PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR QUALITY INTELLECTUA L WORK: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT RELATED TO AUTHENTIC INSTRUCTION AND STUDENT COGNITIVE ENGAGEMENT By Tara M. Kintz A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial f ulfillment of the requirements for the d egree of Educational Policy -- Doctor of Philosophy 2015 ii ABSTRACT PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR QUALITY INTELLECTUAL WORK: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT REL ATED TO AUTHENTIC INSTRUCTION AND STUDENT COGNITIVE ENGAGEMENT By Tara M. Kintz As educational policy expectations increase the demands for both teachers and students, teachers are challenged to develop instructional practices that promote meaningful quality intellectual work for students. Although various reform efforts target improv ed instructional practices, a greater understanding is needed of the ways in which principal leadership in middle schools support s or hinders the development of teachersÕ instructional practices associated with increased student cognitive engagement. Using a mixed method design, this research examines the dimens ions of principal leadership associated with teachersÕ professional devel opment (PD) and instructional practices . The purpose of this inquiry is to better understand the type of interventions an d organizational conditions through which school principals can best support instructional improvement and student cognitive engagement in the classroom. Using interview, survey, and observation data of teachers and administrators at two middle schools, this study examines teachersÕ learning in the Authentic Intellectual Work PD initiative. The findings indicate that teachers demonstrated different levels of enactment of AIW instructio nal practices in the classroom, although t he level s of student cognitive en gagement among teachers were not clearly distinguishable in this study . Furthermore , high and low -level teachers, as measured by classroom observation of AIW instruction, held different conceptions of student engagement. In the next part of the study , thre e dimensions of principal leadership influenced teachersÕ PD iii experiences and the development of their instructional practice: PD coherence; cultivation of shared goals, collaboration , and teacher input; and promotion of a growth mindset. In addition, the greater degree of alignment between teachersÕ knowledge, values, and beliefs and AIW objectives, the more likely they were to demonstrate higher levels of AIW instructional practice. The findings provide insight into ways in which principals can enhance learning for both teachers and students through a comprehensive approach to instructional improvement . Implications from this study suggest that the principal is a critical agent in such a comprehensive approach. The principal has the potential to cultivat e organizational conditions conducive to teacher and student learning. Specifically, the principal can orchestrate professional development to promote the teachersÕ complex understandings of engagement, alignment with the objectives of ambitious reform, an d enhanced instructional practices. The principal is also responsible for providing structures of support and resources to foster the teacher professional community, which can serve as a conduit for teacher learning. In turn, a nuanced and in -depth underst anding of the ways principal leadership is enacted in different school contexts is critical for policy makers, researchers, administrators, and educators who seek to promote ambitious instruction and student learning that fosters quality intellectual work for students. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I appreciate the generous contributions of the administration, staff, teachers, and students of Birch and Cedar Middle School to this research. In addition, I am forever indebted to numerous others who contributed to my wo rk and this dissertation. I would like to thank Andrew and Zachary Lane for their help in piloting the student survey used in this study, and to John Lane for his work on coding. I also extend my appreciation to Carly Eichner for her tireless work with dat a entry and interview transcription, as well as her care to details both great and small. I would like to thank Mathew Fuhrman and Jihyun Kim for their support with the statistical analysis. My gratitude goes to Dr. Mary Kennedy for her thoughtful insight on teaching, which helped to shape my thinking. I am grateful for the faculty at Michigan State University, my fellow classmates, my family members, and friends who have contributed to me over the years. In addition, I extend a sincere thank you to my dis sertation co -directors Ñ Dr. Peter Youngs and Dr. Rebecca Jacobsen Ñ for their insightful contributions and commitment to the development of my work. And to the other members of my committee ÑDr. Kristy Cooper, Dr. Michael Sedlak, and Dr. Bruce King Ñfor th eir feedback, continued support, and guidance. They have each contributed greatly to my development and I am fore ver grateful for their insight . Finally, to my loving family, who have been there for me throughout this process. Thank you for the late nigh ts, the early mornings, and all the time in between that you listened, encouraged, and provided wisdom. Tomas and Mateo, you are my greatest inspiration. Thank you for the generosity you have all shown me in this experience. v To my mother, Mahri Carolyn Kintz, for her cons tant love, insight, and support. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ix!LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................x!CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1!Background ................................................................................................................................4! A Challenge for Principal Leadership ........................................................................................7 Overview of the Dissertation ......................................................................................................9!CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................11!Student Engagement ................................................................................................................11 Teacher s' Conceptions of Engagement ........................................................................14 Authentic Instr uction ...............................................................................................................16 Features of Pr ofessional Development ....................................................................................22 Teacher Professional Community ............................................................................................31 Princip al Leadership ................................................................................................................33 Summary and Research Questions ...........................................................................................35 Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................37 Hypotheses ...............................................................................................................................40 Hypothesis 1 .................................................................................................................40 Hypothesi s 2a . ..............................................................................................................41 Hypothesi s 2b ...............................................................................................................43 Hypothesi s 3a ...............................................................................................................44 Hypothesi s 3b ...............................................................................................................46 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHOD .........................................................................................47!Study Context : Authentic Intellectual Work in Iowa Public Schools ......................................47 Sampling Strategy: Site Selection ................................................................................49 Selecting Teachers ..................................................................................................51 Other Participants ....................................................................................................53 Research Design .......................................................................................................................53 Data Collection ........................................................................................................................58 Interviews .....................................................................................................................58 Observations ................................................................................................................59 Surveys .........................................................................................................................60 Data Analysis ...........................................................................................................................62 Interviews .....................................................................................................................62 Observations ................................................................................................................64 Surveys .........................................................................................................................65 Student Survey ........................................................................................................65 Teacher and Administrator Survey .........................................................................65 Procedures for Triangulating D ata and Establishing Validity .....................................66 Ethical Considerations .................................................................................................68 vii Limitations ...................................................................................................................68 CHAPTER 4: STUDENT COGNITIVE ENGAGEMENT AND AUTHENTIC INSTRUCTION .................................................................................................................69!Student Cognitive Engagement and Authentic Instruction .....................................................69 Levels o f AIW Instructional Practices .........................................................................70 Levels of Student Cogniti ve Engagement ....................................................................73 AIW Instructional Practice and Student Cognitive Engagement .................................74 Teachers' Conceptions of Student Engagement ......................................................................77 Student Engagement as a Priority ................................................................................77 Concepti ons of Student Enga gement ...........................................................................79 Engagement as Activi ty, Excitement, and Interest .....................................................79 Engagement as Thinki ng and Student Understanding ................................................82 How to Cultivate Engage ment as Activity or Interest ................................................85 How to C ultivate Cognitive Engagement ....................................................................87 Teachers' Conception s and Instructional Practices ..................................................................88 Summary .................................................................................................................................89 CHAPTER 5: PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR INSTRUCTIONAL IMPROVEM ENT ..........94 Coherence, Community, and Culture fo r Teacher LearningÉÉÉÉÉÉ ÉÉ....ÉÉÉ....94 Conceptualization of Leadership ................................................................................95 Profes sional Develop ment Coherence ....................................................................................97 PD Cohe rence at Birc h Middle School ........................................................................98 PD Cohe rence at Cedar Middle School .....................................................................100 Leadershi p fo r Instructional Improvement ...............................................................103 Aspects of Te acher Professional Community .......................................................................105 Aspects of Teacher Professional Commu nity at Birch Middle School ....................105 Aspects of Teacher Professional Commu nity at Cedar Middle School ....................110 Leadership fo r Instructional Improvement ...............................................................113 Culture: Ris k Taking and Growth Mindset ...........................................................................114 Growth Min dset at Birch Middle School ..................................................................115 Risk T aking at Cedar Middle School .........................................................................118 Leadership for Instructio nal Improveme nt ...............................................................119 Teachers' Percept ions of Principal Leadership ......................................................................120 Teachers' Divided Percept ions at Birch Middle School ...........................................120 Teachers' Perceptions of Areas for Improve ment at Cedar Middle School ..............128 Summary ...............................................................................................................................131 CHAPTER 6: ALIGNMENT AND REFORM ...........................................................................134!Alignment and Reform ..........................................................................................................134 Teachers' Knowledge, Values, and AIW Instru ction ............................................................134 Survey Analysis .........................................................................................................135 Alignment ..............................................................................................................................138 Further Examples fr om Focal Teacher Survey Data ..................................................148 Teachers' Highest Priorities .......................................................................................149 Teachers' Perceptions of the Influence of AIW PD on In struction ........................................152 Summary ................................................................................................................................157 viii CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION , IMPLICATIONS , AND CONCLUSION ...................................160 Discussion ..............................................................................................................................160 Overview of Findings ............................................................................................................161! AIW Instructional Practices and Student Cognitive Engagement .............................161 Principal Support f or Instructional Improvement ......................................................164 Associations Between Teachers' Knowledge, Values, and Beliefs, and Instructional Practice ................................................................................................169 Theoretical Impl ications ........................................................................................................171 Practical Implications .............................................................................................................173 District Level .............................................................................................................174! School Level ..............................................................................................................175 Professional Development ....................................................................................176! Teacher Professional Community .........................................................................178! Classroom Level ........................................................................................................179! Teachers ................................................................................................................179! Instructional Practice ............................................................................................181! Students .................................................................................................................182!Further Re search ....................................................................................................................183! Conclusion .............................................................................................................................187!APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................189 APPENDIX A: Interview Protocols ......................................................................................190 APPENDIX B: AIW Rubric ..................................................................................................196!APPENDIX C: Teacher Survey .............................................................................................198!APPENDIX D : Student Engagement Survey .......................................................................202 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................205! ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Birch and Cedar Middle School Focal Teachers' Years of Experience, Content Area, and Course Level ÉÉÉÉÉÉ ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ.............................ÉÉ53 Table 2. Data Collection and Analysis SummaryÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ..56 Table 3 . Birch and Cedar Middle School Focal Teachers' AIW Average Scores for Lesson 1 and Lesson 2 and Mean AIW Classroom Observation ScoreÉÉ ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ...ÉÉ71 Table 4. Birch and Cedar Middle S chool Focal Teachers' Ye ars of Experience, Content Area , Course Level, and Mean AIW Classroom Observation ScoreÉ ÉÉÉÉÉ...ÉÉÉ...72 Table 5. Birch and Cedar Middle School Focal Teachers' AIW Mean Student Cognitive Engagement Score for Class 1 and Class 2 and Overall Mean Student Cognitive Engagement Score.ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ 74 Table 6. Birch and Cedar Middle School Focal Teachers' Mean Student Cognitive Engagement Score and Mean AIW Classroom Observation ScoreÉÉ ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ.É..ÉÉ.76 Table 7. Birch and Cedar Middle School Focal Teachers' Conceptions of Student Engagement and AIW Classroom Observation ScoreÉÉÉÉÉ ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ.ÉÉÉÉÉ...89 Table 8. Descriptive Statistics from Birch and Cedar Middle School Teacher Survey ÉÉÉ...136 Table 9. Correlations Among Teacher AIW Knowledge and Values with Teacher Instructional PracticeÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ....137 Table 10. Summary of Linear Regression Analysis f or Teacher Change in PracticeÉ ..ÉÉ..137 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Conceptual Mo del ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ..39 Figure 2. Levels, v ariab les, and research i nstruments ÉÉÉÉÉÉ..ÉÉÉÉÉÉ.................57 Figure 3. TeachersÕ top three priorities during i nstruction at Birch and Cedar Middle School in order of priority from one to t hreeÉ ÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ.ÉÉÉÉÉ78 Figure 4. Frequency of teachersÕ instructional planning and implementation regarding the AIW frameworkÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉ ÉÉÉÉÉÉ...ÉÉÉ.ÉÉ152 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION While there is widespread agreement about the need for educational reform, there is little consensus about how to achieve this goal. Beginning with the early common school movement, schooling held the promise of creating an educated citizenry that would contribute to democratic ideals. However, since that time there has been little consensus on the central educational goals for students and the kinds of changes in schooling re quired to achieve those ends. Furthermore, although numerous educational reforms have called for differen t strategies to achieve ambitious educational outcomes, the work of changing teaching practice and elevating student learning has proven to be a difficult task. Throughout this pursuit, the re have been competing reform initiatives with different aims an d histories to achieve various learning outcomes for students . During this time, there has been some consistent pursuit of quality learning for valuable outcomes for students. For example, some aspects of schooling have prioritized functional citizenry so th at individuals could demonstrate personal responsibility as well as participate in public service and decision making for the benefit of the common good. Other avenues h ave focused on instilling academic competence and still others have emphasized skills so students could be involved in produc tive labor . In this overall portrait of the pursuit of valuable outcomes of schooling, student engagement has had a checkered history. The premise of s tudent engagement has been in the academic literature for more than 80 years, although the conception of engagement has evolved over time and it has received increasingly attention more recently (e.g. Fredericks et al., 2004; Kuh, 2009). Initially, engagement was studied as time on task (Merwin, 1969 ) and behavioral indi cators of student participation; it was also interpreted to mean focused at tention on any activity , with little attention to the quality of the task itself. In the 1970Õs, C. Robert Pace introduced the Òquality of effortÓ concept . PaceÕs study on students Õ college experience found that students gained more from their studies when they invested 2 themselves in tasks with an educational purpose such as: studying, interacting with their peers and teachers, applying what they are learning to concrete situations and tasks, etc. (Pace, 1990). Thus, research emerge d that emphasized engagement toward a valuable end, rather than the mere act of being occupied on engaged in tasks with little meaning or value to the student. Although I recognize students can be engaged in less desirable learning, I focus on cognitively engaging learning experiences that involve rigorous intellectual work on tasks that are relevant and meaningful to students Õ lives. These is the types of learning experiences promote the development of th inking capacities including metacognition and self -regulation to take r esponsibility for learning, they cultivate interpersonal interactions in su bstantive conversation, and they involve problem solving of relevant issues in the community beyond school. Th is focus is not only on the valuable student learning outcomes, but also on the proc ess through which they develop lifelong learning competencies. Student cognitive engagement is a critical educational aim that is essential for a wide range of learning ou tcomes. Currently, student disengagement contributes to a number of negative learning outcomes. Student cognitive engagement in particular is essential to meet the aims of the Common Core State Standards that seek to provide consistent learning expectation s for parents and teachers. TeachersÕ ability to engage students is central for increased learning outcomes, yet many teachers are challenged to engage students in a variety of contexts. Teachers also report a lack of training and professional development in understanding how to best engage students. Furthermore, principals receive little indication or support in creating learning climates that are conducive for increased student engagement and scant research exists on effective professional development ini tiatives to promote teachersÕ ability to engage students. There is a growing need to understand how to promote instructional practice and increase studentsÕ cognitive engagement toward valuable learning outcomes. 3 My study on the Authentic Intellectual Wor k initiative fits into this larger impulse to increase both the cognitive demand of studentsÕ learning experiences in school as well as the value of their learning outcomes. First, research has shown that the central aspect of the Authentic Intellectual Work initiative, authentic instruction , is associated with increased cognitive engagement among elementary, middle, and high school students (Marks, 2000; Newmann et al., 1996). The AIW initiative focus es on meaningfu l and intellectually engaging experiences that involve students in authentic problem solving, dialogue, construction of knowledge, and critical inquiry . The founding scholars of the initiative based AIW on their research findings of instructional practices that fostered studentsÕ quality intellectual work. In turn, this study on AIW contribute s to the understanding of educational reform focused on promoting this type of quality intellectual work with valuable outcomes for students. In particular, my inquir y highlights aspects of principal leadership and teacher learning that enhance or hinder ambitious instructional practice toward such student cognitive engagement in quality learning experiences for valuable outcomes . Authentic instruction is one particul ar manifestation focused on aspects of student cognition and engagement in learning out of a variety of arguments and approaches to improve instruction. For example, several of the ideas to improve instruction consistent with how people learn are outlined in The National Research Council book, How People Learn (2000). The book presents research about the brain to make connections between what is known about learning behavior and effective instruction in the classroom. It includes several key aspects of imp roving instruction for increased cognitive engagement such as synthesizing information and transferring knowledge from one context to another, linking learning to major concepts in the discipline, and learning environments that are learner, knowledge, asse ssment, and community centered to help children learn most effectively. Many of these aspects are consistent with constructivist 4 approaches to teaching, which is the label given to the general ideas embedded in authentic instruction. Although broadly defi ned, the four agreed upon aspects of constructivist instruction include learners construct their own meaning, new learning builds on prior knowledge, learning is enhanced by social interaction, and meaningful learning develops through authentic tasks (Good & Brophy, 1994). In this st udy I will focus on the specific approach , Authentic Intellectual Work, which is a specific instance of the broader movement to improve instruction and promote the quality of student learning outcomes. The purpose of my resear ch is to examine the role of the school principal in promoting student cognitive engagement th rough instructional improvement. To understand aspects of principal leadership , teacher learning and enactment of ambitious instructional practices , and the influ ence on student cognitive engagement in the learning experiences, this study focuses on two middle schools involved in the AIW project in Iowa . Research is limited at the middle school level; most research on school leadership and student learning is focus ed at the elementary level. Therefore, this study contributes to the understanding of educational reform and principal leadership for ambitious instruction and student cognitive engagement at the middle school level. Background In pursuit of valuable outcomes of schooling , many r eform efforts emerged out of a dominant perspective that there i s a crisis in education. Since the mid -1980s, a number of reports have claimed that many U.S. students and adults did not have the skills and abilities to engage in the intellectual effort necessary for successful work, citizenship, and personal life (Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession, 1986; National Commission on Excellence, 1983; National Education Goals Panel, 1991; Sizer, 1984). The 1983 report is sued by the National Commission of Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk, warned the rising tide of mediocrity in education must be addressed to ensure the nationÕs security. At that time, 5 researchers also presented the issues of comprehensive high sc hools in which dispirited teachers and disengaged students negotiated their exchanges amidst an extensive and fragmented curriculum (Cusick, 1983; Powell, Farrar, & Cohen, 1985; Sedlak, Wheeler, Pullin, & Cusick, 1986; Sizer, 1984). Critics of common scho oling practices of the time called for improvements in the content, structure, and delivery of education in order for students to be successful within and beyond school. In response to the perceived educational crisis, state governments, foundations, professional organizations, and universities advocated different reforms such as new curriculum standards, changes in teacher preparation and evaluation, new forms of student assessment, and changes in school governance structures, to name a few. The various reports and reform activities set the stage for a climate of school improvement in which there was widespread agreement that schools could do a better job of preparing students in the necessary skills to be successful beyond high school. In response, pol icy efforts targeted many different aspects of teaching and learning in an effort to improve instructional practice and educational outcomes. Some reformers advocated for structural changes to the school day, length of instructional time, and teaching sch edules. Others pressed for learning experiences that feature high cognitive demand. However, the ideals of the reforms have not been easily implemented amidst the reality of schools, classrooms, and teachersÕ prevailing instructional practices (Kenned y, 2005; McLaughlin, 1991). Not only have ongoing efforts to improve student outcomes and increase the incidence of high -leverage teaching practices changed in form and featu re, they have also encountered various challenges of implementation. Most recently, the new federal and state policy agenda in the U.S., announced as Race to the Top, has focused on a number of different approaches to entice schools to improve student outcomes. Rather than high school completion, the new goal of College for All focuses o n 6 student graduation from baccalaureate institutions, community colleges, and career -technical institutions. In order to reach these goals, schools and teachers are placed under increased levels of accountability through teacher evaluation and student ass essment. In addition, over 45 states have adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) to provide teachers and students with clear goals for instruction. In contrast with Goals 2000 and No Child Left Behind which set goals for learning outcomes with hig h expectations, emphasized high stakes testing and accountability, and allowed each state to develop its own standards, the Common Core establishes a single set of consistent and coherent educational standards across states for kindergarten through 12 th grade in reading and math. Although the intention is to provide high standards that are consistent across states so that teachers, parents, and students have a clear set of expectations that are aligned with the expectations of college and careers, the adop tion process is still relatively new. The extent to which the Common Core State Standards will be effectively implemented is not yet clear. Schools will have to address the potential challenges principals may face associated with the implementation of the Common Core. First, the Common Core sets expectations for teaching students how to think with increasing levels of complexity in developing their comprehension, problem solving, and their ability to articulate their knowledge. These expectations surp ass changes in textbooks and content alone; the CCSS require a change for many teachers in how they teach and view student learning. While some teachers are teaching in ways that are consistent with the Common Core, the depth of the standards and the signi ficant difference between the CCSS and the previously existing standards in most states require new and different ways of teaching. Teachers at different points in their teaching careers will need to make significant changes and will require support in th e process. Professional development (PD) that promotes teacher learning as well as structures of support throughout the school will need to be developed. In addition, principals will be responsible for sustained schoolwide structures that 7 promote teacher l earning regarding these types of ambitious instructional practice. It is yet to be determined whether the supports associated with the implementation of these standards will provide necessary and sufficient indication for principals and teachers to improv e instructional quality and student performance. Furthermore, regardless of how the standards are implemented, engaging students in the intellectual work required by the standards will need to be addressed. The types of learning outcomes emphasized by the AIW initiative are consistent with the aims of the CCSS. A Challenge for Principal Leadership As U.S. educational policy increases expectations for student outcomes, teache rs and students are both responsible for the success of these reforms. Such large -scale policy efforts to improve student achievement ultimately depend upon the capacity 1 of teachers to improve their instruction and student sÕ engagement in learning (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, Friedel, & Paris, 2004; National Research Council & Institute of M edicine, 2004) . There is also some evidence that the nature of professional development teachers receive can influence their learning. For instance, Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman, (2002) surveyed teachers about PD and found that there were key features of high -quality PD associated with changes in teaching practice . In many ways, realization of such policy goals will ultimately depend upon the resources and support provided to support learning opportunities for both teachers and students within t he schools (Cohen & Ball, 1990). Although PD has been an important factor in mediating the effectiveness of policy for teaching practice (Desimone, Smith, Hayes, & Frisvold, 2005), many efforts to promote teacher "!Teacher capacity can be defined as (1) knowledge, including subject matter, pedagogical content knowledge, and knowledge of other aspects relating to schooling, (2) craft skills, including planning, organizing, and orchestrating instructional practice, (3) dispositions, including beliefs, attitudes, values, and commitments (McDiarmid & Clevenger -Bright, 2008). 