how I’m going to help those that give up. Carol realized that the redesign of this one unit would impact other math learning that took place in third grade. This resulted in multiple ideas for how other units might be adjusted in order to support deeper thinking in math through open-ended tasks and collaboration. She realized that she needed to do more open-ended questions with students and that students were not often given activities that required the kind of thinking that they would need to succeed in complex mathematical situations. Another element that impacted students was the connection to culture that occurred in both rounds of testing. In the first round of testing, Sharon reflected on the impact of the sketchnoting lessons with her second graders, “I liked it because it was culture based. It was about images and using that to express thinking.” In the lesson that the team co-planned and delivered that introduced sketchnoting to David’s second graders, the lesson began with establishing a connection to culture. David showed examples of how images have been used by native Hawaiians to show thinking and he talked about the importance of expression and visuals. He also showed examples of modern visuals to help the students see the importance of expanding the ways they show and express their ideas. As the students learned and practiced their sketchnoting skills, the connection to culture was consistently used as a way to bring them back to the reason for using the strategy. As David shared, “It immediately helped connect them to who they are as a people.” Sharon explained that it provided an opportunity for students to 110 think about what deep thinkers their ancestors were: they chose to represent thinking in visuals and pictures and they had discussions about the deep meaning of those representations. In the second round of testing, the Hawaiian Star Compass was used as a model to understand the connections between fractions and culture. As the students learned the different parts of the compass they realized that a knowledge of fractions and of the different components of the compass was partly what enabled navigators to explore the Pacific Ocean. Even though this was just one lesson that occurred at the end of the unit, Carol was impressed with the way the connection to culture made fractions come alive for the students. Rebecca shared that during the lesson she observed a high level of engagement in the students, saying, “It was amazing to see the kids engaged in the learning and that they could see a connection between something they learned in math and something that was of such importance to Hawaiian culture.” She also thought that the kinesthetic aspects of the activity helped the students engage in the activity. Here is a section of their reflection on the lesson: Rebecca: It’s so different to see fractions rather than on a small piece of paper. Fractions can be hard to learn. But seeing it was so cool. Carol: It’s so funny. Yeah, they didn’t understand fractions in the beginning. But I felt rewarded in that they answered the questions really well. Carmen: Yeah, it was a good assessment of their basic understanding of fractions. Rebecca: I wish I had learned fractions like that! I could see the light bulbs and how they came in prepared. When she said fractions they were like oh! They could start seeing the fractions in the compass. You could tell there were some that really needed that visual and how the kinesthetic component really helped them. Carol: If we had done a paper and pencil activity it wouldn’t have been the same. 111 Rebecca: And I don’t think we would have gotten to that point without this process. The kids were totally engaged. Rebecca noticed that during the final lesson in which students applied their knowledge of fractions to the Hawaiian Star Compass, that all students were engaged. It was the first time they had learned about fractions and they were able to apply their knowledge in the new setting, and connect the importance of it to the cultural practice of navigating. Carol felt very rewarded that the students “answered the questions so well.” Rebecca shared that fractions can be hard to learn, but that the cultural activity made the fractions come alive for the students and brought it into the real world in a relevant way. During both rounds of testing, the cultural component proved to make the learning more relevant and meaningful for the students. This helped the teachers achieve the deeper kind of learning that is contextual, authentic, and as research has shown, leads to deeper understanding (Sawyer, 2015). Summary An investigation of the data sources resulted in the themes described above. Taken together these themes provide a look into the way that The i5 Framework v1 and v2 supported teacher creativity and collaboration, and impacted teaching and learning. It can be argued then, that The i5 Framework for Education contains a set of methods and mindsets that support teacher collaboration and creativity in multiple ways, as this support was present throughout the evolution of the framework. In regards to teacher creativity, I found that the use of the framework helped educators view creativity as a mindset inherent in effective teaching. The use of the framework also provided opportunities for creative synthesis, which was seen as key to innovative change. Teacher collaboration was supported primarily in two ways, through interdependent thinking and co-construction, and the seeking out and sharing of multiple 112 perspectives. Finally, the perceived impact on teachers and learners was positive. Through data analysis I identified two key experiences that impacted teachers through the use of the framework: It provided ongoing opportunities for reflection and feedback, and it was a relevant and autonomous experience. The use of the framework also impacted student learning as students were engaged in new types of learning experiences that supported deep thinking and connections to their Hawaiian culture. In the next chapter I discuss the conclusions that can be made based on these findings, and articulate the impact these may have on educational practice. 113 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION This study merged theory and practice in an action research process that engaged educators in the design of a framework to support creativity and collaboration. Education in the 21st century requires innovative pedagogical approaches in order to provide students with learning experiences that will support collaboration and creativity (Sawyer, 2015). The last 20 years have seen numerous calls for reform in education and while efforts have been made to improve practice through teacher collaboration, they are often ineffective. Much teacher collaboration occurs in the form of pseudo or contrived collaboration that gives the appearance of collaboration without the results of critical, meaningful collaboration. Organizations such as the National Council of Teachers of English and the National Education Association have identified teacher collaboration as a critical component of school improvement. Effective collaboration requires touching teachers’ underlying beliefs. It includes disagreement and conflict with a high level of interdependence and is focused on student learning. To address this challenge, this study aimed to create a framework that could support teacher creativity and collaboration. A team of educators developed The i5 Framework for Education which is presented in this manuscript as a resource for educators. An inquiry into the way that the initial iterations of the manuscript supported teacher collaboration and creativity was undertaken and the results show that the framework supported both teacher collaboration and teacher creativity in various ways, which are summarized in the following section. The team of educators that participated in this study were provided with a unique opportunity. In a system that often tells teachers which practices, models, and frameworks to use, this group of educators was tasked with creating a tool that could help move their practice forward. Educators are seldom placed in a role that allows them to contribute to the collective knowledge of the 114 profession by developing something that other educators might use. This study gave them that opportunity. The findings of this study show how an educator designed framework can guide teachers towards improvement in practice through collaborative creativity with peers. The findings also present evidence that can help articulate ways to describe and design effective teacher collaboration as well as ways to support innovative change in education. These conclusions