Perceptions Regarding the Use of Common Planning Time at Three High-Achieving Elementary Schools
do not necessarily reflect the views of UKDiss.com.
Perceptions Regarding the Use of Common Planning Time at Three High-Achieving Elementary Schools
Abstract
This study was of the beliefs and strategies of teachers and administrators of three high achieving elementary schools utilizing a weekly common planning period. Research in other studies have concluded that collaboration as a critical part of a professional learning community (PLC) and leads to higher student achievement. However, there is limited research on what collaboration actually looks like in a school setting. Research questions for the study examined strategies utilized by classroom teachers and principals to capture specific actions and beliefs regarding collaboration to increase student achievement. A phenomenological qualitative method was utilized by interviewing 9 teachers and 3 principals to capture the essence of the phenomenon of collaboration. Coding was completed and data analysis utilizing AtlasTi and concluded that teachers build capacity through dialogue that revolved around data analysis, strategies to teach lessons, and creating common assessments. Principals noted data analysis and shared leadership as to leading to increased student performance. Implications for social change is for universities and districts by providing effective strategies to implement effective teacher collaboration leading to higher student academic achievement and greater opportunities for students in a global economy.
Table of Contents
List of Tables…………………………………………………..iv
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study…………………………………..1
Problem Statement…………………………………………….4
Nature of the Study…………………………………………….8
Research Questions……………………………………………9
Purpose of the Study…………………………………………..10
Conceptual Framework………………………………………..12
Operational Terms……………………………………………17
Assumptions………………………………………………..18
Limitations…………………………………………………19
Scope and Delimitations………………………………………..20
Significance of the Study……………………………………….21
Summary………………………………………………….23
Chapter 2: Literature Review……………………………………….25
Literature Search Strategy………………………………………25
Conceptual Framework………………………………………..26
Deeper Look into Professional Learning Communities…………………..31
Teacher Collaboration…………………………………………36
Common Planning Time………………………………………..44
Leadership and Teacher Collaboration………………………………48
Methodologies………………………………………………51
Summary………………………………………………….53
Chapter 3: Methodology…………………………………………..55
Design of the Study…………………………………………..56
Justification of the Design………………………………………57
Research Questions…………………………………………..61
Context of the Study…………………………………………..62
Ethical Considerations…………………………………………64
Role of the Researcher…………………………………………67
Criteria for Selecting Participants………………………………….70
Data Collection………………………………………………72
Validation and Verification Procedures……………………………..74
Data Analysis and Interpretation plan………………………………76
Summary………………………………………………….78
Chapter 4: Data Analysis………………………………………….80
Participants…………………………………………………80
Data Gathering Process………………………………………..81
Interviews………………………………………………….82
Observations of Collaborative Meetings…………………………….83
Journal……………………………………………………83
Coding……………………………………………………83
Findings…………………………………………………..84
Discrepant Data……………………………………………..96
Evidence of Quality…………………………………………..98
Conclusion…………………………………………………99
Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations…………………102
Overview of the Study………………………………………..102
Interpretations of the Findings…………………………………..104
Limitations of the Study……………………………………….110
Implications for Social Change………………………………….111
Recommendations for Further Study………………………………112
Conclusion………………………………………………..112
References…………………………………………………..115
Appendix A: Memorandum of Understanding…………………………..148
Appendix B: Interview Guide Administrator Questions……………………149
Appendix C: Interview Guide Teacher Questions………………………..151
Appendix D: Code Manual for the Study………………………………153
Appendix E: Letter to the Superintendent……………………………..156
Appendix F: Letter of Cooperation………………………………….157
Appendix G: Consent Form for Interview……………………………..158
Appendix H: Initial Teacher Participation Letter…………………………161
Appendix I: Sample Observation Form……………………………….162
List of Tables
Table 1. API Growth of High Achieving Elementary Schools…………………5
Table 2. API Growth of Low Achieving Elementary Schools…………………6
Table 3. Demographics of Three Elementary Schools for the Study ……………64
Table 4. Themes……………………………………………….85
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
For years, researchers have contended that the failure to improve the academic achievement of students of poverty and to close the achievement gap are connected to school sites’ failure to utilize the latest research on effective practices (Pogrow, 2017). School leaders must search for best practices, programs, and strategies to increase the capacity of school sites to meet the needs of all students. Research identified strong links between the capacities of teachers and the academic performance of their students (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Lynch, Smith, Provost, & Madden, 2016), and the driving force behind changing the actions of the classroom teacher is the site leadership (Leithwood, Patten, & Jantzi, 2010; Owen, 2015; Wilson, 2011). Researchers have proposed professional collaboration by teachers as a means to improve student performance (Burgess, Newton, & Riveros, 2012; Harris & Jones, 2010; Levine, 2011; Resnick, 2010). Teacher collaboration was as a critical factor in transforming high poverty, low achieving schools into high achieving schools (Brown & Green, 2014; Griffin & Green, 2012). Professional collaboration is systematic collective inquiry of strategies and practices to improve instructional quality and student outcomes in schools (Woodland, 2016).