8 learning have been ineffective ( Coburn, 2001; Odden 1991). Teacher PD has been linked to improving the quality of schools (Borko & Putnam, 1995; Talbert & McLaughlin, 1993) and student achievement (Desimone, Smith, Hayes, & Frisvold, 2005) , yet reforms often fall short of providing meaningfu l PD that promotes lasting change (Darling -Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos , 2009). Even when schools and teachers provide high -quality PD, the extent to which teachers participate in PD remains primarily the decision of individual teachers (Desimone et al., 2002). Teacher l earning is an ongoing process in which teachers integrate the knowledge, skills, values , and beliefs they need to teach students challenging curricula and develop expertise. Providing comprehensive and meaningful learning opportunities for teachers that lead to instructional quality has proven to be a challenge within educational reform. Specifically, there is a need to foster teachersÕ ability to develop ambitious instructional practices associated with student engagement. Despite various efforts to improve schooling, numerous educators in a variety of settings are challenged to keep students engaged in classroom learning (Marks, 2000). Although the value and benefit of student engagement to student achievement and later l ife outcomes is evident (Fredricks, et al. , 2004), school leaders and teachers typically receive little direction or incentive regarding ways to increase studentsÕ engagement in learning. Several forms of engagement have been identified in the research literature; however, a high level of cognitive engagement in particular is required to meet the increasing expectations for academic competence. Furthermore, t here is a growing need to understand dimensions of principal leadership that contribute to enhanc ed student engagement. Currently, there are low level s of student engagement in a variety of contexts. Student engagement varies greatly within some schools, as some teachers are more effective at promoting engagement than others. Among efforts to increas e student engagement and support teachersÕ instructional practices associated with student 9 engagement, interventions have varying levels of success. In a review of quantitative and qualitative research literature on school leadership, Leithwood, Louis, And erson, and Wahlstrom (2004) found that principals were second greatest influence, after classroom instruction, on student learning among school -related factors. Research also indicates that principal influences on student learning is largely indirect, and operate through school organizational factors (see, e.g., Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003). However, there are gaps in our knowledge about the ways in which principals operate through various organizational factors, and how they a re most effective. There is a need to examine the different mechanisms through which principals may affect classroom instruction and student engagement. Overview of the Dissertation I present a conceptual framework to guide this inquiry in which instructional leadership, teacher professional community, and professional deve lopment are central in efforts to promote instructional practice associated with student engagement . I indicate some of the ways in which principals effectively develop and sus tain these three aspects based on my findings. This study addresses gaps in the existing literature by examining ways principal leadership in middle schools is related to instruction and student cognitive engagement. I examine the mechanisms that seem to b e most important for principals to support the development of ambitious instructional practice. In terms of the findings, in chapter 4 I present teachersÕ levels of AIW instructional practices and compare them to levels of student cognitive engagement in t eachersÕ classrooms. I then detail the way in which focal teachers in this study conceptualize student engagement according to two categories: Student Thinking and Understanding, and Student Activity, Excitement, and Interest. In chapter 5, I explore dime nsions of principal leadership and mechanisms through which principals may enhance or hinder teachersÕ development of AIW 10 instructional practices. The three dimensions through include : PD coherence, Aspects of Teacher Professional Community, and Risk Takin g and Growth Mindset . I propose that these principal leadership dimensions can help to provide the necessary structures for teachersÕ acquisition and use of new knowledge and skills. Then , in ch apter 6 , I argue that alignment (the extent to which teachersÕ beliefs and values , knowledge, and behavior align with the objectives of the PD initiative) is essential for teach er learning and enactment of new instructional practices. Chapter 7 includes a discussion of the research findings. 11 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW Student Engagement An understanding of relevant literature serves to situate the study within the context of previous research. The following review outlines pertinent literature on student cognitive engagement and relevant organizational factors s uch as teacher professional development, teacher professional community, and principal leadership. Although engagement has been viewed as especially important for uninterested and discouraged learners (Brophy, 2004), engagement is relevant for all studen ts. According to the High School Student Survey of Engagement aggregate response, almost half of the high school students reported being bored in class every day (2009). In total, 81.3 percent of students reported they were bored in class because the mat erial was not interesting and 41.6 percent of students surveyed reported the material was not relevant to them. Information on studentsÕ perception of school has informed some reform efforts that seek to improve student -learning outcomes (Marks, 2000; Na tional Research Council & Institute of Medicine, 2004). A prominent theoretical model of engagement has also been used in the design of interventions to prevent school dropout (Reschly & Christenson, 2006), and underscores many high school reform efforts (NRCIM, 2004). Essentially, student engagement underlies many efforts to promote quality learning experiences through the school environment, instruction, and curriculum. Student engagement is also a fundamental aspect of ambitious instructional practice because learning is essentially a voluntary activity. Cohen (2011) argues that work with students that is intellectually demanding, attentive to studentsÕ work, and conducive to thoughtful conversation has been difficult to achieve and attain in the United States because teachers essentially depend upon the students they strive to educate. The predicament lies in the fact that 12 teachers cannot cause learning by themselves, and they cannot make a student learn. Students are fundamentally responsible for bringing their attention and effort to the learning experience. In that sense, teachersÕ are dependent on their students for their own success. Thus, any effort focused on education refor m and ambitious instruction must also address the fundamental aspect of student engagement in learning. The extant literature includes many different definitions and conceptions of student engagement (Reschly & Christenson, 2012). The current social -psych ological conception of engagement has been defined in three primary ways in the literature. Behavioral engagement includes aspects of participation such as involvement in social and academic activities. Behavioral engagement is most often cited as playin g a central role in academic achievement and preventing dropping out (Finn, 1993; Fredericks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). Emotional engagement is composed of the reactions students have to teachers, peers, learning experiences, and the school. This aspec t of engagement is important to the studentsÕ sense of belonging, connection to the school, and willingness to complete the tasks (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Furrer & Skinner, 2003). Cognitive engagement encompasses studentsÕ thought processes and willingn ess to exert effort to try to learn new ideas and skills. Several studies have explored task characteristics and their connection to cognitive engagement (Helme & Clarke, 2001; Lee & Anderson, 1993). These various forms or indicators of engagement have b een used to study both academic engagement at the school (Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008; Finn & Zimmer, 2012), as well as classroom engagement in particular classroom activities (Skinner & Pitzer, 2012). Some researchers advocate combining the thr ee components into one meta -construct (Appleton et al., 2008; Fredericks et al., 2004). Others have emphasized the importance of engagement in learning outside of school (Lawson & Lawson, 2013; Resnick, 1987) and the 13 influence of factors beyond school, su ch as family and peers (Steinberg, 1996; Woolley & Bowen, 2007). Recently, Lawson and Lawson draw on social -ecological analyses and social -cultural theory to conceptualize engagement as a dynamic system of social and psychological constructs and interdepe ndent processes that include family, peer, and neighborhood ecologies (2013). Cognizant of the multidimensional nature of student engagement, this study will primarily focus on studentsÕ cognitive engagement in the classroom. While other aspects of the multidimensional construct will be considered, cognitive engagement will be the central engagement construct. This inquiry draws on several foundational understandings of student engagement from the literature. First, engagement is a fundamental pathway to student learning (Skinner & Pitzer, 2012). Once students are engaged, they are more likely to demonstrate improved achievement and enhanced learning outcomes (National Research Council & Institute of Medicine, 2004). Second, student disengagement is not isolated to a specific group or demographic; it affects a broad spectrum of students across a variety of different backgrounds and settings (Glanville & Wildhagen, 2007; Marks, 2000), although how it affects groups differently is a topic for further study. Third, student engagement is seen as malleable, with the potential to change and develop over time for all individuals. From perceptions of support and organizational conditions to leadership and self -regulated learning, the results of various studies ha ve identified many malleable factors in the school environment that can shape student engagement (Klem & Connell, 2004; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999). Fourth, engagement and student motivation are understood to be theoretically different (Finn & Zimmer, 2012) . While student motivation is thought to represent energy directed toward learning (Assor, 2012), engagement reflects the activation of energy and direction (Skinner & Pitzer, 2012). Research has explored the malleable nature of student engagement, inclu ding the effects 14 of principal leadership on school conditions and, in turn, student engagement (Cook -Sather, 2007; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999; Quinn, 2002). In addition, other scholars have focused on the association of specific instructional practices, suc h as authentic instruction, with student engagement and increased academic performance (Marks, 2000; Newman et al., 2001). Teachers Õ Conceptions of Engagement. While a considerable amount of research has focused on student engagement, few studies have exam ined teachersÕ understanding of the concept, and its relationship to their actions in the classroom. TeachersÕ conceptions and understandings are important, as various researchers have shown that teachersÕ actions influence student engagement (Brewser & B owen, 2004, Marks, 2000; & Sharkey, You, & Schnoebelen, 2008). For example, Brewster and Bowen (2004) used the School Success Profile (SSP) to survey 699 American Latino middle and high school students. Their regression analysis showed teachersÕ social su pport influenced school engagement, after controlling for demographics and parent support (i.e., single parent, poverty, gender, etc). The few studies that have examined teachersÕ conceptions of student engagement have had a relatively small sample size (C othran & Ennis, 2000; McMahon & Zyngier, 2009; Ravet, 2007; Zyngier, 2007). Through interviews and observations of four teacher participants, Cothran and Ennis (2000) found that all four teachers believed studentsÕ poor attitudes and low engagement in all subjects was the greatest barrier to student engagement. Furthermore, the teachers cited behavioral and psychological explanations for the studentsÕ behavior, indicating a greater focus on these aspects than on cognitive engagement. Teachers expected stud ents to be receptive to classroom lessons, and did not feel personally responsible for engaging students. The students on the other hand, explained that the teachers could engage them through demonstrating care, offering students choice, and providing rele vant curriculum. 15 In another study of five primary teachers, Ravet (2007) examined perceptions of the causes of engagement. Based on interview data, Ravet (2007) found all five teachers focused on behavioral engagement, and used student deficits relating t o attitude, personality, or ability to explain eight out of ten cases of student disengagement. The teachers explained the causes of student dise ngagement were attributable to factors such as: family background, student personal deficits, peer factors, sc hool changes, relationship with the teacher, and the teacherÕs lack of management. In contrast, the students provided twelve reasons for their disengagement, emphasizing their teachersÕ lack of awareness and understanding of their perspectives. The teach ers in both the Cothran & Ennis, (2000), and the Ravet (2007) study seemed to view students as the problem in their own disengagement and focused more on a deficit mindset (Vibert & Shields, 2003). Othe r studies by Zyngier (2007 ; 2008 ) and McMahon and Zyng ier (2009) provided a broader range of teacher understandings of student engagement. These studies embraced the ideological viewpoint that student disengagement was an expression of social resistance to schooling experiences that students felt were irrelev ant or culturally inappropriate (McFadden & Munns, 2002; McMahon & Portelli, 2004; Vibert & Shields, 2003). The research involved teachersÕ work with engaging pedagogy that would be integrated into the curriculum. Through interviews with the high school t eachers and students, Zyngier (2007) found that although some teachers worked from the deficit mindset, other teachers viewed engagement from a constructivist or critical perspective. In particular, this group of teachers provided several different explan ations of engagement factors such as: the use of different learning tools, allowing students freedom of expression and choice in the lesson, providing opportunity for students to develop additional skills, not allowing students to disrupt the lesson, and d emonstrating interest and care. These findings indicate that there is a range of different perspectives that teachers may hold relating to student engagement. 