are discussed in detail following the discussion of findings. Discussion of Findings This study sought to create a framework and describe how the initial iterations of it supported teacher collaboration and creativity, as well as the perceived impact on teacher practice and student learning. A brief description of the final framework is included here, followed by a summary of the findings for each research question. The i5 Framework for Education consists of five methods and five mindsets. The methods provide a collaborative process that aims to support teams of educators working together to design and implement new ways of teaching and learning. The methods: Identify, Inquire, Innovate, Implement, and Impact provide a process for teams to follow. The mindsets: Empathy, Creativity, Value, Trust, and Flexibility, are essential beliefs to be held throughout the process to support effective collaboration. The first method, Identify, involves the gathering of a team to address a topic of practice (TOP). The goal of this stage is to develop a collective understanding of the topic that is to be addressed. In the second stage, Inquire, the team conducts research from a range of perspectives to learn more about the topic. There is a purposeful seeking out of underrepresented or unapparent views in this stage. In the third stage, Innovate, the team brainstorms ideas and then synthesizes some of them to come up with a solution for the TOP. In the next stage, Implement, a plan is created by the team and then implemented. Finally, 115 the process ends with Impact, when the team spends time reflecting on the impact that the solution had on teachers and students. The mindsets that accompany these methods are an essential component of the framework as they help establish a culture of collaboration and creativity for the group that is working together. Empathy, the first mindset, recognizes the need to seek out and understand perspectives other than one’s own. Creativity is knowing that there will be risk taking and an inherent unpredictability to the process, as it is an act of creation. Value refers to the need for each person on the team to value the collaboration and to be fully engaged in the process. Trust is a reminder to be comfortable with vulnerability, to be sincere, and to be willing to try new things. Finally, flexibility recognizes the need for an open-mind and a willingness to take on new roles. The following research questions were explored as an inquiry into the way the first two versions of the framework supported teacher creativity and collaboration, as well as the impact on teachers and students: 1B. How does the framework support teacher creativity? 1C. How does the framework support effective collaboration? 2A. What is the perceived impact on teachers and practice? 2B. What is the perceived impact on student learning? Engaging in the development and use of the framework was found to impact the creativity and collaboration of the participating teachers, their teaching, and the learning of their students. The following themes were identified after an analysis of the data. They are listed here and then summarized below. Research question 1B: Theme 1) Creativity is a mindset inherent in effective teaching; Theme 2) Creative synthesis is key to innovative change. Research question 116 1C: Theme 1) Interdependence of thinking and co-construction; Theme 2) Seeking and sharing multiple perspectives. Research question 2A: Theme 1) Ongoing opportunities for reflection and feedback; Theme 2) Relevant and autonomous experience. Research question 2B: Theme 1) New learning experiences supporting deep thinking and cultural connections. Research question 1B, theme 1: Creativity is a mindset inherent in effective teaching. Each of the participating teachers viewed creativity as an essential mindset that supported the successful use of the framework and an essential part of their own teaching. The teachers described creativity as a mindset that gave them permission to take risks. Carol felt that creativity was an essential component of the process, and an important mindset generally, as a teacher. She explained, “I think creativity is in everything teachers do. It is in the way we plan, implement, in the opportunities we give, it is what motivates me.” She was able to be creative and to have support in the risk taking that was required during the development of her fractions unit. She taught math in a new way because of the work that was done by the team. With a creative mindset, the team was open minded about which ideas we would try with the students, recognizing that even a failed outcome would result in meaningful learning. Research question 1B, theme 2: Creative synthesis is key to innovative change. Throughout the process the team repeatedly discussed the importance of synthesizing ideas. For each of the rounds of testing the solution that came out of the brainstorming and planning was a combination of multiple ideas. Rebecca shared that she thought this was one of the most powerful outcomes of using the framework. Creative synthesis occurred, and was visible, through the conversations that the team had during the course of the six months they were working together. This was particularly apparent in the brainstorming sessions, as the participants produced various ideas and then synthesized them to create the solution to the TOPs. 117 In the first round of testing the team worked together, conversing, questioning, and merging ideas to come up with the solution that was implemented. The same occurred in round 2 of testing. The inspiration that came from discussing ideas, helped promote the team’s creative thinking. Research question 1C, theme 1: Interdependence of thinking and co-construction. Effective collaboration is supported by a team’s ability to think and create interdependently. The team agreed to a set of mindsets that became an integral part of The i5 Framework for Education. This ability to rely on others was a critical component for the risk-taking and open-minded thinking that was necessary to support the sharing and creating the team engaged in. Equal participation among team members and high levels of trust were needed in order for the team to co-create solutions. The improvisational aspect of the team meetings, the interdependent thinking and construction that the team engaged in, is a hallmark of Sawyer’s (2017) description of effective collaborative teams. Thinking towards action in a way that builds on other’s ideas resulted in a variety of possibilities that the team could pursue. This was an example of active discourse; conversations that lead to ideas, products, and/or decisions. This is a hallmark of effective collaborative teams because it supports shared knowledge with thought towards action (Scribner et al., 2007). The improvisational quality of the face to face meetings proved to be one of the most valuable aspects of the process. As Rebecca shared, “Hearing other people’s ideas makes you think of new things. But if you are just given other people’s ideas it’s different. You have to be willing to put yourself out there and open up and be willing to receive. It’s not one person’s ideas, it’s our idea.” This interdependence also allowed us, as co-creators, to rely on each other. We each knew that there were four other people just as invested in the process as we were, and that gave us permission to be vulnerable. 