Although teacher collaboration has been deemed a key element in improving student achievement, and despite the decades of research calling for such collaboration (Datnow, 2011), many teachers remain professionally isolated from their peers spending the majority of their day teaching classes and the remainder of the day completing administrative tasks (Dodor, Sira, & Hausafus, 2010; DuFour, 2011; Fallon & Barnett, 2009; Flinders, 1988; Levine, 2011; Lortie, 1975; Sutton & Shouse, 2016). Teachers shape the curriculum, write lesson plans, evaluate student progress, and reflect on strategies primarily by themselves (Dodor et al., 2010; Wimberley, 2011). Two main barriers to beneficial collaboration and planning are the lack of time and poor administrative support (P. L. Evans, 2012; Szczesiul & Huizenga, 2014).
Principals, through shared and supportive leadership, create the conditions to ensure learning communities among teachers (Hillery, 2013). Principals need to set the vision, provide goals, and guide the collaboration of teachers (Szczesiul & Huizenga, 2014). Simply bringing teachers together in the name of collaboration does not guarantee a successful outcome (Datnow, 2011; D. Smith, Wilson, & Corbett, 2009). Instead, time and administrative support are necessary for teachers to analyze data, manage the curriculum, study lessons, improve instruction, and create formative assessments (Churchin, 2013). When faculty and staff work in a collaborative setting focused on student learning, this is a professional learning community (Allen, 2013; Hord, 1997).
Williams (2012) recommended that schools operate as professional learning communities (PLCs) so that educational professionals can work collaboratively by focusing on teaching and collecting and using assessment data to collectively inquire about and evaluate students’ progress over time. The image of teachers working together as a community within a school has gained prominence in the last two decades (Allen, 2013). PLCs have a shared vision, collaboration, reflective dialogue, and collective responsibility for student learning (Allen, 2013). An effective PLC requires the collaborative efforts of administrators and teachers to enhance the performance of students (Hallam, Smith, Hite, Hite, & Wilcox, 2015).
To develop teacher collaboration, a district in the southwestern United States restructured the daily schedule of all 44 elementary school sites to establish a weekly 105-minute block of time for teachers to meet in a collaborative planning environment. Collaboration time is part of the district’s commitment to establish professional learning communities (PLCs) at all school sites. PLCs have shown to significantly improve collective teacher efficacy (Bailey, 2016; Johnson, M., 2016; Miller-Bailey, 2016) and student achievement (Wennergren & Blossing, 2017).
The district of this study began implementation of PLCs in 2006 through staff development of administrators and select teachers. While many components and pieces come together to create a PLC, such as shared vision and mission, the development of learning goals, and a philosophy of continuous improvement, research demonstrated that few schools effectively demonstrate all PLC principles (Wells & Feun, 2013). The study explored the experiences of teachers and administration using common planning time at selected schools of a district located in the southwestern United States that have demonstrated growth in their annual performance index (API) through mandatory state testing. The study provided a better understanding of how these schools used common planning time to successfully collaborate to improve student academic achievement. In a study of systematic school improvement, Mourshed, Chijoke, and Barber (2010) asserted that sustaining a system of improvement requires three elements, namely, “the formation of a mediating layer between schools and the ‘center;’ a strong pedagogy supported by collaborative practices; and leadership continuity” (p. 18). The study was of the beliefs and practices of a sample of teachers and administrators about the effective use of this time. Included in the literature review in Chapter 2 is a discussion of the frameworks that support teacher collaboration, the benefits of collaboration, PLCs; and the leadership skills and networks necessary to create a culture of collaboration.