16 Overall, limited research has been conducted on teacher conceptions of student engagement and t he existing studies have included relatively small teacher samples. In several of the studies, the majority of teachers seemed to emphasize behavioral and psychological aspects of engagement, rather than cognitive engagement, suggesting a focus on classroo m procedures and participation rather than student understanding. Authentic Instruction Researchers have theorized the relationship among the individual, engagement, and contextual factors. According to a theoretical framework proposed by Fred Newmann, three broad factors influence student engagement in academic work: ÒstudentsÕ underlying ne ed for competence, the extent to which students experience membership in the school, and the authenticity of the work they are asked to completeÓ (p. 17, 1992). NewmannÕs framework indicates that the degree to which students experience membership and auth entic work in class shapes how studentsÕ need for competence is channeled into academic success. Therefore, schools must address studentsÕ experience of membership and authentic work in school. Other research has also focused on individual needs as a med iator between contextual factors and engagement (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Fredericks et al., 2004). Connell and Wellborn (1991) identify individualsÕ three psychological needs: relatedness, autonomy, and competence. StudentsÕ perception of the extent to which classroom context meets their individual needs determines their level of engagement in school. In addition to the conditions that are important to nurture a sense of membership or relatedness, Newmann explains that authentic work includes tasks th at are meaningful, significant, valuable, and worthy of oneÕs effort (1992). He contrasts these tasks with those that are trivial, useless, nonsensical, and unworthy of effort. Authentic work includes studentsÕ 17 interests, a sense of ownership, connection to the world beyond school, and fun (1992). Work that entails these attributes is more authentic and more likely to engage students. Newmann and Wehlage (1993) explain that when students experience high cognitive engagement they demonstrate authentic a chievement . Newmann and Wehlage propose that highly engaged students approach learning with an interest beyond superficial coverage of the material. After an extensive study of school restructuring, they suggest reform initiatives and instruction should aim toward authentic achievement. They argued that innovations could be implemented in ways that undermine meaningful learning when they are not guided by substantive and meaningful educational ends. Based on the main proposals in the restructuring movem ent, Newmann and Wehlage define authentic achievement by the following criteria: (a) students construct meaning and produce knowledge, (b) students use disciplined inquiry to construct meaning, and (c) students direct their work toward generation of produc ts, performances, and discourses that have value or meaning beyond success in school (1993). The focus on authentic achievement emphasizes fundamental standards of intellectual quality of work over procedural and technical aspects of standards for curricu lum and assessment. Newmann and Wehlage (1993) also examined the types of instruction that cognitively engage students and presented a framework for authentic instruction. The five standards of authentic instruction include (a) higher -order thinking, (b) depth of knowledge, (c) connectedness to the world beyond the classroom, (d) substantive conversation, and (e) social support for student achievement. The framework was intended to guide practice and research on instructional practice that engages studen ts to use their minds well. Their work also considered the extent to which authentic instruction and student achievement are enhanced or constrained by organizational features, the content of PD, the quality of school leadership, and school community. 18 In a study examining authentic work, Marks (2000) found a positive association between authentic instruction and student engagement in academic activity among elementary, middle, and high school students. The nationally selected sample included 3,669 student s from 143 social studies and mathematics classrooms of 24 restructuring schools. Based on survey data in which students reported about themselves, their school, and their classroom experience, the findings indicate the effect of authentic intellectual wo rk on engagement enlarges somewhat as students progress through grade levels (0.34, 0.40, 0.42, respectively). Marks defined authentic academic work as Òwork that involves students intellectually in a process of disciplined inquiry to solve meaningful prob lems, problems with relevance in the world beyond the classroom and of interest to them personallyÓ (2000, p. 158). Authentic intellectual work diminished the effect of personal background on engagement and explained approximately 20 percent of the varian ce among elementary, middle, and high school students. The study provides support for the importance of the quality of intellectual work within educational reform initiatives. Not only is authentic work associated with increased student engagement across the grade levels, it is also linked to increased student achievement. Newmann, Bryk, and Nagaoka (2001) investigated Chicago teachersÕ assignments in mathematics and writing in grades 3, 6, and 8. Data included over 1,200 assignments at each of the grade levels over a 3 -year time period. The study findings indicate that students who received assignments involving more challenging and authentic intellectual work performed better than average on the Iowa Basic Skills Test and achieved higher performance on the Illinois Goals Assessment Program. The evidence suggests that an increased emphasis on authentic intellectual work can promote achievement on standardized tests as well. Nystrand and Gamoran (1991) also studied the kinds of instruction that foster st udent engagement, and the effects of such instruction on achievement. The authors differentiated 19 procedural engagement, including rules and procedures, from substantive engagement, involving academic study and commitment to content. Using data on literat ure instruction from 58 eighth -grade classes, Nystand and Gamoran reported that features of substantively engaging instruction included reciprocal interaction between students and teachers. Some of the substantively engaging instructional practices includ ed authentic questions, or open -ended questions without prespecified answers; and uptake, or the incorporation of student responses into subsequent questions and discussions. The empirical and theoretical work on engagement indicates there are gaps in the current research on the malleability of engagement, and a limited number of studies on interventions (Fredericks et al. 2004). Further research is needed which addresses the complex nature of how individuals and context interact, and how changes in conte xt influence student engagement. In addition to the focus on engaging instruction, one key aspect of this study is the focus on middle school -aged students. Middle school is a critical time for students to connect with school and a time when engagement be gins to drop substantially (Rumberger, 1995; 2011). Research has found that student engagement with schooling generally decreases as students move from elementary school to middle and high school (Martin, 2009; Wang & Eccles, 2012) ; thus, my focus on stud ent engagement is particularly appropriate . In addition, a mixed method approach can further contribute to the understanding about which aspects of the environment are salient to engagement and how to design finely tuned interventions. The review on studen t engagement leads to the question: how can we help teachers get better at engaging students? Three possible organizational factors that can influence instructional practice , and in turn, student engagement , include PD, teacher professional community, and principal leadership. I chose these three organizational factors based on prior s tudies indicating that each factor was important for enhancing ambitious instructional practice and promoting student 20 learning . First, effective instructional leadership is essential to promote improved instruction and to implement sustained change . In a review of the literature , principals were found to be the second greatest influence on student learning among school related factors , af ter classroom instruction (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). Principals can support teacher learning and improved instructional practice through a variety of avenues ( Darling -Hammond & Richardson, 2009; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon , 2001). Therefore, I chose principal leadership a s a key variable in this inquiry to understand the organizational factors that may facilitate or impede authentic instruction and student cognitive engagement. Research ind icates that principal influence s on student learning is largely indirect, and operate through school organizational factors (see, e.g., Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003). When school principals organize sustained professional development opportunities around a comm on instructional framework, teachersÕ professional learning and quality of classroom instruction are likely to improve (Darling -Hammond & Richardson, 2009; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001) . High quality PD is associated with improved instruct ional practice and student learning outcomes (Cohen, Raudenbush, & Ball, 2003; Corcoran et al., 2003; Correnti, 2007; Garet et al. 2001). In turn, I chose PD as a central variable due to the focus on the AIW initiative and the association between high qua lity PD and improved instructional practice and student learning outcomes . Furthermore, a number of studies have demonstrated the important role of colleagues and teacher professional community in supporting instructional improvement (Horn & Little, 2010; McLuaghlin & Talbert, 2003; Penuel & Gallagher, 2009; Scribner, Sawyer, Watson, & Myers, 2007) and higher student achievement (Louis & Marks, 1998). In particular, Newmann and associates (1996) found that schools with stronger professional communities, as defined in the section below, also had greater instantiation of authentic pedagogy. A strong professional 21 community can mediate the effect of professional development on instructional quality and can be a conduit to support teacher learning toward ambitious instructional practice that enhances student cognitive engagement. Therefore, including teacher professional community as a variable in this study is particularly relevant to the enactment of authentic instruction. These three factors a re particularly important for developing individual and organizational capacity in schools. Research by Youngs and King (2002) suggests that effective principals can promote high levels of capacity by developing structures that promote teacher learning. In addition, their findings indicate that it is useful for studies focused on the effect of principal leadership to include professional community and program coherence as variables that mediate the relationship between principal leadership and student achie vement (Y oungs & King, 2002). In turn, these are important variables to consider in this study that is focused on principal leadership and student cognitive engagement, rather that student achievement. Newmann, King, and Youngs (2000) argued professional d evelopment should address five aspects of school capacity: teachersÕ knowledge, skills, and dispositions; professional community; program coherence; technical resources; and principal leadership. They found considerable variation in schoolÕs use of profess ional developmen t to address capacity. Research on organizational capacity for high quality teaching and learning (King, 2002; King & Bouchard, 2011; Newmann et al., 2000; Youngs & King, 2002) informed my decision to include these three factors over othe r organizational conditions . There is considerable consensus in the research literature that the quality of instruction that teachers provide has the greatest influence on student learning (Leithwood et al., 2004). In addition to individual teacher compete nce for effective classroom practice, teachersÕ also work together to advance the collective work of the school. Newman and colleagues define school organizational capacity as the collective power of the faculty in a school to strengthen student performanc e (2000). King 22 and Bouchard (2011) explain the relationship of capacity to instructional quality and student achievement. Their model illustrates that student achievement is directly affected by the quality of instruction, which is influenced by the key di mensions of capacity. In addition, the five dimensions of capacity are interrelated and affect one another. This study considers aspects of the dimensions of capacity: principal leadership, professional community, aspects of the teachersÕ knowledge , skills , and dispositions, and program coherence. To focus the inquiry and analysis of this project on instructional leadership, I chose to limit the number of variables in the study to principal leadership, teacher professional community, and the professional de velopment of the AIW initiative. I did not include technical resources as that was beyond the scope of this study. Aspects of teacherÕs knowledge, values, and skills as well as coherence were included in the analysis. In turn , previous research informed m y focus on principal leadership as a key factor associated with the nature of learning opportunities provided to teachers through PD and the teacher professional community that may support and nurture such teacher learning . I chose these three factors over other organizational conditions such as the length of the school day, teacher workload, scheduling of instruction, or the content of particular programs because they were factors directly related to developing capacity and factors through which the principal could influence instructional improvement and the quality of studentsÕ intellectual work . Below is a review of the literature on each of these possible ways of helping teachers to increase student cognitive engagement. Features of Professional Development Professional development can be an essential mechanism to develop teachersÕ content knowledge and instructional practices (Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007). As a result, PD has been central to various refor m efforts that aim to build teachersÕ capacity to teach 23 (Avalos, 2011; Smith & OÕDay, 1991; Timperley, Wilson, Barrar, & Fung, 2008) . Understanding the characteristics of PD that affect teaching practice can be pivotal for reforms targeting changes in inst ructional practice. However, many policies including PD initiatives intended to stimulate improvements in student learning have been ineffective or inconsistent in terms of the outcomes that were produced (Darling -Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orpha nos, 2009; McLaughlin, 1991). In some cases, the shortcomings of some past reform efforts have galvanized research and policy efforts to further investigate the necessary conditions that contribute to changes in instructional practice and enhanced student learning. The next section outlines research on PD and its effects on teaching practices and student learning. While there are many different perspectives on PD, less empirical evidence exists on the substance and features of high -quality professional dev elopment. However, recent research has increasingly focused on the importance of situated learning for effective PD, and the connections among the design of PD, teachersÕ learning, and subsequent changes in classroom practice (Borko, 2004). In study on in-service teacher education, Kennedy (1998) investigated features of effective PD. Drawing on a synthesis of a selection of PD studies in math and science, Kennedy (1998) contrasted what she distinguished as the form , or the delivery methods, with the substance , or content of the PD. Kennedy identified paths of influence from the in -service PD programs and categorized them into four groups based on the extent to which the program provided to teachers was prescriptive and the content was specific. Based on her analysis of effect sizes, one key finding indicated the important role of substance or content of PD in predicting teachersÕ change in instructional practice. Kennedy concluded, ÒPrograms whose content focused mainly on teachersÕ behaviors demonstr ated smaller influences on student learning than did programs whose content focused on teachersÕ knowledge of the subject, on the curriculum, or on how students learn the subjectÓ (p. 17). The findings indicated that successful 24 programs emphasized how stu dents learn particular subject matter, rather than on subject matter itself. In addition, the study demonstrated there was a scarcity of empirical research connecting participation in PD with student outcomes. A limited number of the studies selected for review had investigated the benefits to student learning. KennedyÕs seminal study prompted other researchers to also examine the importance of the content of PD (See, e.g. , Cohen & Hill, 2001; Corcoran, McVay, & Riordan, 2003; Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yo on, & Birman, 2002; Fennema et al., 1996; Newmann, King, & Youngs, 2000). However, there is a need for further research focused on the substance over the form of PD. Also, KennedyÕs (1998) research argued that the topic and substance of the PD provided made a difference. She distinguished the topic of subject matter from the topic of how students learn subject matter. Some research that came after Kennedy misunderstood her study, and used it as an argument that all PD should be about subject matter. The clarification between a focus on the content of the PD, and PD that is driven by subject specific content is important for this study, as AIW PD is not oriented to specific subject matter, but the content of the PD is an important aspect of AIW. The follo wing studies include subject specific PD initiatives, but the emphasis of this review is on the content of the PD and the form of delivery. Two studies examined the effects of reform -oriented mathematics focused PD on changes in teacher practice, which als o included increases in student learning. Fennema et al. (1996) studied the effects of an approach called Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) on the instructional practices of 21 elementary teachers over a 4 -year period. The CGI instructional method re quired students to justify their thinking and use different mathematical representations rather than rote procedural strategies. In the program, teachers learned about how students understand mathematical content and ways to approach instruction and asses sment using studentsÕ existing reasoning ability through workshops and support provided in their classrooms. 