118 Research question 1C, theme 2: Seeking and sharing multiple perspectives. Another way that collaboration was supported was through the seeking and sharing of multiple perspectives. This attitude of seeking unknown knowledge put the team in the role of learners. Learning about a topic from a variety of perspectives resulted in opportunities for innovative thinking (Sawyer, 2017). It was through the bridging of various perspectives, that the solutions the team came up with were formed. This was a result of researching, consulting with experts, and purposefully seeking out resources to fill in knowledge gaps and to ensure that underrepresented views were shared. A key component of the sharing was our digital space where team members were able to share resources, and co-plan lessons. Research question 2A, theme 1: Ongoing opportunities for reflection and feedback. Using the framework provided the team with ongoing opportunities for reflection and feedback. Through conversations about the TOPs in each round of testing, the educators were better able to understand their own pedagogical goals, and better able to articulate the outcomes they wanted for students. A key component of this was the feedback and questioning that the team provided in order to explore the topics more deeply. The team had many opportunities to share previous experiences which contributed to the knowledge of the team, and also served as a time for the team to offer solutions or ideas beyond the two TOPs that were being addressed. Sharon and David shared that much of what they learned was transferable to other aspects of their teaching. Feedback was a natural and necessary part of the process as the team supported each other’s thinking and felt open to offer critical feedback to any idea that arose. Adults, like students, are constructors of their own knowledge. They need experiences that provide support, trial and error, practice, and feedback (Rust, 2009). It was through the ongoing opportunities for reflection and 119 feedback that we developed our understanding of the issues we were tackling, created solutions, implemented them, and then reflected on the process. Research question 2A, theme 2: A relevant and autonomous experience. The team that was engaged in this study experienced a process that was completely driven by the team itself. There were no instructions from administration on the types of topics to be addressed, when the team should meet, etc. It was a completely autonomous experience and the team made all of the decisions together. This type of experience is not typical for many educational settings. But, this autonomy created an experience that was especially relevant to teachers lives because it was directly related to the problems that the teachers on the team were facing. The work that we were engaged in was directly applicable to our context and because of this we felt that it was a worthwhile endeavor. Research question 2B, theme 1: New learning experiences supporting deep thinking and cultural connections. The team agreed that there was a positive impact on learning that was primarily accomplished through engaging students in activities that supported deep thinking and Hawaiian cultural connections. The students struggled to learn the sketchnoting strategy that was taught in round one primarily because it required them to think deeply about the content. In the second round of testing, Carol provided new experiences for students that required them to go beyond a traditional math lesson of following a procedure. The students were given open-ended tasks and asked to work collaboratively to accomplish them. Carol realized that the tasks required deep thinking, but that the students were not prepared to engage in them because open- ended tasks had not previously been a part of their math learning. The cultural connections in both rounds of testing served as ways to make the content and learning relevant to students. Rebecca shared that fractions can be hard to learn, but that the 120 cultural activity made the fractions come alive for the students, bringing it into the real world in a relevant way. In the first round of testing, the skill of sketchnoting was connected to Hawaiian culture practices that illustrate the visual ways in which native Hawaiians show their thinking. During both rounds of testing, the cultural component seemed to make the learning more relevant and meaningful for the students. These themes answer the inquiry into the way that the developing framework was able to support teacher creativity and collaboration, as well as an assessment of the impact that involvement in The i5 Framework V1 and V2 had on teacher practice and student learning. These results provide insight into the practices that the team felt were important, and the actions that the team took throughout the study as they were designing and testing the framework. Conclusions The results described in chapter 4 and summarized in the previous section provide evidence for the following conclusions: 1) Effective teacher collaboration requires autonomy, is grounded in mindset, and provides meaningful professional development experiences; 2) Collaborative creativity enables innovative change. I discuss each of these below. Effective teacher collaboration requires autonomy, is grounded in mindset, and provides meaningful professional development experiences. Adult learning experiences that have been described as meaningful for teachers are characterized as autonomous, active, engaging, and relevant (Hill et al., 2013). The i5 Framework for Education provides a structure to organize a collaborative experience so that educators make their own decisions about what kinds of issues they’d like to explore and solve in their own contexts. The process is focused on addressing a topic of practice (TOP). The TOP is selected by the team, and therefore it is relevant to teachers’ classrooms and directly impacts teaching and learning. As the participants 121 in this study engaged in the development and use of The i5 Framework, there was an inherent flexibility in the framework itself so that the team could move through the stages of the process as needed in order to fully explore the TOP. The team had control of all decisions including the topic to be addressed, the timeline to be followed, the avenues of thinking to explore, and the design and implementation of the solution. In addition to the autonomy of the experience, the success of the team’s collaboration was reliant on the mindsets that the team developed and agreed to hold through the duration of the use of the framework. In Carol’s final interview she said, “I think collaboration is not just planning together it’s struggling together, celebrating together, and learning from one another.” The characteristics of the social environment greatly impacted the outcome of the team’s work. Trust is the foundation “for the kind of collaboration that allows the development of true sharing, openly negotiated conflict, and long term relationships even when uncertainties and risks are present (Etelapelto & Lahti, 2008, p. 228). Trust played an essential role for the team as we were able to share, critique, create, and reflect together without fear of judgement. In order for teachers to understand and recognize the potential of effective collaboration, they must be able to identify the elements that make collaboration successful. This team of teachers had a positive attitude and willingness to communicate, a supportive atmosphere, diversity in multiple areas, flexibility, autonomy, proactive approaches, and distributed leadership with open and honest communication (Vangrieken et al., 2015). These elements were directly reflected in the mindsets that the team developed and proved to be essential to the entire process. Every participant articulated their belief, during the design process and in their individual interviews at the end of the study, in the importance of the mindsets as being the key component that made the use of The i5 Framework v1 and v2 successful. Educators and scholars recognize the potentially 122 positive impact that professional development can have on teacher practice and students learning. To maximize teacher learning it should be inquiry oriented, collaborative and relevant (Hill et al., 2013). This study provides evidence that these characteristics hold up in context. The i5 Framework for Education involved teachers in active, inquiry based experiences centered on students and relevant to practice. Collaborative creativity enables innovative change. The collaborative creativity that emerged during the research process not only resulted in The i5 Framework for Education, but also resulted in two solutions that helped teachers address issues in their classrooms. The collaborative creativity resulted in what Sawyer and DeZutter (2009) term, collaborative emergence. The acts, ideas, and dynamics of the team led to collective creative solutions. It was through the improvisational and unpredictable acts of the collaborative work that the team creatively solved the issues at hand. This improvisational quality is an essential component of creative teams. According to Sawyer, the secret to breakthrough creativity is collaboration. In an improvisational environment the members of a team spark ideas in each other, with many ideas emerging and then merging over time (Sawyer, 2017). Sawyer studied the collaborative improvisation of musicians and actors, and applied these ideas to the work of educators. Collaboration, when structured as a natural part of teaching, can support teachers in the issues they face daily in their classrooms. This is in opposition to the isolationist tendencies of the teaching profession (Kuntz, et, al., 2013). It is easy to ask teachers to be innovative. It is a challenge to support them in that task. Research has shown that teachers often rely on the types of teaching and learning experiences that they themselves have had. When