Problem Statement
The problem identified in a qualitative study is the discrepancy in state-mandated test scores of elementary schools with high poverty rates in an urban district in the southwestern United States. To be a high-poverty school, 76% or more of the student populations in those schools must qualify to receive free or reduced-price lunches (Aud, Hussar, Johnson, Kena, Roth, Manning, & Zhang, 2012). Using this criterion, all 44 elementary schools in the selected district are high poverty (California Department of Education, CDE, 2013).
Common planning time was implemented in 2008 to promote teacher collaboration to achieve higher student test scores. The district increased by 71 points in the annual performance index (API) in the four years following common planning time becoming a part of the educational program (CDE, 2013)… In the four years prior to common planning time, the district improved by 36 points CDE (2013). Compared to an adjoining district with similar demographics, the district in question has made growth. In 2005, the district in the study had an API of 626 and an adjoining district with similar demographics had an API of 644–a difference of 18 points. Three years later and one year prior to the district in the study adopting the common planning time, the district had an API of 656 and the comparison district had an API of 673–a difference of 17 points. In 2012, since the inception of the common planning time, the district had an API of 726 and the comparison district had an API of 734–a difference of 8 points.
There remained a discrepancy in growth between schools of the district The top three elementary schools in the district averaged 136 points of total growth (see Table 1), whereas the bottom three schools averaged 3 points of total growth over the past 4 years (see Table 2; CDE, 2013).
Table 1
API Growth of High-Achieving Elementary Schools in the School District 2008-2012
School Year | API Growth | ||||
School | 2011-2012 | 2010-2011 | 2009-2010 | 2008-2009 | No. of Points |
A | 27 | 47 | 37 | 21 | 132 |
B | 34 | 37 | 42 | 22 | 135 |
C | 45 | 12 | 55 | 29 | 141 |
Source: CDE, 2013; Full reference withheld for confidentiality
Table 2
API Growth of Low-Achieving Elementary Schools in the School District 2008-2012
School Year | API Growth | |||||
School | 2011-2012 | 2010-2011 | 2009-2010 | 2008-2009 | No. of Points | |
A | -9 | -15 | 17 | -6 | -13 | |
B | 3 | 2 | -2 | 9 | 12 | |
C | 2 | -5 | -12 | 25 | 10 | |
Source: CDE, 2013; Full reference withheld for confidentiality
Low performing schools with high numbers of students in poverty extend beyond the boundaries of the district. Downing-Murley, Keedy, and Walsh (2008) identified 75 elementary schools in Kentucky with high numbers of students in poverty as high achieving, but also noted that 340 elementary schools in the state with high numbers of students in poverty failed to meet acceptable achievement goals. Peabody (2011) reported a similar discrepancy in test scores of schools in Florida.
High poverty, failing schools exist throughout our nation and despite over five decades of reform initiatives, these schools still permeate the national landscape (Brown & Green, 2014). Many internal and external factors can contribute to disparities in schools’ ratings and students’ scores, including an absence of supportive leadership, a lack of quality instruction, unfavorable environments at home and school, a lack of parental involvement, and social and economic differences (Neimeier, 2012).
In 2008, the selected district for this study modified the school schedule to create a weekly two-hour time block for teachers to collaborate and improve student achievement. A signed MOU was completed (see Appendix A) after this time was negotiated with the teacher’s union. In an effort to facilitate the district’s goal to develop PLCs at all school sites, incorporated into the schedule was common planning time.
Some schools in the district under the study have made growth, as measured by state test results, but other schools have not. The three schools selected for the study have exceeded the district average, but three schools at the bottom have not. This represents a discrepancy of growth of over 154 API points over the past four years between the school with the highest amount of growth and the school with the lowest amount of growth. The discrepancy in achievement scores occurs despite both schools being similar in demographics and utilizing the same curriculum. The study explored the use of a designated block of time created for the purpose of teacher collaboration at the high-performing schools. Specifically, the study obtained in-depth information on how teacher’s used collaboration, the ways in which teachers and administrators perceived their roles in the collaborative efforts, and the potential effects on school culture (Damore & Murray, 2009; Hang & Rabren, 2009).