25 Instructional practice was evaluated through observations of their instruction, interviews, a belief scale instrument, and informal interactions. The goals of CGI were used to assess the lessons on a scale of 1 to 4. Although most teachers received a level 3, Fennema and colleagues found the CGI intervention was associated with large changes in instructional practice of individual teachers, which were related to changes in student achievement as measured by classroom tests of mathematics concepts and problem solving. The study provides evidence of the benefit of coherent, content -based PD programs and provides an example of a multi -year school -wide program in which teachers learned a specific research -based model regarding student thinking through PD and used that model in the classroom. One limitation is the study did not include measures of peer interactions or the social context of the teache rsÕ schools. Cohen and Hill (2001) also investigated the effect of mathematics -focused PD on changes in teaching practices and subsequent gains in student learning. Their study focused on PD opportunities in curricular workshops focused on mathematics con tent, which were also related to reform -oriented teaching practices encouraged by the state of California. The authors compared this approach with PD on special topics related to math instruction, but not focused specifically on math content. Cohen and H ill found that increased time spent in student curricular workshops was associated with more reform -oriented practice and less conventional practice. In contrast, teacher participation in the special topics PD without a focus on mathematics content was no t associated with conventional or reform -oriented practice. Furthermore, time spent in the student curricular workshops directly focused on mathematics content was associated with increased student learning. An important aspect of both the Cohen and Hil l (2001) and the Fennema and et al. (1996) study is that the instructional outcomes included in the study were consistent with the goals of the PD. Another important 26 point is that neither of the studies was a formal experiment, so there are potential confo unding variables. In Fennema et al. (1996), the teachers volunteered to take the PD, so they had more motivation to learn than the comparison teachers. In Cohen and Hill (2001), the researcher were studying schools, not individual teachers, and they could not tie student scores to their individual teachers and furthermore, the scores were from 3 rd graders whereas the teacher reports came from all teachers in the school. Three other studies also investigated instructional outcomes that were aligned with th e aims of reform -oriented PD. Supovitz et al. (2000) examined the effect of PD on changes in instructional practice toward inquiry -based practices in math and science. In their longitudinal study, Supovitz et al. (2000) found teachers changed their instr uction toward more inquiry -based practices consistent with the goals of the statewide systematic reform initiative in Ohio. Corcoran et al. (2003) studied the effect of the Merck Institute for Science Education intervention on teachersÕ instructional pract ice. Teachers involved in the inquiry -based PD changed their practice to focus on higher order thinking, deep knowledge, substantive conversation, and connections to studentsÕ life beyond school. Furthermore, in the analysis by Desimone, Porter, Garet, et al. (2002) the content -based PD predicted teacher change in corresponding content -based instructional practices. When the outcome measures included the use of higher order thinking or alternative assessments, the best predictor of changes in instructio nal practice was the extent to which the PD focused on higher order thinking or alternative assessments. These three studies included PD programs aligned with outcome measures that emphasized reform -oriented, inquiry -based teaching in math and science. T he findings provide further evidence that content -aligned PD is associated with changes in teacher practice. While the outcome variables measured were aligned with the PD 27 programs, there were varying interpretations of the instructional quality that resul ted from teachersÕ participation in the PD. In terms of PD in the area of language arts, Correnti (2007) examined subject matter content -focused PD and its effect on teaching practices. In a study using 75,689 lessons from almost 2,000 classrooms in 112 schools, Correnti (2007) investigated the effects of literacy content -aligned PD on instructional practice using teachersÕ self -report of instruction in daily logs. Correnti found that teachers who received PD in comprehension and writing offered at least 10% more instruction in these areas. The study contributes to the understanding that coherent, content -aligned PD can make a difference for teacher practice. Furthermore, the study found both teacher -level effects of PD as well as a school -level effect; there was an additional effect on instruction in schools in which a greater proportion of teachers received intense PD. Although the Correnti (2007) results suggest subject -matter, content -focused PD is an important lever for changing teachersÕ instruct ional practice in literacy, the survey measures indicated changes in instructional content for the teachers receiving PD and did not include information on changes in instructional process. While the teachers reported they provided more instruction in comp rehension and writing, the study measured accumulation rates of literacy strategies for each teacher and did not include an indicator of instructional quality. In addition, the study draws on teacher self -report data to determine the intensity and duration of PD does not include additional sources of data on the nature of PD or the magnitude of the effect of PD on instructional practice or student learning outcomes. Extending findings that content, coherence, and the mode of teacher learning are central features for effective PD, Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, and Yoon (2001) conducted a notable study on the various structural components of effective PD and the linkage to changes in teachersÕ knowledge and practice. In an examination of the PD funded thr ough the Eisenhower 28 Math and Science program, Garet and colleagues identified six key features of PD related to teachersÕ self - reported change in instructional practice. Using a nationally representative, cross -sectional sample of 93% of all districts in the country, surveys were mailed to a probability sample of 1,027 teachers. Although the study collected school -wide measures, only a few people from each school were represented and the number of teachers per district was low. The six key features of PD related to increases in teachersÕ self -reported knowledge and skills and changes in teaching practice included three structural features and three core features. The three core features represented the characteristics of the substance of the activity i nclude opportunities for active learning such as active engagement in the analysis of teaching and learning; coherence of professional development; and extent to which the activity has a content focus and is focused on deepening and improving teachersÕ con tent knowledge. The three structural features of PD activity were reform type, such as study group or mentor relationship as opposed to a traditional workshop or conference; duration of the activity including total contact hours and the timespan of the ac tivity; and collective participation of groups of teachers from the same grade level or school in contrast to individual teachers from many schools. The structural features were understood to operate through the core features. The Garet et al. study contr ibuted empirical evidence from a nationally representative sample of teachers on the features of high -quality PD associated with changes in teaching practice. Although other studies had identified features of effective PD, this study provided empirical ev idence on the importance of specific PD features. On the other hand, the large -scale nature of this study makes it difficult to distinguish effective PD for a particular program. The general questions on the teacher survey provided broad information on su bject matter or program outcomes, without detailed information on the implementation of a specific program or the factors that influenced teachersÕ learning. A further limitation of this study is the sole use of 29 teacher self -report to gather information a bout changes to teacher knowledge or practice. Although some agreement has been found between teacher self -report and observation, teachers may be biased toward specific practices in their response. Direct observation or another independent measure of pr actice was not used to validate the self -report data. Building on the theoretical constructs from Garet et al. (2001), Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, and Gallager (2007) further investigated characteristics of effective PD. Their study on the influence of d ifferent aspects of PD on teachersÕ knowledge and program implementation included a sample of 454 teachers involved in an inquiry science program. The authors used a hierarchical linear modeling framework to analyze teacher survey data. Findings from the study indicated that teachersÕ perceptions of the coherence of their PD experiences were significant for teacher learning and program implementation. In addition to coherence, planning time for teachers and technical support were important for program imp lementation. This study contributed to the understanding of the importance of general processes and specific contexts for teacher learning within the field of science, and within a specific program. Specifically, Penuel and colleagues outlined the import ance of the following characteristics in the study of PD: duration and time span, content focus, active learning, coherence, the role of colleagues, and local supports and ba rriers. There is a need for further investigation of the substance as well as the path of influence of PD on instructional practices as d escribed by Mary Kennedy (1999) . In another PD study, Sun, Penuel, Frank, Gallagher, and Youngs (2013) examined the role of teachersÕ professional networks in the diffusion of effective teaching strat egies. The study included longitudinal and sociometric data on 39 schools participating in writing PD. The authors found that the influence of PD on teachersÕ instructional practice disperses through a network of teachers providing help to one another on instructional matters. The study distinguished direct and spillover effects from PD, and noted that when estimating the 30 knowledge and skills that could be attributed to learning in PD, it is important to note that teachers also acquire knowledge and skil ls from peers. The authors explain, ÒProfessional development programs in writing that encourage and promote teacher collaboration as a means to improving instruction may both develop individual teachersÕ expertise in enacting high quality writing instruc tion and facilitate the diffusion of new expertiseÓ (p. 361). Sun and colleaguesÕ findings indicate that teachers benefit from interacting with professional development participants almost as much as directly participating in PD (2013). These spillover m echanisms that operate through intraschool networks are important to consider in the study of PD programs. Finally, Newmann, King, and Youngs (2000) found variability in the extent to which PD addressed aspects of organizational capacity among schools. Da ta from interviews, observations, and fieldwork in nine urban elementary schools over two years indicated some schools used PD more comprehensively to address five aspects of school capacity: teachersÕ knowledge, skills, and dispositions; professional comm unity; program coherence; technical resources; and principal leadership. Comprehensive professional development occurred through both externally developed and school -based initiatives, and was most strongly associated with the schoolÕs initial level of ca pacity and principal leadership. The Newmann, King, and Youngs study was an important contribution to the literature because it moved beyond individual teacher learning and included related organizational conditions in the comprehensive use of PD. The pre vious section presented research on PD and the relationship between PD and changes in teachersÕ instructional practice, as well as subsequent changes in student learning outcomes. Before moving on to the conceptual framework for this study, I will outline relevant literature on teacher professional community and principal le adership . 31 Teacher Professional Community In order to understand the relationship among PD, instructional practice, and student engagement, it is important to consider the relevant organ izational conditions. While there are many organizational features that are associated with teachersÕ work, some features are more or less pertinent to teacher PD. Newmann and colleagues (1996) reviewed previous research and determined professional commun ity is one of the key factors to consider among school organizational conditions. Other research has indicated that school leadership and teacher professional community in particular are both associated with development of teaching practices, successful r eform outcomes, and student learning (Desimone 2002; Youngs & King, 2002; Newmann et al., 2001). Based on the previous research, this study focuses on school leadership and teacher professional community and the outcomes of interest, teachersÕ instruction al practice and student cognitive engagement. Teacher professional community has been conceptualized in different ways in the research literature; therefore, it is important to delineate professional community for the purpose of this study. Youngs and Kin g (2002) characterize a strong school -wide professional community by (a) shared goals for student learning; (b) meaningful collaboration among faculty members; (c) in -depth inquiry into assumptions, evidence, and alternative solutions to problems; and (d) opportunities for teachers to exert influence over their work. While the definitions differ slightly, professional community can be summarized as individuals in a school taking collective responsibility for achieving shared educational goals, and working together to achieve that purpose (Newmann, 1994). Drawing on these definitions and the conceptual and empirical work in this review, I conceptualize strong school -wide teacher professional community to include (a) shared goals for student learning, (b) me aningful collaboration among faculty members, and (c) teacher responsibility in decision making. 32 A number of studies have addressed teacher professional community in supporting instructional improvement (See, e.g. , Horn & Little, 2010; McLaughlin & Talbert , 2003; Penuel & Gallagher, 2009; Scribner, Sawyer, Watson, & Myers, 2007) as well as increased student achievement (Louis & Marks, 1998). Penuel and Gallagher (2009) found that professional community lacking cohesion and teachers unwilling to ask one ano ther for help impeded diffusion of improvements. Other single - and multiple -case studies have examined the role of teacher professional community in supporting instructional improvement (See, e.g. , Horn & Little, 2010; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003; Scribner , Sawyer, Watson, & Myers, 2007). Although some of these studies focus on teachers working together in groups in learning communities, the nature of the work includes shared goals, collaboration, and/or teacher responsibility in decision making; therefore , these instances are included as aspects of the conceptualization of teacher professional community 2 in this study. In a follow -up study on the CGI intervention 4 years later, Franke, Carpenter, Levi, and Fennema (2001) found that teacher professional c ommunity was an important factor in effective PD toward sustained educational change (2001). The study focused on 22 teachers who participated in the CGI PD on understanding the development of studentsÕ mathematical thinking. Using interviews and classro om observations, they examined teachersÕ ongoing learning and the extent to which the changes in their instructional practice were sustained over time. They found that the design feature of PD promoted effective methods of sharing instructional expertise among teachers and, in turn, continued instructional change over time. #!