they are asked to move beyond there sphere of comfort, they often continue to rely on learning experiences that they know will work (Beghetto, 2007). It 123 is through dialogic interaction that new conceptions are collectively constructed (Etelapelto & Lahti, 2008). The participants in this study were engaged in a process of co-construction where novel ideas were produced. In this situation, as occurs in rich teamwork, the group members were focused, listened carefully, were reflective about their own opinions, and built on their own and other’s ideas (Etelapelto & Lahti, 2008). Teachers are creative designers. They are tasked with creating experiences that engage and inspire learners. This comes with many challenges, but when approached in a collaborative fashion, through processes that support collaborative creativity, teachers can understand and implement new teaching and learning experiences. Implications This study provided 5 teachers with an experience that was ultimately one that empowered them to identify and solve topics related to their practice. This was possible because a team of teachers gathered together and created an environment of collaboration and creativity in order to design new learning experiences for students. I chose to put aside the traditional role of coach, and provided teachers with an opportunity to approach teaching the way that professionals in other fields do who are expected be a part of creative teams, solving problems and designing solutions together. This research, therefore, has implications for the relationship between teachers and instructional coaches. In a typical relationship, a teacher is guided by the coach through reflections on practice and goals for improvement. Coaches support teachers with a variety of issues including classroom management, content, instruction, and assessment. Coaching often involves a clearly articulated goal and the suggestion of evidence based practices to support teacher growth (Knight & van Nieuwerburgh, 2012). In this study the teachers and coaches came together as colleagues focused on the goal of collectively addressing the TOPs in each round of testing. Throughout the process the relationship between teachers and coaches was 124 equal co-collaborator. No one was defined by their job title and all were invested in designing solutions to improve student learning. Many coach/teacher relationships focus on the coach supporting a teacher in their own self-awareness or self-directed learning (Knight & Van Nieuwerburgh, 2012). The experiences in this study were atypical, not defined by previous conceptions of the roles of coach and teacher. This is not to diminish the importance of traditional coaching roles, but to suggest that there are other ways we can support education professionals; namely, through creative co-collaboration that moves teachers towards more innovative practices. But, this type of collaborative and creative experience does not need to be led by a coach. It falls on K-12 administrators and leaders to provide opportunities for creative collaboration. Teachers are being tasked by administrators and leaders with transforming their classrooms but the opportunities for professional development and the supports that schools have in place are largely ineffective. Teaching has long been viewed as an isolated and individualistic profession (Glazier et al., 2017). But when teachers feel supported they are more willing to take professional risks (Hunzicker, 2011). K-12 administrators and leaders must recognize the need for teachers to be engaged in professional development experiences that are meaningful. The framework designed in this research, The i5 Framework for Education, can support teachers in collaboration towards the design and implementation of innovative teaching practices. This framework is an example of how learning experiences can be designed for teachers so that they are able to address issues that are meaningful. But, it is just one way that professional development can be made more relevant. K-12 administrators and leaders must reflect on the types of professional development experiences that they provide and strive to create experiences that are more teacher-centered. Adult learners, like children, are motivated by identifying topics 125 and creating solutions related to their practice. When engaged in these types of experiences teachers are more likely to change their practice, and thus potentially positively impact student learning (Desimone, 2009). These types of learning experiences are authentic, integrated, collaborative, active, involve coaching and mentoring, focused on student learning, and occur best when teachers are able to share problems, viewpoints, ideas, and work together towards solutions (Hunzicker, 2011; Mertler, 2013). Understanding what makes professional development successful may be the key to understanding the success or failure of educational change because it has been recognized as a central component to improve teaching and learning (Desimone, 2009; King, 2014). K-12 administrators must also attend to the way that collaboration is supported in schools. Teacher teams are becoming increasingly common in schools but administrators must review the types of experiences that these teams are involved in. The problems that face teachers in the 21st century are complex. They are beyond the scope of individual teachers to solve. Teams of teachers have the potential to be “more responsive to the changing environment” than a teacher working alone (Sawyer, 2006, p. 43). In many schools, teacher teams have become a popular strategy to help alleviate the isolation that is often a part of the profession. But it is essential that teacher teams are able to manage themselves through “an improvisational and emergent process” allowing them to engage in active discourse with a focus on problem finding and problem solving (Scribner et al., 2007, p. 74). Teacher teams need to be given autonomy to address issues that are relevant to their daily practice, to inquire into issues of their choosing, and the time to design solutions. Educational leaders need to treat teachers like the professionals they are, able to solve complex problems and able to contribute to the shared body of knowledge of their profession through inquiry and design. The i5 Framework for Education provides a 126 structure that can help make some of these characteristics of effective collaboration a reality. When used by teams in schools, The i5 Framework for Education may serve to make collaboration more effective and move teachers towards more innovative pedagogical practices. It is my hope that teachers reading this study will recognize the elements that resonated with the participants and seek opportunities to engage in these types of experiences in their own settings. The teacher participants in this study found the process to be relevant and impactful because it was one in which they collaborated effectively with others to solve issues they were facing in their practice. This experience was a shift away from the typical experience of teachers who may often feel isolated from their peers. For many teachers, the opportunity to participate in these types of experiences is not provided by administrators. Teachers must create these experiences for themselves, especially if the professional development being required of them is seen as irrelevant. Teachers can do this by using The i5 Framework and initiating their own explorations, with colleagues, into topics relevant to their practice. This study also has implications for teacher education. As teacher educators think about the types of experiences that will prepare aspiring educators for the world of teaching and learning, attention must be paid to the ways that we engage these individuals in collaborative and creative experiences that help them think differently about what it means to be a teacher and a student. Creativity is often denied teachers when they are asked to teach scripted curricula or discouraged from taking risks and trying new things (Kuntz et al., 2013). If teachers are able to use creative processes to design learning experiences, we will build the capacity of teachers to lead the direction of the profession by seeing themselves as creative designers. Teacher educators can help teachers understand the varying types of collaboration that occur and support the knowledge that the type of collaboration that will help them work towards innovative practice 127 draws on multiple perspectives, involves critical dialogue, and encourages creative synthesis towards novel solutions. Action research is a rigorous and valid process that allows educators and researchers to