Numerous researchers have supported PLCs and creating time for teachers to collaborate. In a study of practices in four U.S. states, Darling-Hammond, Chung-Wei, Andree, Richardson, and Orphanos (2009) found that all four states had committed to the practice of PLCs and that teachers should collaborate. In Canada, teacher collaboration and the adoption of PLCs have been central to school improvement (Burgess et al., 2012). A national study of science, technology, engineering, and mathematic (STEM) practices within the context of PLCs (Fulton & Britton, 2011) found that providing collaboration time for teachers had a positive influence on student achievement. Cook and Faulkner (2010) in an instrumental case study of common planning time identified limited information on how teachers in the middle school setting used common planning time as a problem for their study. Their study focused on three research questions that asked about (a) factors and characteristics that enhanced common planning time, (b) beliefs and perceptions, and (c) activities and topics covered during common planning time.
Since the inception of the new schedule for collaboration, test scores and API growth, as determined by the CDE (2013) for the district, increased by an average of 21 points per year. The study examined the use of collaboration time at three schools in the district where test scores have exceeded API goals of the district. The study provided the district with effective strategies for all sites to improve common planning time and teacher collaboration (de Waal, 2008). A review of the literature provided copious evidence that collaboration leads to improvements in student achievement, but a gap exists on how to properly implement and sustain effective collaboration (Bennett, 2010). The study developed and provided strategies and principles that emerged from the experiences of teachers and administrators that had demonstrated success in using the common planning time.
Nature of the Study
The qualitative study regarding the effective use of common planning time among three high-performing elementary schools in a school district in the southwestern United States followed a transcendental, phenomenological design. The approach chosen was because the focus of the study is the phenomenon of common planning time. The study did not focus on an individual, as in a narrative approach, or seek to develop a theory, as in a grounded theory approach. The study did not focus on how a cultural group operates, as in ethnography, or on an in-depth understanding of a time-bound case, as in a case study approach. The purpose of the study was to obtain and explore the lived experiences of a sample of administrators and teachers regarding the use of common planning time (Moustakas, 1994).
Data obtained was from interviews with the principals and teachers. Observation of common planning time at each site triangulated the data. The teacher and administrator participants selected was through purposive sampling to ensure that all participants had experienced the phenomenon and could provide accurate insights related to their experiences of the phenomenon (Groenewald, 2004). Chapter 3 provides more details about the methodology, including justification of the design, and the data collection and analysis procedures.
Research Questions
These four research questions guided the study:
- What are the beliefs of teachers regarding the use of common planning time to increase student achievement?
- What strategies have teachers developed during common planning time to increase student achievement?
- What are the beliefs of principals regarding the use of common planning time to increase student achievement?
- What strategies do principals incorporate to implement the effective use of common planning time to increase student achievement?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this phenomenological study was to obtain the perceptions of teachers and administrators at three high-performing elementary schools regarding the effective use of common planning time, a weekly 105-minute block of time that the district established in 2008 to implement PLCs at all school sites. The study provided a deeper understanding of how teachers collaborate during common planning time to improve student achievement. Sun, Penuel, Frank, Gallagher, and Youngs (2013) found that teachers working in a collaborative setting improved teacher quality and increased school capacity. Mertens, Flowers, Anfara, and Caskey (2010) asserted that common planning time provided teachers a means to “plan ways to integrate the curriculum, analyze assessment data, examine student work, discuss current research, and reflect on the effectiveness of instructional approaches being used” (p. 50).
Although researchers such as DuFour (2011) have stated that teacher collaboration is an essential element of PLCs, research on what collaboration actually is in the school setting has been lacking (David, 2009; Graham, 2007). According to Plagens (2011), there is limited research available on teachers’ effective conduction of collaboration or how teachers perceive their collaborative experiences impact their personal and professional practices. P. L. Evans (2012) argued to differentiate collaboration from mere cooperation, needs to be clearly defined and stated that teachers prefer congeniality over collegiality. Finley (2013) observed that teachers need to have blocks of time to plan collaboratively, share what they know, discuss what they want to learn, and have the time to reflect on the effectiveness of what they teach. In contrast, Hattie (2009) stated that one path to collaboration is for principals to purposively place teachers on teams to build capacity. Du (2009) proposed that team building is a “complex and dynamic process that, in practice, proves more opaque than its many guiding practices” (p. 14) and that mandated collaboration could lead to teachers forced to implement the mandates of the administrator. Sawyer and Rimm-Kaufman’s (2007) study of the characteristics and predictors of teacher collaboration, however, found that collaboration between teachers usually takes place informally. According to Plagens (2011), teachers feel that administrators have the most control over formal collaboration and that teachers lack ownership of the process.