$%&!'&()!'&*+%&(!,(-.&//0-1*2!+-))310'4! 0/!3/&5!'-!(&.&(!'-!01/'*1+&/!-.!/%*(&5!6-*2/7!+-22*8-(*'0-17!*15!/%*(&5! (&/,-1/08020'4!-.!5&+0/0-1!)*90167!:%0+%!)*4!*2/-!01+235&!,(-.&//0-1*2!2&*(1016!+-))310'0&/; ! 33 The teachers continued to meet to collectively discuss studentsÕ work after PD ended. In turn, the professional community at the school expanded and extended the impact of the PD prog ram. Principal Leadership Previous research findings suggest that school principals are instrumental in shaping opportunities for teachers to learn (Borko, Wolf, Simone, and Uchiya, 2003; Printy, 2008; Youngs & King, 2002; Thoonen, Sleegers, Oort, Peetsma, & Geijsel 2011). Two central themes most relevant to teacher learning emerge in the research literature on leadership: designing the organization and developing people (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstro m, 2004). Principals can influence teachersÕ practice and student outcomes through two primary avenues; they can change and cultivate schoolsÕ organizational conditions and they can enhance instructional quality through teacher mentoring and development (Hallinger & Heck, 1996) . In a multiyear, qualitative study of four urban elementary schools, Youngs and King (2002) found that effective principals could sustain high levels of organizational capacity by facilitating teachersÕ participation in PD. The qualitative study included fieldwork, observations of participation in PD, and interviews. Youngs and King found that principals could promote capacity by establishing trust, creating structures that promote teacher learning, and providing opportunities f or faculty to learn from external expertise or develop reform within the school. Youngs and King reported principals supported shared collaboration by providing instructional planning time in grade -level teams, prioritizing school -wide PD, and organizing training so that all teachers participated in activities that involved collaboration. Their study helps to clarify important factors in the relationship among principal leadership, school organizational conditions, and student outcomes. Along with teach er collaboration, other research found that principal leadership practices could promote additional aspects of teacher professional community such as participative 34 decision -making and relational trust (Leithwood & Sun, 2009; Sleegers, Geijsel, & Van den Berg, 2002; Thoonen et al. 2011). In turn, principals can enhance or hinder teacher professional learning through their influence on PD opportunities and teacher professional community. Specifically, p rincipals shape teachersÕ interactions related to professional learning by creating structures and conditions that enhance collaborative practice (Coburn, 2001; Printy; 2008). They structure content, set boundaries, and influence the direction of conversation within the teacher professional community (Bo rko, Wolfe, Simone, & Uchiyama, 2003; Coburn, 2001; Printy, 2008; Young, 2006). PrincipalsÕ provision of time for collaboration also influences teachersÕ opportunities to learn from exchanges of ideas, information, perspectives, and feedback (Kwakman, 200 3; Timperley, 2009). Although support of teacher collaboration and the exchange of ideas can promote professional learning and lead to improvement in teaching practices (Darling -Hammond & Richardson, 2009), collaborative interactions vary in the extent to which they are generative for learning, even within the same school (Horn & Little, 2010). Other factors contribute to the learning opportunities afforded by collaborative work, such as collective resources available to teachers. The school principal pla ys a central role in coordinating organizational conditions that influence the professional learning opportunities afforded to teachers. Borko, Wolf, Simone, and Uchiya (2003) found that principal support of structures and resources for PD connected to reform efforts contributed to teachersÕ opportunities to learn and improve instructional practices. In addition, conceptions of teacher learning play an important role in influencing principalsÕ actions and learning opportunities provided to teachers (Cobur n, 2005). Coburn describes how principals influence teachersÕ enactment of policy through shaping access to policy ideas, participating in the social process of interpretation and adaptation, and creating conditions for teacher learning in schools (2005). 35 The research literature indicates that leadership has significant effects on school conditions, and in turn, student engagement (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999). Quinn found academic leadership, resource provision, and communication promotion were beneficial t o promote a climate of engagement in schools (2002). In addition, principalsÕ creation of collaborative relationships has been shown to increase student engagement (Cook -Sather, 2007). Summary and Research Questions From this review of the literature, it is evident that student engagement is important, we have ideas about what teachers need to do t o foster student engagement, there are some indications about how PD can help support teac hers to engage students, and that principals and teacher professional community can also promote teachers to develop more engaging instruction. At the same time, there are still many things we do not know about promoting student engagement. While many studies examine the extent to which PD affects individual teachersÕ instr uction, less attention has been given to the quality of instruction throughout a school. In addition, the studies that investigate the influence of PD on individual teachersÕ instruction focus less on measures of the quality of instruction as the outcome o f interest in particular. Furthermore, while some studies explore the impact of PD on teaching practices and subsequent changes in studentsÕ achievement, they do not examine the influence of PD and particular instructional practices on other student outco mes, such as student engagement. There is increasing evidence related to the features of high -quality PD from both large -scale quantitative analyses and qualitative based case studies; however, fewer researchers have employed an approach to capture both general patterns as well as an understanding of specific programs or contexts. Finally, although several studies include measures of teacher professional community, 36 studies seldom investigate other organizational factors such as principal leadership, and few studies focus on principal leadership in relation to teacher professional community. This study builds on previous literature that examined features of teacher learning, instructional practice, student engagement, and relevant organizational factors. It draws on prior finding s regarding the importance of an instructional program with a coherent focus. In addition to other studies that use reform -oriented teaching practices as the outcome of interest, this research examines PD toward reform -oriented t eaching that includes higher order thinking and ambitious instructional practice. Specifically, this research examines how a particular type of professional development, Authentic Intellectual Work, focused on rigorous and demanding intellectual work affe cts a particular type of instructional practice aligned with these aims. In turn, I examine how that particular type of instruction affects student cognitive engagement in the classroom. This inquiry examines the wide -sweeping effort of the AIW initiati ve to influence what happens in classrooms and the quality of studentsÕ intellectual work. The investigation extends earlier PD studies that include student outcomes to include student engagement; previous PD studies including student engagement as the out come of interest were not found in the review of the literature. In addition, teacher self -report as well as other objective criteria will be used to examine instructional practice with an emphasis on authentic instruction measured as the outcome variable . This study will also examine the extent to which principals influence instructional practice in a school, and the factors that facilitate or constrain principal leadership in a sch ool toward ambitious instruction . Finally, teacher professional community and principal leadership will be included to address the context in which PD is delivered and the various factors that enhance or constrain student cognitive engagement and authentic instructional practices. Through a mixed -method approach, I will explor e the following research questions: 37 1. Do teachers with different levels of AIW instructional practices have different levels of cognitive engagement in their classrooms? a. What are the ways in which teachers with different level s of AIW instructional practi ces conceive of student engagement? 2. What are the ways in which principal leadership seem to influence teacher learning in AIW PD, and enactment of AIW instruction? 3. What is the association between teachersÕ knowledge, values, and beliefs, and their instructional practice regarding AIW? Conceptual Framework Drawing on the preceding review of extant literature, my conceptual framework theorizes the role of school principals, professional development, and teacher professional community in promoting inst ructional quality and enhancing student cognitive engagement. I begin by describing the relationsh ip between authentic instruction and student cognitive engagement. Then, I discuss the role of the school principal in promoting high -quality professional development, which can contribute to authentic instructional and student learning. I will then explicate the relationship among principal leadership, professional development, and teacher professional community. These elements provide a foundation for analyzing the relationship between cognitive enga gement and the instructional environment, and the school conditions upon which educational leaders can intervene. This framework draws on complexity theory, which states that elements of three subsystems (the teacher, the school, and the learning activity ) interact and combine in different ways to affect teacher learning. People are nested in these different systems and one cannot be studied without the influence of others (Opfer & Pedder, 2011). According Opfer and Pedder, it 38 is important for research o n professional development to focus on the reciprocal influences of all three subsystems in order to understand teacher learning and the impact that learning experiences have on their knowledge and instructional practices (2011). This approach helps to ex plain why teachers attending professional development with all of the features of effectiveness may not necessarily lead to learning or targeted instructional practices, or why some teachers may learn and demonstrate instructional practice from experiences that do not have the characteristics of effectiveness. The conceptual model is outlined in Figure 1 below. 39 Figure 1. Conceptual Model Student Achievement Student Cognitive Engagement Ambitious Instruction Professional Development Focused Content Sustained Attention Active Learning Principal Leadership Professional Community Shared Goals Collaboration Teacher Responsibility in Decision Making 40 My framework posits that school principals are in a unique position to influence ambitious instruction 3 in a school. They are able to directly influence instruction through coaching, instructional feedback, and the teacher evaluation process ( Leithwood et al., 2004 ). In addition, principals are able to indirectly influence teachersÕ instructional quality through orchestrating professional development and promoting strong teacher professional community (Borko et al., 2003; Printy, 2008; Youngs & King, 2002; Thoonen et al., 2011 ). At the same time, principals differ in their a pproach to leadership, and in the extent to which they support teacher learning throughout the school (Marks & Printy, 2003; Printy, 2008). Nonetheless, principals have the potential to influence these various organizational factors, which , in turn, influ ence student engagement (Cook -Sather, 2007; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999; Quinn, 2002). Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 . For hypothesis 1a, I anticipate that a uthentic instruction promotes student cognitive engagement. I expect that teachersÕ AIW instructional practices will be associated with studentsÕ cognitive engagement. Previous studies have found that certain instructional task characteristics are linked to studentsÕ cognitive engagement (Helme & Clarke, 2001; Lee & Anderson, 1993). In addition, the fram ework for authentic instruction developed by Newmann and Wehlage (1993) identifies five key aspects of instruction that are associated with meaningful intellectual work and cognitive engagement. Marks (2000) has also shown that student report of authentic instructional work was associated with student engagement. Student perception of instruction that provided opportunities for analysis, depth of inquiry, and connections beyond school was associated with increased levels of student engagement. As instruc tion provides meaningful opportunities for learning, students will be more likely to engage cognitively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ata Collection The following section outlines the data collection procedures for the study as well as the instruments used for data collection including survey, interview, and observation protocols. !"#$%&'$() *+In order to understand teachersÕ experiences in AIW PD, and aspects that contributed to their enactment of AIW instruction, I cond ucted semi -structured interviews with all of the focal teachers at each school, the school principals and instructional coaches, AIW founders and coaches, as well as district and state personnel at two time points in the 2013 -2014 school year. The length of the initial teacher interviews was approximately an hour on average. The principal, instructional coach, AIW founder, district and state personnel interviews lasted between one and two hours. Conducting the interviews at two time points allowed for fol low -up interviews when necessary. All of the focal teachers participated in at least two interviews at two different time points. The design for the interview protocols was guided by the three main research questions. The focal teachers at each of the tw o schools were interviewed to gather information about their teaching background, their participation in PD, and their perceptions of teacher professional community, principal leadership, and student engagement at their school. Specifically, the interview s were designed to elicit information about teachersÕ use of AIW instructional practices and their perceptions of how those practices influenced student cognitive engagement in the classroom. Many of the interview questions were adapted from previous stud ies involving student engagement, professional development, and professional community (Franke et al., 2001; Marks, 2000; Youngs & King, 2002). I developed additional research questions that were specifically relevant to the AIW initiative. The interview protocols can be found in Appendix A. The school principal interviews inquired into their understanding of the AIW initiative, its alignment with school goals, their decisions related to PD, and their role in promoting 59 professional community and instructional quality. In addition, I conducted interviews with the three AIW founders and the AIW coaches at each school as well as the district and state personnel involved in the AIW initiative. The interviews gathered information on the nature of the PD initiative in the schools and the perceptions of influence on student cognitive engagement. The information gathered from the intervi ews were designed to gather information regarding Research Questions 2 and 3 , which concern PD, principal leadership, and professional community, and their relationship to instructional quality and student engagement. Observations . To gather objective criteria of teachersÕ AIW instructional practice, I observed and videotaped each focal teacher (n=12) for at least two lesson periods in the spring of the 2013 -2014 school year. The intention of the classroom observations was to gather instances of the tea chersÕ instructional practices in the classroom. These observations provided information on teacherÕs instruction beyond their self -reported perceptions captured in the interviews and teacher surveys. Some of the initial observations were scheduled and the teachers knew I would be visiting the class that day. I sat