identify and solve problems of practice. Researchers across the field of education need to recognize the profound impact that can rise out of action research methods on classrooms, schools, and the field of education. Action research provides an opportunity for teachers to address practice related topics while sharing their knowledge with the field, thus moving the profession forward. Research is done in the field of education in order to help improve teaching and learning. If the field does not empower teachers to do this very research, then we are missing an opportunity to ground our theories in context, in the real world of teaching and learning. Action research supports intense reflection on practice, and puts a tool for self-guided professional development into the hands of teachers. It is a methodology that is authentic for teachers, as teachers can see themselves in the real world contexts that are the foundation of action research. Action research is a critical and self-critical process that helps teachers improve their practice and the field when their research is shared beyond the walls of their classrooms. If action research is a component of teacher education, then we are providing teachers with a tool to guide their own and others learning. And if action research is seen as a rigorous, valid, and essential aspect of the broader field of educational research then we are giving teachers a voice in that arena, and we are bridging the gap between theory and practice. Recommendations for Future Research This study used action research in order to directly impact teacher practice. This study provides an example that shows that when teachers are given autonomy within a structure, they are able to collaborate effectively in order to bring about change in practice. The framework 128 shared in this study is the result of a process of design and testing. It is just a beginning. For those that see potential in The i5 Framework for Education there is an opportunity to use it in other settings, to discover elements that may be lacking, and to provide more information on the way that it can help improve collaboration in schools. To this end, future research that involves The i5 Framework for Education, should be based in context and used with educators in their own settings addressing topics of practice that are meaningful to them. There is also much research to be done on the potential impact of distributed creativity in the field of education. The study has merely scratched the surface. Limitations This study has several limitations. My familiarity with the researchers may have led to an experience in which they were more than willing to find positive elements in the process. This was mitigated by the mindsets that the team developed in that there was honest and open discussion about any element of the research process. I have tried to mitigate this by including extended examples of direct quoting from the data to accompany my interpretations. An additional limitation is the unique context of the school, an institution that gave the team the freedom to create and implement the framework, and a school that expects teachers to take pedagogical risks, which is the exception and not the norm in the current educational climate. A delimitation of this study is that I used a sample of teachers who were willing to participate and devote time to the process. This greatly limited the sample, but it was necessary in order to carry out the study. Summary Research has shown that much of the collaborative experiences as well as professional development experiences that teachers are involved in are perceived as ineffective. Through the 129 course of this research, the participants discovered that a framework they had designed served to create an atmosphere where collaboration could be more effective and where a team of teachers could address issues that were directly related to teachers’ classrooms, and thus meaningful and relevant to the participating teachers. This research sought to create an autonomous experience for teachers and instructional coaches, so that they were engaged in a process that supported their creativity and impacted student learning as they fulfilled their crucial responsibility of creating new and innovative learning experiences for students. The i5 Framework for Education is the outcome of this work. It is a set of mindsets and methods that can be used by teams of educators to support change in practice through relevant inquiry and collaborative creativity. 130 APPENDICES 131 Appendix A - Semi-Structured Group Interview Questions Open Ended “Warm-up” Questions 1. How has this week been going in your classrooms? How is everyone feeling right now? 2. What are some of the issues or challenges you are facing? 3. What is something that you would like to recognize or celebrate? Questions About the Model 1. What are some general thoughts about how this round of using the model went? 2. In what ways did this iteration of the model support teacher creativity? 3. In what ways did this iteration of the model support teacher collaboration? 4. How effective was our use of the model in supporting student learning? 5. Which areas of the model do you feel could be improved? 132 Appendix B - Semi-Structured Individual Interview Questions Open Ended “Warm-up” Questions 1. Please tell me a little bit about you and your teaching experience. 2. What do you currently teach? 3. What inspired you to become a teacher? 4. How would you define creativity? 5. How would you define collaboration? Questions About the Model and its Impact 1. Describe the role that you think creativity plays in education for teachers and for 2. Describe the role that you think collaboration plays in education for teachers and for students. students. 3. Please describe the most recent iteration of the model in your own words. (Probing questions: What was the goal? What happened in each phase? What was the outcome?) 4. How effectively did the model support teacher creativity? 5. How effectively did the model support teacher collaboration? 6. What impact did the use of the model have on student learning? Do you have any samples of student learning that you can share? 7. Do you feel the model could be useful for other educators at this school or educators in 8. What other thoughts, opinions, or ideas about the model or process would you like to other settings? Why? share? 133 Appendix C - Recruitment Letter Date Dear __________, I am writing to ask for your participation in a research process at our school that will involve a team of 5-7 teachers and instructional coaches working together to develop a model (or process) to help support teacher creativity and collaboration. As you know, our school is asking teachers to be creative and innovative by designing new types of learning experiences for students. This study aims to support that initiative by providing teams of educators with a model that will guide them through a collaborative process to research, create, and implement new pedagogical strategies. The research team will develop this process and it is my hope that this will be a useful resource for educators at our school and beyond. Participation in this study is voluntary and you may decline to participate at any time. If you decide to participate and then change your mind you may withdraw at any time. The data that is collected throughout the study will only be viewable by myself. All participants will be anonymous in the final sharing and write up of the research as well as in the transcriptions of any audio recordings and interviews. Pseudonyms will be used and all names will be removed from any original data sources. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me, Carmen Richardson, at richa896@msu.edu, or Leigh Wolf, my PhD Dissertation Committee Chair, gravesle@msu.edu. I look forward to your reply. If you agree to participate in this study, please sign below and return this letter to me. I will keep the original and make a copy for you to keep for your records. Your participation will entail: · design of the model as well as two cycles of testing and re-design. · and test the model. These meetings will be audio recorded. · be audio recorded. · interview will be audio recorded. Sincerely, Carmen Richardson I agree to participate in this research study and understand that I can withdraw my participation at any time. Signature:_________________________________________ Date:_______________________________ Participating in an individual interview with myself to reflect on the use and impact of the model. This Working with a small team of 5-7 educators to develop and test the model This will include an initial Participating in approximately 12 meetings with the team between November 2017 and May 2018 to design Participating in two group interviews with the team to reflect on the use of the model. These interviews will 134 Appendix D - Model for Supporting Creativity and Collaboration in Education The first phase involved an assessment of the current reality ranging from classroom practice to system wide initiatives. Other essential elements include setting clear goals, a time for research, a time for creative collaboration, active brainstorming, and collaborative design, as well as a time to reflect on the process and share the work out with others (Desimone, 2009). The process strives to be authentic, integrated, collaborative, and active, while providing teachers with opportunities to share problems, viewpoints, ideas, and to work together towards solutions (Hunzicker, 2011). Each of the phases of the model is described below. Initiate. In the initiate phase there are two primary purposes: to assess the current classroom, school, and system reality; and to identify the goals of the process. In many ways the meeting environment will seek to meet some of the elements of successful learning environments that support creativity. This includes an atmosphere of respect and care, opportunities for idea ideation and incubation, an open ended design task, and access to a variety of resources (Richardson & Mishra, 2017). Collaborative groups are characterized by a group of practitioners who have a shared mission, values, and goals (Mertler, 2013) and so this first phase emphasizes the importance of establishing a goal that all members of the team believe is important. There is also time spent in this first phase to define the features of the group dynamic that will allow for the focus on creativity to become a reality. This includes: a place for collective inquiry where the team feels safe to take risks and share without judgement; a cooperative spirit with an openness and willingness to share; comfort with disagreement, conflict, and a high level of interdependence; a focus on student learning; and a search for innovation in practice (Vangrieken et al., 2015). Adult learners are motivated by addressing problems and creating solutions that are relevant to their classrooms and the issues that they face. This is a time for open discussion about practice with a focus on sharing problems and ideas (Hunzicker, 2011). Inquire. In this phase the primary goal is to conduct any research that needs to be done in order to gather information on topics related to the goals of the group. Hill and colleagues (2013) identified the following elements that maximize teacher learning: a strong content focus, inquiry oriented learning approaches, and collaborative participation. Each member of the team will offer ideas on how to approach the topic and other related topics. Illuminate. In this phase group members share the information they have gathered. There is an embracing of ideas and knowledge as the team strives to understand the issue from multiple perspectives including those of their colleagues, their students, and others. Innovate. The focus during this third phase is on creating possible solutions to the problem. An essential component of this phase is a focus on creative synthesis, on the merging of conflicting ideas. As a whole the model supports risk-taking and the sharing of ideas, passions, and opinions (Bramwell et al., 2011). Critical collaboration involves independent thinking, discussions of alternatives and different perspectives. There is productive disequilibrium, an openness to ideas and willingness to reflect on weak practices, empathic understanding and comfort with ambiguity and uncertainty (Glazier et al., 2017). Diverse ideas are heard and built upon, integrated. Breakthrough creativity often occurs through an integration of diverse ideas and 135 perspectives (Harvey, 2014). When emphasis is placed on forming connections between ideas there are opportunities for new thinking and new experiences, and new ideas are formed. Influence. Finally, the process ends with a period of testing and reflection in which the team members try out their solution in context and then reflect on the influence it had on themselves and their students, as well as the potential influence it would have on other educators. In this phase there may be opportunities for a variety of support including co-teaching, modeling, etc. The goal is to help teachers focus the efforts of their innovative solution and for the team to support that as much as possible. 136 Appendix E - The i5 Framework v1 The i5 Framework v1 The framework consists of five stages, described below. FIRST STAGE: Initiate Primary Goal - Identify the problem or focus for the team (Topic of Practice or TOP) During this stage the following should take place: ● The group will come together as colleagues and educators, letting go of the idea that you are only your role, but instead with the belief that we are all educators, able to empathize with others, and view this issue from multiple perspectives. All equal voices to support vulnerability. ● The focus, or common goal that the team will work on is explored and defined, and a common understanding is ensured. ● The team understands that our goal as collaborators is to exchange information, alter activities, share resources, in a combined effort to learn from each other, integrate our perspectives and ideas, and to help address the common topic or issue. In so doing the team will ensure that there are high levels of trust, shared values, and an environment where the team can engage in co-construction and co-creation. ● The team ensures that everyone agrees to the following norms: ○ Expect to collaborate ○ Believe in the work that the team is doing ○ Focus on learning ○ Embrace flexible roles and multiple perspectives ○ Welcome states of uncertainty and vulnerability ○ Stay focused on the topic ● Interviews/observations of the various stakeholders may take place. SECOND STAGE: Research and Learn Primary goal – Gather information about the topic from multiple sources. During this stage the following should take place: ● The team decides together the methods used or avenues that the research will take place based on the topic of practice. ● Methods employed to learn more about the topic of practice may include: School visits, observations, identify and interview experts/high level mentors, professional development, traditional research ● After methods are decided, the team will identify supports in learning/research that are needed at this point in the process. ● The team then engages in conducting research. ● Create a common digital space to share resources THIRD STAGE: Innovate Primary goal - Brainstorm multiple solutions with a focus on creativity and innovation During this stage the following should take place: ● A structure(s) or protocol(s) should be used to push thinking forward. ● Emphasis on ideation, innovation, new ideas, 137 ● Focus is on addressing the common goal/issue ● Non-judgement of ideas FOURTH STAGE: Plan and Implement Primary goal – To plan a solution that addresses the topic of interest During this stage the following should take place: ● Plan is developed ● Data to be collected is identified so that there is evidence to share and analyze ● Artifacts are collected as applicable ● The plan is put into practice FIFTH STAGE: Reflect Primary goal – Reflect on the process and develop next stages During this stage the following should take place: ● The topic, process and outcome is shared ● The impact of the solution is analyzed Suggestions: Use a facilitator detached from the TOP 138 Appendix F - The i5 Framework v2 The i5 Framework v2 Method 1: Identify The primary goal of this stage is to identify the topic of practice that the team will be collaborating around. The objectives of this stage are: ● The focus, or common goal that the team will work on is explored and defined, and a common understanding is ensured ○ Interviews/observations of the various stakeholders may take place. ● The team agrees to a common definition of collaboration ● The team ensures that everyone agrees to the following norms: ○ Expect to collaborate ○ Believe in the work ○ Focus on learning ○ Embrace flexibility ○ Welcome uncertainty Before moving on to method 2, the team should have spent time discussing and exploring the topic to ensure everyone has a common understanding of it. Method 2: Research and Learn The primary goal of this stage is to gather information about the TOP. The objectives in this stage are: ● Multiple methods for gathering information are used ● Multiple perspectives and viewpoints on the topic are researched. ● After methods