Other factors affect the ability to collaborate. Panagos (2011) stated that the lack of time is often seen as a barrier but it was essential that time be allocated for professional collaboration. Canady and Rettig (2008) noted that to accomplish the work of data analysis, curriculum management, lesson study, instructional improvement, and formative assessment design, along with the planning required to support a system of remediation, intervention, and enrichment, teachers must have time to collaborate. Ackerman (2011) determined that scheduled time for teachers to collaborate can enhance teachers’ perceptions of job satisfaction. Ackerman found that teachers “desire to maintain or even increase collaborative time” (p. 110) and concluded that “implementation of a scheduled school day for collaboration would benefit not only the teaching staff but the students as well” (p. 110).
The purpose of the phenomenological study was to obtain the perceptions of teachers and administrators at three high-performing elementary schools regarding the effective use of common planning time, a weekly 105-minute block of time that the district established in 2008 to implement PLCs at all school sites. Perceptions regarding control of the time, consideration of relationships between teachers as well as the relationship between the teachers and administration. The findings might provide other schools in the school district with strategies and philosophies that they could incorporate during collaboration time to improve student achievement.
Conceptual Framework
Integration of teacher collaboration, PLCs, and the use of common planning time formed the conceptual framework to explain the phenomenon of the study. There is a widespread recognition of the value of a shared, collaborative philosophy in schools (Caskey & Carpenter, 2014). Meirink, Imants, Meijer, and Verloop (2010) noted that collaboration was defined as “two or more teachers, each with separate and autonomous practices, who agree to work together to make their private practices more successful” (pp. 163-164). Another definition of collaboration can also be as teachers sharing responsibility and authority for decisions regarding common practices (Meirink et al., 2010). Teacher collaboration creates a learning community where individuals share their multiple perspectives, understandings, observations, and experiences (Goodnough, 2010).
Knowledge is produced through social interaction is the theory undergirding teacher collaboration (Britzman, 1991). Vygotsky’s (1978) zone of proximal development (ZPD) which refers to the importance of social interaction in human development also supported this theory. Murray, Ma, and Mazur (2009) found that ZPD “is a challenging level that an individual reaches through social interaction” (p. 204). Teacher collaboration became the focus of educational researchers early in the 20th century. Dewey (1916) stated that teachers who reflect upon their practices would provide benefits to the entire education system. Epperson (1962) asserted that it is important that educators share ideas and methods to promote the growth of all staff members. Little (1990) studied six schools to gain insight into what ways the social organization of schools as workplaces were conducive to teachers learning on the job. The ethnographic study characterized the interactions based upon who interacted with whom, location of the interaction, and the topic of the discussion. Little developed four collaborative practices known as “critical practices of adaptability” that distinguished successful schools from less successful ones. The practices were as follows: (1) Support for discussion of classroom practices, (b) Mutual observation and critique, (c) efforts made to design and prepare curriculum, and (d) shared participation in the business of instructional improvement (Little, 1982). Little (1982) observed that in successful schools all four types of practices occurred throughout the school and throughout the work week. Little also observed that during these collaborative interactions, teachers appeared to understand a shared and common vocabulary. Little (1990) conceptualized four forms of collaboration that may inhibit or promote teacher collaboration as a practice. These forms were as follows: (a) Storytelling and scanning for ideas, (b) Aid and assistance, (c) Sharing, and (d) Joint work (Little, 1990). The first three forms inhibited growth while the fourth promoted true collaboration (Little, 1990). Levine (2011) observed that the underlying difference is that at most schools, the norms, routines, and shared vision of the school evolved naturally whereas in an effective culture of collaboration, the norms, routines, and shared vision are “intentionally created” (p. 32). The idea is that the actions of the group are “associated with positive changes and seek to improve student learning” (Levine, 2011, p. 18).