in the back of the room, and placed a video recorder on the teacher to capture the teacherÕs instruction. Student voices and classroom discussion was audible on the tape as well. I requested th e lesson be a usual lesson as other days, and to visit a general education class that was not specifically an honors or specialty class. Both of the schools had an open door policy, and the teachers extended open invitations to visit their classes at any point. On subsequent visits to the schools, I visited the classrooms unannounced and spent further time observing. These follow -up observations provided further experience in the focal teacherÕs classrooms and allowed me to gather additional field notes on the classroom instruction. I then used the AIW Classroom Instruction Scoring Protocol developed by Newmann, King, and Carmichael (2007) at the Center for AIW to score each lesson. This provided an 60 assessment of AIW instructional quality. An overview o f the AIW Classroom Instruction Scoring Protocol developed by Newmann, King, and Carm ichael is included in Appendix B. I also observed the professional learning communities engaged in the AIW lesson scoring or student work scoring process at each school. These meetings consisted of teachers, an administrator, and at times, an AIW coach. The teachers are grouped into these professional learning communities based on their assigned teaching group called their ÒhouseÓ within the school. This is a group of tea chers who teach various subjects at a particular grade level. While these groups were initially formed as professional learning communities, their purpose has changed to focus on AIW when the initiative began at the schools two years prior. Each team was a lso assigned an anchor who had received additional AIW training and was tasked with facilitating the group. These meetings allowed me to collect information on the nature of PD, as well as the strength of the teacher professional community. I drew on the conceptions of high -quality PD and teacher professional community mentioned above to guide my collection of field notes. I also observed the mid -year AIW institute at each school to gather further information in the PD. This was a daylong PD session in w hich the local AIW coach as well as the AIW regional coach provided further support for teachers involved in the AIW scoring process. The classroom and PD observations provided information to answer Research Questions 1, 2, 3 . Surveys . To gather teacher self-report of various items related to AIW PD, and the school context, I administered a survey to all of the teachers in both of the middle schools in the spring of the 2013 -2014 school year. All of the teachers in the two schools received the survey; it was not limited to the twelve focal teachers participating in the interviews and observations. I designed the survey based on previous studies involving student engagement, professional development and professional community ( Franke et al., 2001; Youngs & King, 2002). The items on the teacher survey were primarily based on a four -point Likert scale; with the response 61 options ranging from strongly disagree, to strongly agree for questions about organizational conditions. The questions about the individual teachersÕ instructional practice included a five -point scale for frequency including never, yearly, monthly, weekly and daily. The questions relating to AIW described different levels of AIW classroom practice. There were also a few ranking and open -ende d questions that related to planning, delivering, and reflecting on instruction. The survey included a selection of questions solely for the instructional coaches and administrators at the school with a similar format. In total, there were 13 questions on the instructional coach and administrator survey, and 24 questions on the teacher survey. The teacher and administrator survey provided information abou t Research Questions 2 and 3 . The teacher survey is included in Appendix C. In order to gather informa tion on studentsÕ level of cognitive engagement in the classroom, a student survey was also administered to a selection of the students in both of the middle schools in the spring of the 2013 -2014 school year. Each focal teacher administered the survey to students in two of his or her classes. The surveys for each class included a cover sheet in which the teacher filled in the information about the class, as well as any comments about student learning and their AIW instructional practice. This information w as gathered to answer Research Questions 1 and 2, which concern AIW instructional strategies and levels of student cognitive engagement. The student survey was comprised of items from previous studies and instruments including the Student Engagement Inven tory (SEI, described below) and the study on student engagement and authentic instruction by Helen Marks (2000). In addition, several items were developed to align explicitly with the aims of AIW. The student surveys were initially piloted with a selecti on of middle school students and feedback was gathered on the nature of the questions and the studentsÕ responses. This information was used to further edit the student survey before it was administered to the students in the two schools for this study. 62 The use of a selection of items from the SEI instrument was appropriate for the student survey in this study because it was designed specifically to measure cognitive engagement. However, the instrument was intended for student engagement with the school a s a whole. Therefore, several items were selected and adjusted to inquire about student engagement in the classroom specifically. Appleton and Christenson (2004) developed the SEI from a review of relevant literature on engagement. The instrument includes 30 items to measure cognitive engagement and 26 items intended to measure psychological engagement from the perspective of the student. Using a study sample of 1,940 ninth graders from randomly selected classrooms in an urban school district, Appleton an d Christenson reported that the SEI was an effective measure of cognitive and psychological engagement. A draft of the student cognitive engagement survey is included in Appendix D. Data Analysis Interviews . All of the interviews were audiotaped and then transcribed. The semi -structured interviews were designed to cover similar topics in each interview, but to also allow for the different topics and ideas introduced by teachers regarding their instruction and experience. I used a qualitative software program called HyperResearch to categorize, code, and classify the interview data. Using a retroductive coding process outlined by Ragin (1994), I employed both top -down and bottom -up procedures to code the inte rview data. First, I utilized a deductive coding process using concepts from the conceptual framework to organize the responses. As I initially read through the interview transcriptions I used a descriptive coding process as described by Huberman and Mil es (2002) to identify categories of teachersÕ responses to the interview questions. Some examples of these initial categories were AIW PD , Principal Leadership, Conceptions of Student Engagement, Collaboration, and Purpose. 63 In my second pass through the interview data, I employed pattern coding as explained by Huberman and Miles (1994). Responses were labeled based on identifying patterns and emerging themes from the data. After two or three passes through the data, I reduced the main patterns and theme s into broad categories and organized the data into analytic units. I then used the analytic units along with the observation and survey data to identify relationships in response to Research Questions 2, 3, and 3a. I did this by creating an analytic mat rix (Miles & Huberman, 1994) with a row for each of the 12 focal teachers, grouped by their level of student engagement average scores from the surveys. This process led to teachers in three groups according to the level of student engagement; high, medium , and low student engagement. Using the HyperResearch coded data, I filled in the matrix by listing the codes assigned to each teacher. Once the matrix was constructed, I looked at the patterns for individual teachers, and among the different groups of hig h, medium, and low student engagement teachers. I identified a number of patterns that differentiated the teachers Ð particularly in the areas of AIW PD, principal leadership, teacher professional community, and principal leadership. These patterns formu lated the beginning of my findings. I then returned to the interview data to read through the transcripts to identify instances in which the teachersÕ responses supported or contradicted my initial findings. I revised my findings of the patterns among t he different groups of teachers, and distinguished cases in which teachers from the high and low student engagement groups had opposing views on certain categories. This process helped me to understand differences among the different groups of teachers. I then grouped the teachers according to their level of student engagement, and their level of high, medium -low , or low AIW instructional practice based on the classroom observation scores. This provided me with a table of the teachers according to the le vel of student engagement as reported by the students in their class, and the level of AIW instructional 64 practice, according to the scores of the classroom observations. This provided the basis for organizing the patterns from the HyperResearch coded data. To ensure validity in the coding process, a second coder was also involved in coding a selection of the interviews. After we each completed a coding session, I met with the second coder to discuss the various coding categories and the assignment of vario us codes. We discussed any discrepant codes and established an inter -rater reliability score of 75% for the interviews we jointly coded. This helped to inform both the development of the list of codes, as well as the validity of the assignment of codes to the interviews. Observations. To analyze the observations of the focal teachersÕ classroom instruction, I utilized both my field notes from the observations, as well as the video recordings of lessons. I first organized my notes from the observations and recorded instances of AIW instructional practice during the lessons. I utilized the AIW lesson scoring protocol to generate scores for each of the twelve focal teachers. This process allowed me to identify high and low AIW implementers. The AIW lesson s coring protocol was chosen as a useful tool to identify teachers who differ in their AIW instructional practices because the tool is consistent with the objectives outlined in the PD. The AIW lesson scoring protocol also provided an objective assessment o f instructional practice to evaluate relationships among teachersÕ practice and student cognitive engagement, PD, principal leadership, and professional community. It is important to note that I was not formally trained in the AIW lesson scoring protocol. I received instruction from an AIW coach, and read the AIW manual (2007) to inform myself on the framework and underlying principals, as well as the various categories for scoring classroom instruction. In addition, I worked with a second scorer, and one of the founders of AIW, to ensure validity of the scores I assigned to the classroom observations. After viewing a selection of the classroom observation videos, the second scorer and I discussed the scores we assigned to 65 the teachers, and any discrepancie s between our scores. We made note of any category in which we differed by more than one point, and then returned to discuss those categories after reviewing additional videos of the classroom observations. In total, we established an inter -rater reliabili ty score of over 80% on the selection of videos we coded. This process provided insight into the practices of the teachers and greater validity in the scoring of the classroom observations. Information on the lesson scoring procedures from the AIW manua l i s included in Appendix B . Surveys. To develop a comprehensive understanding of student engagement and the organizational factors at each middle school, I conducted a multiple, embedded case study (Yin, 2003), which included the two schools and the 12 indi vidual classes. Student Survey . The first task was to edit, code, and input the data in a n excel spreadsheet . To analyze student cognitive engagement as a dependent variable, I selected the corresponding items on the survey. Initially, I used descriptive statistics including the mean and frequency counts for the student survey responses. I created a composite score of the student engagement items from the student survey to create an engagement score for each student. These scores were then averaged for ea ch class. The student engagement score for each teacher was then calculated from the average score of two of the teacherÕs classes. This information was examined alongside the qualitative data. Teacher and Administrator Survey. The teacher and administra tor survey was administered online through Qualtrics; therefore, all of the data was available in a format that was compatible with SPSS software. I first analyzed the teacher survey data by organizing the different questions into groups that represented t he categories I was interested in analyzing. For example, I grouped all of the questions relevant to teachersÕ self -reported level of AIW instructional practices. I then created one score for each of these categories by conducting a factor analysis for se lect items. I did not end up reporting the factor analysis as they were not 66 correlated with the other variables I was examining. I then conducted a PearsonÕs correlation to determine the relationship between the variables. To analyze the data for RQ3 , the appropriate analytic technique for the size of the sample was an application of Single Linear Regression. Single Linear Regression allowed for the variance in the dependent variable ( teacher change in instruction ) to be analyzed based on each teacherÕs sc ore for their AIW instructional practice. The model investigated whether teachersÕ knowledge or values were predictive of teacher change in instruction . I also analyzed the open -ended questions by creating a table of the responses for each teacher. I then grouped the responses into a number of categories. Procedures for Triangulating Data and Establishing Validity . In this study, I employed four main strategies to establish validity of the data . As recommended by Morse and colleagues (2002) these strateg ies were interwoven into the inquiry process, which enabled me to adjust both the analysis and the direction of the study to ensure rigor . These strategies included 1) sampling sufficiency, 2) triangulating the data by using multiple data collection and a nalysis methods; 2) a multiple , embedded case design; and 3) peer review and debriefing (Deyhle, Hess, & LeCompte, 1992; Glesne, 2006 ; Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, & Spiers, 2002; Patton, 2001 ). First, I ensured the sample was appropriate by identifying participants who had specific knowledge of the AIW research topic. Additionally, I emphasized sampling adequacy by seeking evidence of saturation of categories and replication during data collection and analysis (Morse, 1991) to ensure I had obtained sufficient data for different aspects of the phenomenon. Second, I used multiple data collection and analysis methods to ensure validity of the data (Stake, 2004). Specifically, I collected data on the three main constructs through observation s, interviews, and surveys. In addition, I used both qualitative and quantitative approaches. I then analyzed the teacher survey data to cross -check teachersÕ interview responses about their perceptions of principal suppo rt, the AIW framework, teacher professional 67 community, participation in PD, and their enactment of AIW instructional practices. I found that the teachersÕ responses to interview questions on these topics were very similar to their survey responses regardin g the same topics. I also identified a few instances that were inconsistent between the two data sources. This helped to create additional sub -categories in the coding, and to note such differences to inform my findings. In addition, I referenced observati on data, and compared findings in the interview and survey data to analyze different sources of data concurrently (Morse et al., 2002). This process enabled me to capture different dimensions of the same phenomenon. Third , my use of a multiple , embedded c ase design (Yin, 2003) enabled me to examine the two different groups of teachers in each school and to identify patterns that were consistent across the teachers in the two schools concerning their conceptions of student engagement, principal leadership, PD, and teacher professional engagement. In addition, I examined the observation, interview, and survey data across groups of teachers and individuals to identify patterns as well as cases that were exceptions to the patterns. Fourth , I gathered feedback on my research design, and on the findings throughout the process from faculty and graduate student colleagues in the areas of educational administration, instructional improvement, and educational policy (Glesne, 2006). The peer review helped to decrease any of my own researcher bias that may arise in the qualitative analysis. This feedback also helped me to reexamine the theoretical basis for specific coding categories, to re focus the scope of the study to a selection of teachers , and to emphasize the construct of instructional leadership. Throughout the process, I sought to approach my work from both a grounded and theoretical perspective in which new ideas emerging from the data were reconfirmed in data that was already collected. I employed thes e strategies incrementally and interactively to contribute to the validity of the study (Morse et al., 2002) . 