are decided, the team will identify supports in learning/research that are needed at this point in the process. ● The team then engages in conducting research. ● A shared digital space is created for sharing learning At the end of stage 2 it may be necessary to return to stage 1 and redefine the TOP, as once more has been learned about it, it may need to be defined differently. Or, may be defined in more detail and better understood. Method 3: Innovate Primary goal - Brainstorm multiple solutions with a focus on creativity and innovation During this stage the following should take place: ● Individual ideas should be brought to a group brainstorming session (face-to-face) ● Emphasis on ideation, innovation, new ideas, ● During the group brainstorming the following should be followed: ○ Refrain from evaluation and judgement ○ Aim for wild ideas ○ Look for combinations of ideas ○ Build on other’s ideas 139 ○ Be visual ● Intentionally merge ideas to consider possible solutions Stages 2 and 3 are related in that it will be natural for the team to begin to think of ideas as research is conducted on the TOP. Those ideas should be recorded and shared at the face-to-face brainstorming session in stage 3. Method 4: Plan and Implement The primary goal of this method is to plan a solution that addresses the TOP. The objectives in this stage are: ● Develop a plan ● Decide on which, if any, data and artifacts will be collected ● Implement the plan Method 5: Reflect The primary goal during this stage is to reflect on the process consider the impact on teachers and students. The objectives in this stage are: ● Analyze the impact of the solution ● Share the process and outcome 140 Appendix G - The i5 Framework for Education 141 142 143 144 145 146 REFERENCES 147 REFERENCES Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: a decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25. Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–38. Beghetto, R. A. (2007). Does creativity have a place in classroom discussions? Prospective teachers’ response preferences. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2006.09.002 Bramwell, G., Reilly, R. C., Lilly, F. R., Kronish, N., & Chennabathni, R. (2011). Creative teachers. Roeper Review, 33(4), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2011.603111 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178. Buczynski, S., & Hansen, C. B. (2010). Impact of professional development on teacher practice: Uncovering connections. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 599–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.09.006 Carlgren, I. (1999). Professionalism and teachers as designers. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/002202799183287 Connor, C. M. (2017). Commentary on the special issue on instructional coaching models: common elements of effective coaching models. Theory into Practice. 56(1). Craft, A. (2006). Fostering creativity with wisdom. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(3), 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640600865835 Craft, A. (2001). An analysis of research and literature on creativity in education. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 1–37. Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline versus design science. Design issues, 17(3), 49-55. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., DiSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13. 148 Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_2 Couros, G. (2015). The innovator’s mindset: empower learning, unleash talent, and lead a culture of creativity. San Diego, CA: Dave Burgess Consulting. Cullingford, C. (2007). Creativity and pupils’ experience of school. Education 3-13, 35(2), 133– 142. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004270701311960 Das, S. (2012). On two metaphors for pedagogy and creativity in the digital era: liquid and solid learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49(2), 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012.677594 Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140 Eckhoff, A. (2011). Creativity in the early childhood classroom: perspectives of preservice teachers. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32(3), 240–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2011.594486 Esquivel, G. B. (1995). Teacher behaviors that foster creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 7(2), 185–202. Eteläpelto, A., & Lahti, J. (2008). The resources and obstacles of creative collaboration in a long-term learning community. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(3), 226–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2008.09.003 Farrell, T. S. C. (2012). Reflecting on reflective practice: (re)visiting Dewey and Schön. TESOL Journal, 3(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.10 Gallucci, C., Van Lare, M. D., Yoon, I. H., & Boatright, B. (2010). Instructional coaching: building theory about the role and organizational support for professional learning. American Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 919–963. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210371497 Glazier, J. A., Boyd, A., Bell Hughes, K., Able, H., & Mallous, R. (2017). The elusive search for teacher collaboration. The New Educator, 13(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.2016.1144841 Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers. Boston, MA. Pearson. Go, J. C. (2012). Teaching as goal-less and reflective design: a conversation with Herbert A. Simon and Donald Schön. Teachers and Teaching, 18(5), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2012.709728 149 Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in dissertation research: creating the blueprint for your “house.” Administrative Issues Journal Education Practice and Research. https://doi.org/10.5929/2014.4.2.9 Harvey, S. (2014). Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 324–343. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0224 Henriksen, D., & Mishra, P., (2016). Between structure and improvisation: a conversation on creativity as a social and collaborative behavior with Dr. Keith Sawyer. Tech Trends (61)1. Henriksen, D. (2016). The seven transdisciplinary habits of mind of creative teachers: an exploratory study of award winning teachers. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 212-232. DOI: 10.1016/j.tsc.2016.10.007 Henriksen, D., Mishra, P., & Mehta, R. (2015). Novel, effective, whole: toward a NEW framework for evaluations of creative products. Journal of Technology & Teacher Education, (23)3. pp. 455-478 Henriksen, D. & Richardson, C. (2017). Teachers are designers: addressing problems of practice in education. Phi Delta Kappan. 99(2). (pp. 61-64). Herring, M. C., Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Rosenberg, J. M., & Teske, J. (2016). Introduction to the second edition of the TPACK handbook. In M.C. Herring, M.J. Koehler, and P. Mishra (Eds.), Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for Educators (2nd Edition, pp. 1-8). New York: Routledge. Hill, H. C., Beisiegel, M., & Jacob, R. (2013). Professional development research: Consensus, crossroads, and challenges. Educational Researcher, 42(9), 476–487. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13512674 Himmelman, A. T. (2002). Collaboration for a change: definitions, decision making models, roles, and collaboration process guide. Himmelman Consulting, Minneapolis, MN. Hultén, M., & Björkholm, E. (2016). Epistemic habits: primary school teachers’ development of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) in a design-based research project. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(3), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9320-5 Hunzicker, J. (2011). Effective professional development for teachers: a checklist. Professional Development in Education, 37(2), 177–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2010.523955 James P. (1999). Rewriting narratives of self: reflections from an action research study. Educational Action Research, 7:1, 85-103, DOI: 10.1080/09650799900200078 150 Jeffrey, B., & Craft, A. (2004). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: distinctions and relationships. Educational Studies, 30(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305569032000159750 Kemmis, S. (2009). Action research as a practice-based practice. Educational Action Research, 17(3), 463–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790903093284 Kim, K. H. (2011). The creativity crisis: the decrease in creative thinking scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23(4), 285–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.627805 King, F. (2014). Evaluating the impact of teacher professional development: an evidence-based framework. Professional Development in Education, 40(1), 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2013.823099 Knight, J. (2018). The impact cycle: What instructional coaches should do to foster powerful improvement in teaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Knight, J., & van Nieuwerburgh, C. (2012). Instructional coaching: a focus on practice. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 5(2), 100–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2012.707668 Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, A. B., & Runco, A. M. (2010). Theories of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds). The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (pp. 447-459). New York: Cambridge University Press. Kuntz, A. M., Presnall, M. M., Priola, M., Tilford, A., & Ward, R. (2013). Creative pedagogies and collaboration: an action research project. Educational Action Research, 21(1), 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2013.761925 Kurz, A., Reddy, L. A., & Glover, T. A. (2017). A multidisciplinary framework of instructional coaching. Theory Into Practice, 56(1), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1260404 Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: the many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5–12. Lord, B. (1994). Teachers' professional development: critical colleagueship and the role of professional communities. In The Future of Education: Perspectives on National Standards in America, edited by N. Cobb, 175–204. New York: College Entrance Examination Board. Majgaard, G., Misfeldt, M., & Nielsen, J. (2011). How design-based research and action research contribute to the development of a new design for learning. Designs for Learning, 4(2), 8. https://doi.org/10.16993/dfl.38 151 Maxwell, J., A. (2012). Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, Mertler, C. A., (2009). Action research: teachers as researchers in the classroom. Thousand CA: SAGE Publications. Oaks, CA: SAGE. Mertler, C. A., (2013). Action research: improving schools and empowering educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A., M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Mishra, P., Henriksen, D., & the Deep Play Research Group. (2013). Rethinking technology & creativity in the 21st century. TechTrends, 57(3), 11. Norton, P., & Hathaway, D. (2015). In search of a teacher education curriculum: appropriating a design lens to solve problems of practice. Educational Technology, 55(6), 3-14. Peterson, R. E., & Harrison III, H. L. (2005). The created environment: an assessment tool for technology education teachers: creativity doesn’t just happen by chance; the prepared environment nourishes it. The Technology Teacher, 64(6), 7–11. Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: the many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5–12. Plattner, H. (2015). Bootcamp bootleg. Institute of Design at Stanford. https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources/the-bootcampbootleg Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1 Plucker, J. A. & Makel, M. C. (2010). Assessment of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman, J. C. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds). The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (pp.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Prawat, R. S., (1996). Constructivisms, modern and postmodern. Educational Psychologist. 31(3). (pp. 215-225). Rawson, C., & Hughes-Hassell, S. (2015). Research by design: the promise of design-based research for school library research. School Libraries Worldwide. 21(2), (pp. 11-25). Reason, C. (2009). Leading a learning organization: the science of working with others. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. 152 Richardson, C. and Mishra, P. (2017). Learning environments that support student creativity: developing the SCALE. Thinking Skills and Creativity. Manuscript under review. Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan. 42(7), (pp. 305-310). Robinson, K. (2007). Do schools kill creativity? [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity?language=en Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds. West Sussex, United Kingdom: Capstone Publishing. Robinson, K. (2015). Creative schools. New York: Penguin. Rozovsky, J. (2015). The five keys to a successful Google team. Retrieved from: https://rework.withgoogle.com/blog/five-keys-to-a-successful-google-team/ Runco, M. A. (2003). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 317–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830308598 Runco, M. A, Albert, R. S. (2010). Creativity research: a historical view. In J. C. Kaufman, J. C. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds). The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (pp. 3-19). New York: Cambridge University Press. Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092 Rust, F. O. (2009). Teacher research and the problem of practice, 12. Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research. ASCD. Alexandria, Virginia. Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Educating for innovation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2005.08.001 Sawyer, R. K. (2011). A call to action: The challenges of creative teaching and learning. Teachers College Record. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/DefaultFiles/SendFileToPublic.asp?ft=pdf&FilePath=c:%5CWeb Sites%5Cwww_tcrecord_org_documents%5C38_18082.pdf&fid=38_18082&aid=2&RID =18082&pf=Content.asp?ContentID=18082 Sawyer, R. K. & DeZutter, S. (2009). Distributed creativity: how collective creations emerge from collaboration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 3(2). (pp. 81-92) Sawyer, R. K. (2015). How to transform schools to foster creativity. Teachers College Record, 118(4). Retrieved from https://www.unc.edu/home/rksawyer/PDFs/TCR.pdf Sawyer, R. K. (2017). Group Genius. Basic Books: New York. 153 Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action (Vol. 5126). New York, NY: Basic books. Schunk, D. H. (2011). Learning theories: an educational perspective (6th Edition) (pp. 117-162). Boston, MA: Addison Wesley. Scribner, J. P., Sawyer, R. K., Watson, S. T., & Myers, V. L. (2007). Teacher teams and distributed leadership: a study of group discourse and collaboration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 67–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X06293631 Seidman, I. (2006) Interviewing as qualitative research: a guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. Columbia, NY. Teachers College Press. Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Socol, I., Moran, P., Ratliff, C. (2018). Timeless learning: how imagination, observation, and zero-based thinking change schools. Wiley Brand. San Francisco, CA. Ulvik, M., Riese, H., & Roness, D. (2018). Action research – connecting practice and theory. Educational Action Research, 26(2), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2017.1323657 Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: a systematic review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.002 Vangrieken, K., Meredith, C., Packer, T., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher communities as a context for professional development: a systematic review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.10.001 Wagner, T. (2010). The global achievement gap: why even our best schools don't teach the new survival skills our children need--and what we can do about it. New York: Basic Books. Waks, L. J. (2001). Donald Schon’s philosophy of design and design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(1), 37–51. Warner, S. A., & Myers, K. L. (2009). The creative classroom: the role of space and place toward facilitating creativity. Technology Teacher, 69(4), 28–34. Willig, C. (2014). Discourse analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed). Qualitative Psychology, A Practical Guide to Research Methods (pp. 160-185). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Woulfin, S. L. & Rigby, J. G (2017). Coaching for coherence: how instructional coaches lead change in the evaluation era. Educational Researcher. 46 (6). (pp. 323-328). 154 Yardley, L. (2014). Demonstrating validity in qualitative psychology. In J. A. Smith (Ed). Qualitative Psychology, A Practical Guide to Research Methods (pp. 235-251). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Yin, R. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York: Guilford Publications. 155