Research regarding PLCs includes the concepts of “shared vocabulary,” “shared participation in the business of instructional improvement” and “joint work” (DuFour, 2011; Little, 1982, 1990). Qian, Youngs, and Frank (2013) stated that PLCs were to create a new culture where teachers had a collective responsibility for student outcomes. Additionally, to accommodate the theory of group learning, PLCs can serve as the framework within which teachers through collaboration transform teaching practices to achieve higher rates of student learning (Bush, 2016). Evidence from research demonstrated that PLC concepts can positively affect teacher development (Linder, Post, Calabrese, 2012; Perrault, McClelland, Austin, & Sieppert, 2011). A critical concept of a PLC is that teachers must collaborate (Bretz, 2013; DuFour, 2011; Musanti & Pence, 2010; Richmond & Manokore, 2010). Linder et al. (2012) asserted that the use of reflection, dialogue with other adults, and connecting new learning to past experiences were necessary for teachers to learn new practices and strategies and that these theories and beliefs are present in the structure of PLCs. Wells and Feun (2013) stated that teachers who work in social, collaborative contexts by analyzing student learning and actively learn together enjoy success. Stoll and Seashore (2007) stated that teacher collaboration in the PLC concept is a process that brings the learning community together and PLC teacher collaboration provides an environment where all stakeholders benefit from collaborative relationships. Linder et al. (2012) suggested that the vision of any entity plays a vital role but only if all the participants acknowledge they are part of the plan. PLCs help raise the collective efficacy of teachers at a school site (Gallozzi, 2011). In a study of fourth and fifth grade teachers, Gallozzi (2011) determined a positive relationship between the perception of the teachers’ ability to achieve their goals and the perception that the school functioned as a PLC. Teachers also reported positive changes in classroom practices (Brownell, Adams, Sindelar, Waldron, & Vanhover, 2006).
Murphy (2012) asserted that teams should not be administrative structures but “rather as opportunities for collaboration and learning among team members focused on student learning” (p. 33). Meirink et al. (2010) in a mixed-methods study noted that learning and collaboration were interconnected but many schools, teachers used the word collaboration to describe a practice better defined as cooperation. Likewise, Wells and Feun (2013) reported collaboration is the sharing of materials and resources by teachers’ definition. Darling-Hammond and Richardson (2009) found that team learning is a successful strategy in school improvement.
Positive results will not result simply putting a group of teachers together and demanding collaboration (Gajda & Koliba, 2008; Levine, 2010; Platt & Tripp, 2008). Platt and Tripp (2008) cautioned that collaboration can be either effective groups to improve student learning or can also be groups “whose interactions block improvement and protect mediocre performance by both students and adults” (p. 19). Thessin and Starr (2011) argued that simply putting well-meaning individuals together and expecting them to collaborate is not enough and that districts needed to be deliberate in their efforts to teach teachers how to collaborate. Many researchers and change agents have advocated for PLCs to achieve school reform (Hord, 2008; Little, 2008) calling for a new school culture that eliminates teacher isolation and addresses the frequent lack in coherence among improvement strategies. The desire is to create PLCs that allow the participants to engage in meaningful activities such as collaborating with peers to develop knowledge about teaching and learning (Musanti & Pence, 2010).
One of the common barriers in implementing a PLC is the availability of time (Dever & Lash, 2013). One means to assist teacher collaboration and implementation of a PLC is to alter the school schedule and create a common planning time for teachers (Bretz, 2013; McGrath, 2010; R. W. Smith, 2012). Researchers have asserted that it is critical that teachers have time to collaborate (Ackerman, 2011; Musanti & Pence, 2010; Pangagos, 2011). Gill and Hoffman’s (2009) study of the use of common planning time demonstrated that when teachers plan together, their beliefs and rationale are open and for scrutiny. Hudson (2012) concluded that the loss of a common planning time led to more student discipline issues but did not have an impact on academic achievement. Hudson recommended further study on how districts can effectively use the time and provide teachers with plans, goals, and strategies to develop collaboration. Likewise, Santagata and Guarino (2012) concluded that teachers lacked the opportunities to develop and practice the knowledge and skills needed to engage in productive dialogue on teaching. McGrath (2010), in a qualitative study, noted that while teachers valued collaborative time it was the site principal who was the catalyst in creating a collaborative culture that impacted the use of planning time. In a study of high-performing and high-poverty schools, Suber (2012) determined that effective principals provide school structure and conditions that encourage and provide opportunities for collaboration through planning. Incorporation of common planning time under the PLC model, teachers center their discussion on teacher actions (Dever & Lash, 2013). It becomes imperative that the PLCs, in conjunction with common planning time, improve student achievement. Thus, through the use of common planning under the principles of PLCs, a collaborative culture places student needs and progress as the center of their work (Szczesiul & Huizinga, 2014).