68 Ethical Considerations. All aspects of this study were conducted in accordance with the Institutional Review Board (IRB) guidelines. The researc hers involved in the study completed the necessary training and completed the process to receive exempt status for the study through the IRB at Michigan State University. In addition, teachers were provided an honorarium for their participation in this res earch. Limitations. One limitation of this study was the small sample size of the participating schools and teachers. The intention of the sampling strategy and focused case study design was to gather an in -depth understanding of the particular phenomeno n in the context of the two schools. At the same time, this limited the inquiry to a specific context with a limited number of individuals. Another limitation is the study did not involve a control group that was not participating in the AIW PD to provide a comparison group for analyzing differences between the individuals who received the PD, and those that did not. A further limitation was the fact that data was only gathered in the spring of the 2013 -2014 school year. The study would be further streng thened by longitudinal data gathered at multiple time -points over the course of the implementation of the AIW PD. Future studies could explore similar aspects of student cognitive engagement and related organizational factors in the context of different P D initiatives over multiple years to explore their influence on instructional practice. 69 CHAPTER 4: STUDENT COGNITIVE ENGAGEMENT AND AUTHENTIC INSTRUCTION Student Cognitive Engagement and Authentic Instruction The aim of this study i s to examine the factors that contribute to increased student cognitive engagement in the classroom, including aspects relating to the teacher, professional development, and organizational conditions. In particular, I examined teachersÕ perceptions and instructional practices as well as studentsÕ report of their cognitive engagement in the context the AIW PD initiative. This inquiry included both qualitative analysis of interview data and quantitative analysis of student and teacher survey data. The mixed method approach allowed for qualitative analysis of patterns and descriptions of instructional practices, student engagement, and organizational conditions in the particular AIW context. The quantitative analysis provided administrator, teacher , and stude nt perceptual responses, as well as an analysis of objective criteria of instructional practices. In the sections that follow, I report on the findings according to the first and second research questions. The first research ques tion asked: 1 ) Do teachers with different levels of AIW instructional practices have different levels of cognitive engagement in their classrooms? And 1a) What are the ways in which teachers with different levels of AIW instructiona l practice conceive of student engagement? To answ er these questions, I first present the focal teachers levels of AIW instructional practices. Second, I delineate the levels of student cognitive engagement in the focal teachersÕ classrooms. I then compare the association between the levels of the focal teachersÕ AIW instructional practices and the level of student cognitive engagement in their classrooms. Finally, I examine the different ways teachers with high and low levels of AIW instructional practices conceive of student engagement. Throughout the r esults chapters, I discuss some of the similarities and differences among the different groups of teachers. 70 Levels of AIW Instructional Practices . !"#$%&'()$*#('"#+,-$)#.#),$&%$/01$ 23,*+4'*2&3()$,*+(*#52#,$6#+#$7(,#8$&3$*"#$ (.#+(5#$,'&+#, $%+&9$*6&$')(,,+&&9$ &7,#+.(*2&3,:$/)*"&45"$*"#$)#.#),$&%$/01$,*+(*#52#,$(+#$7(,#8$&3$($,9())$,#)#'*2&3$&%$ )#,,&3,;$*"#$23*#3*$2,$*&$'(<*4+#$,()2#3*$(,<#'*,$&%$*"#$*#('"#+,-$(<<+&('"$*&$23,*+4'*2&3;$ +(*"#+$*"(3$*"#$,<#'2%2'$,'&+#$&%$($<(+*2'4)(+$')(,,$)#,,& 3:$=.#+());$*"#$/01$')(,,+&&9$ &7,#+.(*2&3$,'&+#,$+#<+#,#3*#8$*"#$#>*#3*$*&$6"2'"$*"#$23,*+4'*2&3$23$*"#$')(,,+&&9$ 23.&).#8$*#('"#+$8#9(38,$%&+$(38$,*48#3*$<(+*2'2<(*2&3$23$(4*"#3*2'$23*#))#'*4()$6&+?:$!"#$ %&'()$*#('"#+,-$/01$(.#+(5#$,'&+#$%&+$)#,,&3$@$(38$ )#,,&3$A$(38$*"#$9#(3$/01$')(,,+&&9$ &7,#+.(*2&3$,'&+#$(+#$)2,*#8$23$!(7)#$B$7#)&6:$!"#$'#))$.()4#,$(+#$9#(3$+(6$,'&+#,$&3$($ ,'()#$&%$@ CD;$62*"$(3$&.#+())$*#('"#+$9#(3$%&+$7&*"$,'"&&),$&%$A:E: 71 Table 3. Birch and Cedar Middle School Focal T eachers' AIW Av erage Score for Lesson 1 and L esson 2 and Mean AIW Classroom Observation Score Teacher Lesson 1 AIW Average Score Lesson 2 AIW Average Score Mean AIW Classroom Observation Score (overall teacher mean = 2.4 , SD = 1.08 ) Birch Middle School Lila 3.5 4.0 3.75 Dan 3.5 3.0 3.25 Jeff 3.25 3.25 3.25 Tom 2.5 1.5 2.00 Tori 1.5 1.25 1.40 Kari 1.0 1.0 1.00 Birch School Mean 2.54 2.33 2.44 Birch School SD 1.08 1.24 1.13 Cedar Middle School Holly 1.5 1.25 1.25 Donna 1.0 1.0 1.00 Kionna 1.5 1.75 1.60 Greg 1.5 1.25 1.40 Jana 3.5 3.0 3.25 Trine 3.5 3.5 3.50 Cedar School Mean 2.08 1.96 2 Cedar School SD 1.11 1.04 1.09 Note: The cell values are mean raw scores on a scale of 1 -5, with an overall teacher mean AIW Classroom Observation Score for both schools of 2.4 , and SD of 1.08 . To assess whether the level of AIW instructional practice was possibly associated with teachersÕ years of experience, c ontent area, or course level, I also analyzed the mean AIW classroom observation scores alongside these data. As you can see in Table 4 below, the teachers with high and low mean AIW classroom observation scores represent a range of years of experience, content areas, and course levels. Teachers with high sc ores range from 2 to 23 years of experience, represent every content area, and course levels 6 -8. Similarly, teachers with low mean AIW classroom observation scores range from 2 to 38 years of experience, represent every content are a, and course levels 6 -8. It does seem that teachers at Birch Middle School with high 72 scores also teach seventh and eighth grades, whereas teachers with high scores at Cedar Middle School teach sixth grade. Nonetheless , the teachers with high and low mean AIW instruction scores at both schools combined represent a range of years of experience, content areas, and course levels. In turn, the AIW scores did not seem to be associated with the se factors . Table 4. Birch and Cedar Middle School Focal Teachers' Years of Experience, Content Area, Course L evel, and Mean AIW Classroom Observation Score Teacher Years of Exp. Content Area Course Level Mean AIW Classroom Observation Score (teacher mean = 2.4 , SD = 1.08 ) Birch Middle School Lila 2 Science 8 3.75 Dan 7 Math 8 3.25 Jeff 3 Social Studies 7 3.25 Tom 38 Language Arts 7 2.00 Tori 11 Science 7 1.40 Kari 12 Math 6 1.00 Birch School Mean 2.44 Birch School SD 1.13 Cedar Middle School Holly 4 Math 8 1.25 Donna 2 Social Studies 7 1.00 Kionna 8 Social Studies 7 1.60 Greg 11 Language Arts 6 1.50 Jana 23 Math 6 3.25 Trine 11 Language Arts 6 3.50 Cedar School Mean 2 Cedar School SD 1.09 Note: The Mean AIW Classroom Observation Score cell values are mean raw scores on a scale of 1 -5, with an overall teacher mean AIW Classroom Observation Score for both schools of 2.4 , and SD of 1.08 . 73 Levels of Student Cognitive Engagement . !"#$)#.#)$&%$,*48#3*$'&532*2.#$#35(5#9#3*$ 23$*"#$*#('"#+,-$ ')(,,+&&9,$6(,$'()'4)(*#8$4,235$*"#$(.#+(5#$,*48#3*$'&532*2.#$#35(5#9#3*$ 23$*6&$82%%#+#3*$')(,,#,;$(38$*"#3$%238235$*"#$9#(3$,*48#3*$'&532*2.#$#35(5#9# 3*$('+&,,$ *"#$*6&$')(,,#,$%+&9$F$'&532*2.#$#35(5#9#3*$2*#9,$&3$*"#$,*48#3*$,4+.#G$HI##$/<<#382>$ JK:$$!"#$(.#+(5#$,*48#3*$'&532*2.#$#35(5#9#3*$%&+$*"#$%2+,*$(38$,#'&38$')(,,#,;$(,$6#))$(,$ *"#$&.#+())$9#(3$,*48#3*$'&532*2.#$#35(5#9#3*$('+&,,$*"#$*6&$')(,,#,$2,$23')48#8$23$!(7)#$ D$7#)&6:$$1"#3$*"#$9#(3$,*48#3*$'&532*2.#$#35(5#9#3*$,'&+#,$6#+#$'&9<(+#8$62*"$*"#$ *#('"#+,-$G#(+,$&%$#><#+2#3'#;$'&3*#3*$(+#(;$(38$'&4+,#$)#.#);$*"#+#$6(,$3&*$($')#(+$<(**#+3$ &%$(,,&'2(*2&3$7#*6##3$*"#$#35(5#9#3*$,'&+#,$(38$*"#$&*"#+$*#('"#+$8(*(:$$!"2,$2382'(*#8$ *"(*$,*48#3*$'&532*2.#$#35(5#9#3*$6(,$3&*$82+#'*)G$&+$,&)#)G$(,,&'2(*#8$62* "$&3#$&+$())$&%$ *"#,#$&*"#+$%('*&+,: 74 Table 5. Birch and Cedar Middle School Focal T eachers' AIW Mean Student Cognitive Engagement S core for Class 1 and Class 2 and Overall Mean Student Cognitive Engagement S core Teacher Class 1 Student Cognitive Engagement Class 2 Student Cognitive Engagement Mean Student Cognitive Engagement (teacher mean = 3.8 , SD = 0.23 ) Birch Middle School Lila 3.7 3.8 3.8 Dan 3.3 4.3 3.8 Jeff 3.9 4.1 4 Tom 3.6 3.6 3.6 Tori 3.7 4.1 3.9 Kari 3.7 3.7 3.7 Birch School Mean 3.65 3.93 3.8 Birch School SD 0.20 0.27 0.14 Cedar Middle School Holly 3.5 3.2 3.4 Donna 3.7 3.7 3.7 Kionna 3.7 4 3.9 Greg 3.6 3.8 3.7 Jana 4 4 4 Trine 4 4 4 Cedar School Mean 3.75 3.78 3.78 Cedar School SD 0.21 0.31 0.23 Note: The cell values are mean raw scores on a scale of 1 -5, with an overall student cognitive engagement mean for both schools of 3.8 , and a SD of 0.23 for both schools . AIW Instruction al Practice and Student Cognitive Engagement. Finally, the overall mean student cognitive engagement scores were compared with the mean AIW Classroom Observation Scores for each teacher. Table 6 depicts the overall mean student cognitive engagement score alongside the mean AIW Classroom Observation S core for each teacher. Given that the scores are so close to one another, and many teachers differ by only 0.1, the differences among student cognitive engagement for the teachers are not clearly distinguishable. There are several teachers just below or ju st above the mean, for example, Kionna and Tori are 3.9, and Kari and Greg are 3.7 , just 0.1 above and below the mean respectively . This is not a great enough difference to conclude a possible association between teachersÕ level of student cognitive engagement in the classroom and teachersÕ level of AIW instructional practice. 75 Although the differences were not great enough to distinguish among the teachers, there was some indication of a pattern in which five teachers who scored above the overall mean for both schools of 2.4 for AIW instruction, also scored above the teacher mean for both schools of 3.8 for student cognitive engagement. In addition, five of the teachers who scored below the AIW classroom observation school mean for both schools combine d, also scored below the school mean for both schools combined for student cognitive engagement. There were also two exceptions, Tori, a teacher who scored below the AIW classroom observation school mean for both schools combined , scored above the overall teacher mean for student cognitive engagement. Kionna also scored below the AIW classroom observation school mean for both schools combined , and scored above the overall teacher mean for student cognitive engagement. However, theses differences were small, and do not lead me to conclude there are marked differences among the teachers to make a clear distinction regarding the level of student cognitive engagement based on these measures. I computed several different scores for teachersÕ level of student cog nitive engagement in the classroom to determine whether other cognitive engagement items may reveal a clearer distinction between the teachers; however, the other combinations of student engagement items did not yield student engagement scores that demonst rated marked differences among the teachers. This exploration was warranted given that student cognitive engagement is measured in numerous different ways in the research literature and there are different approaches to characterize items that make up stud ent cognitive engagement. 76 Table 6. Birch and Cedar Middle School Focal T eachers' Mean Student Cognitive Engagement Score and Mean AIW Classroom Observation Score. Teacher Mean Student Cognitive Engagement Score (teacher mean= 3.8 , SD .23 ) Mean AIW Classroom Observation Score (teacher mean = 2.4 , SD 1.08) Birch Middle School Lila 3.8 3.75 Dan 3.8 3.25 Jeff 4 3.25 Tom 3.6 2.00 Tori 3.9 1.40 Kari 3.7 1.00 Birch School Mean 3.8 2.44 Birch School SD 0.14 1.13 Cedar Middle School Holly 3.4 1.25 Donna 3.6 1.00 Kionna 3.9 1.60 Greg 3.7 1.50 Jana 4 3.25 Trine 4 3.50 Cedar School Mean 3.78 2 Cedar School SD 0.23 1.09 In turn, I was not able to determine the relationship between student cognitive engagement in the classroom and the level of observed AIW instructional practices. Hypothesis 1a stated that I expected teachersÕ AIW instructional practices would be associated with studentsÕ cognitive engagement. The evidence is not clear whether higher levels of teachersÕ AIW instructional practices were associated with higher levels of student cognitive engagement. Furthermore, it is also not clear whether lower levels of AIW instructional practices were associ ated with lower levels of student cognitive engagement. There were also two exceptions in which the teachers had lower levels of AIW instructional practices and higher levels of student cognitive engagement. 77 Given the findings for student cognitive enga gement that did not clearly distinguish the teachers, I will focus on the differences between teachers with high and low -levels of enactment of AIW instruction in the classroom as measured by observation and scored using the AIW scoring rubric. For the fur ther analysis in this study, I will refer to high and low -level teachers as teachers who had high and low levels of AIW instructional practices in the classroom. This will be used as a means to understand ways in which these teachers may differ in other re gards, and potential avenues through which principals may support instructional improvement. TeachersÕ Conceptions of Student Engagement Teachers with high and low levels of AIW instructional practice differed in other ways. The next aspect of the research examined the ways in which teachers with high and lo w l evels of AIW instructional practices compared and contrasted from each other. Specifically, research question 1b asks): What are the ways in which teachers with different levels of AIW instruc tional practices conceive of student engagement? In this section , I outline the findings on teachersÕ conceptions of what student engagement is and how to encourage student engagement through instruction. Student Engagement as a Priority . According to teacher self -report on the survey, student engagement was rated as the factor that was most important to teachers when planning, delivering, and reflecting on instruction. Teachers were asked to rate the top three factors in order of importanc e regarding instruction. Three separate questions inquired about teachersÕ top priorities for each of three d ifferent aspects of instruction: planning, delivery, and reflection on the effectiveness of their instruction. In both schools, student engagement was rated as the most important priority out of 9 possible options. In addition to student engagement, other highly rated items included Common Core Standards, AIW, covering course material, and classroom 78 management. Figure 3 below shows a graph of the tea chersÕ response to one of the questions, which focused on the most important factor during the delivery of instruction with the top 6 priorities. The question stated: Please respond to the following items in terms of your instruction. Teachers have to co nsider many things during their instruction; however, at the same time teachers have to choose among different priorities. I would like to know what is most important to you during instruction. Please mark your top three priorities. Give a 1 to your firs t priority, a 2 to your second priority, and a 3 to your third priority. The questions were stated similarly for the two other questions focused on priorities when planning for instruction and reflection on the effectiveness of instruction. The graph ref lects a total of 58 teachersÕ responses to the survey . The t op six out of 9 priorities are included in the graph. Student engagement was the highest rated priority for all three questions by both teachers and administrators at both schools. Figure 3 . TeachersÕ top three priorities during i nstruction at Birch and Cedar Middle School in order of priority from one to three . This finding indicates that student engagement is one of teachersÕ highest priorities regarding instruction. It is important to note that not all of the participants were teaching L!M!"L!"M!#L!#M!