Operational Terms
The study used these definitions:
Annual Performance Index (API): The API is a single number ranging from a low of 200 to a high of 1000 reflecting the performance level of a school, a Local Education Agency (LEA), or a subgroup based upon the results of statewide testing. The standard for each school or LEA is to achieve an API score of 800 or higher. Each student’s performance on multiple statewide assessments uses points for the API. The API calculation converts a student’s performance on statewide assessments across multiple content areas into points on the API scale. All student scores then create a calculated API for schools, LEAs, and each numerically significant subgroup of students at a school or an LEA (CDE, 2013).
Belief: Belief is a subjective probability based upon evaluation and judgment that an object has particular characteristics (Oskamp & Schutz, 2005).
Common planning time: For the purpose of this study, collaboration time referred to a weekly 105-minute block of time established by the district based upon a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed in 2008 between the teachers’ union and the district (see Appendix A).
Practice: Practice is an activity or application used to implement a model of education (Bassinger, 2011).
Professional Learning Community (PLC): Teachers establish PLCs to foster a culture of collaboration and work continuously through the process of inquiry and action research to improve the achievements of the students (DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2008).
Teacher collaboration: Collaboration is teachers sharing responsibility and authority for decisions regarding common practices (Meirink et al., 2010).
Teacher cooperation: Cooperation is two or more teachers while maintaining their separate and autonomous practices agree to work together to make their private practices more successful (Meirink et al., 2010).
Assumptions
The study made two assumptions. The first assumption was all participants answered the interview questions honestly. This assumption was because the participants in the study are from three elementary sites that are achieving high test scores. Participants had no reasons to fear repercussions as they have experienced success. This created an environment for the participants to be more open and provided deeper descriptions of the phenomenon than what participants at a low performing school would possibly answer. The second assumption, the instructional strategies as well as the analysis of data completed during common planning time, transferred to the classroom.
Limitations
It is essential for the researcher to have a solid grounding in the philosophical percepts of phenomenology (Creswell, 2012), and thus lack of experience of the researcher in conducting a phenomenological study must be taken as a limitation for the study. Additionally, all participants must have experienced the phenomenon. Teachers selected for the study were all participants in the common planning period. The use of this purposeful sampling means that the results observed from the study cannot properly apply to the general population for schools or teachers that did not have a similar planning time (Simon, 2010).
Limitations in qualitative research existed and addressed concerning the collection and analysis of data. Information gathered from the one-on-one interviews reflected the views of the participants. These views might be narrow because of the participants’ designated roles in the classroom or as site leaders. Some participants may or may not be equally articulate, candid, or perceptive to specific events or ideas within their academic setting, and the presence of the researcher may have biased responses (Creswell, 2009). Likewise, limited observations by the researcher may have occurred by the tone of the conversations, not understanding the full history of prior communication between specific staff members, and the use of language and double meanings within the context of a conversation between two participants with an established relationship (Creswell, 2009). The researcher’s unique view and participation made generalizations to other settings difficult to claim.
Constraints existed in the research context that made reporting beliefs, even the conscious ones, problematic if such beliefs conflicted with the way one is supposed to think about teaching (Gill & Hoffman, 2009). Interviews have limitations as participants may have answered the same question in a different way depending on factors such as how they feel, the relationship with the interviewer, and faulty memory (Reis & Judd, 2000). It was important to use free imaginative variation and give the participant several opportunities to participate in the interview and analysis throughout the study (Groenewald, 2004). Reader confidence of data reporting possibly was biased, incomplete, or compromised (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007).
Since the topic of the study concerned teachers and common planning time, teachers that do not like to collaborate or even participate in interviews would be disinclined to participate in the study. Research has shown that personality traits of teachers may impact their motivation to share ideas and strategies with other teachers (Benoliel & Schchter, 2017). This would limit the study findings to specific personality types and not reflect the beliefs and attitudes of the teachers and administrators at the school as well as the district.
Scope and Delimitations
The study purposely limited the study to three elementary schools located in one district that is implementing teacher collaborative learning groups. Research questions limited the study to the perceptions of the teachers and administrators who actually experienced common planning time. There was consideration to interview teachers and administrators at schools that have not shown significant improvement, but this rejected as it would be more difficult to gain the trust of the participants and obtain honest answers to interview questions. Sites specifically selected exceeded API growth expectations and had comparable student populations, staffing ratios, and funding sources.
Significance of the Study
The study was significant because it is relevant to the local problem and the profession of education, and it has the potential to implement social change. The phenomenological study examined the experience of teachers and administrators regarding the use of a common planning time and its impact on academic achievement. Teachers learn best in a collaborative and collegial culture that allows reflection and discussion centered on improving instructional practice (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009).
Application to the Local Problem
The study explored the culture of the site and shifted the core work of teachers from an isolated focus on the adaptation of classroom activities and individual student achievement to a collective inquiry involving the study of student data, identifying critical standards, and planning common sequences and experiences for students (Visone, 2016). T. H. Nelson (2009) stated dialogue by teachers changed interactions from sharing activities to critically questioning relationships between and among common activities, learning goals, and student learning. Because of the experiences of the teachers and administrators at successful sites, all schools in the district provided with commonalities and strategies to implement effective common planning time.
The study was significant because the district should have access to and provided with strategies and an understanding of how the district-implemented collaboration time using PLC principles improved student achievement. The district entered into an MOU with the teachers’ union, and because students were released 2.5 hours earlier once a week, the new schedule impacted parents and their ability to provide supervision for their children. With the adoption of a new schedule, principals and teachers explored and adapted practices and strategies to use this time effectively to impact the performance of students positively. Possibly the results of the study can be used by principals and teachers to create and develop strategies and techniques to enhance collaboration and to create a positive culture to share ideas, discuss student progress, create assessments, and build the collective capacity at a school site. The district can use the conclusions drawn from the study to conduct further research, implement suggested strategies and techniques to train site administration, and continue to work with teachers in building collaboration at the site and throughout the district.
Professional Applicability
The findings in the study might be of benefit to school boards, school administrators, teachers, students, and parents for consideration in modifying schedules and adopting PLCs as an opportunity to improve student learning. Other districts have modified their daily schedules to create common planning time, and the study might assist districts in creating effective site use of this time to increase student achievement. Likewise, districts have invested time and funding to train administrators and teachers to implement PLCs. Given a common planning time, principals and teachers need trained in and use techniques and strategies of high-performing schools to create a collaborative culture. Districts can now use this research to adopt schedule changes and work with staff members to make such changes to the schedule to directly benefit student achievement. Universities may use the research of the study to revise teacher preparation programs to include collaboration time, analyzing data, and reflecting on their practices. Furthermore, the research may assist universities as they implement and develop their own research teams within their own departments (Du, 2009).
Positive Social Change
When student achievement improves, the overall impact on the community is positive. Ross and Willigen (1997) stated that well-educated people have access to meaningful work that increases their sense of personal control, resulting in more stable relationships with less emotional and physical distress. As examples, higher academic achievement in primary and secondary education has led to economic growth in Asia (Aghion, Bouston, Hoxby, & Vandenbusshe, 2009), and poor socioeconomics has been recognized as a factor explaining school success, failure, and dropping out (Bergeron, Chouinard, & Janosz, 2011). The study will add to the body of knowledge with the purpose of improving student lives as children and more importantly as adults. In a study on perceptions of college readiness, Reed (2014) stated that students who graduate from high school and college “may benefit economically, politically, and socially” (p. 1). The study might lead to both higher graduation rates and college readiness and provide data to improve communities across the United States.
Summary
The problem identified in this phenomenological qualitative study was the discrepancy in test scores of elementary schools with high poverty rates in an urban district in the southwestern United States. Despite adjusting the schedule to create a common planning time for all schools, there has been inconsistency in how schools have performed on state tests. The purpose of the phenomenological study was to obtain the perceptions of teachers and administrators at three high-performing elementary schools regarding the effective use of common planning time, a weekly 105-minute block of time that the district established in 2008 to implement PLCs at all school sites. Data sources were interviews of both site administrators and classroom teachers who have experienced the phenomenon. Observations of common planning time triangulated the data.
The conceptual framework for the study included teacher collaboration and PLCs. The study was significant because it was relevant to the local problem and the profession of education, and it has the potential to implement social change. Included in Chapter 2 is a literature review of teacher collaboration PLCs, common planning time, and leadership. Chapter 3 includes information regarding the selection of the transcendental, phenomenological design as the best means to answer the research questions. Chapter 4 includes the data analysis of the results. Chapter 5 will include an explanation of the results, offer recommendations for action and further study, and discuss the implications for social change.