Theoretical Framework:
Action Research and Teacher Leadership
Action Research
“In the past few years, action research has become increasingly popular as a mode of research among practitioners who are constantly faced with the challenges of providing effective teaching strategies, raising achievement, exploring pedagogical issues and addressing the special needs of students. The main role of action research is to facilitate practitioners to study aspects of practice – whether it is in the context of introducing an innovative idea or in assessing and reflecting the effectiveness of existing practice, with a view to improving practice. …Action research creates knowledge based on enquiries conducted within specific and often practical contexts. …[T]he purpose of action research is to learn through action leading to personal and professional development” (Koshy 2005).
Teacher Leadership
“Perhaps the answers to concerns about education rest in the potential of a leadership structure that taps into everyone’s talents within the school community, especially the teachers. There cannot be significant progress within an educational system in which hierarchical control separates managers (school principals) from workers (teachers). Leadership must be ‘embedded in the school community as a whole.’ …By helping teachers recognize that they are leaders, by offering opportunities to develop their leadership skills, and by creating school cultures that honor their leadership, we can awaken the sleeping giant of teacher leadership” (Katzenmeyer and Moller 2009).
“[C]ulture building requires the skills to transform elements of the school’s culture into forces that support rather than subvert the purposes of the school, even though, all the while, no one may be giving us “permission” to do so. …[T]his is why culture changing is the most important, most difficult, and most perilous job of school-based reformers. School cultures cannot be changes from without; they must be changed from within (Barth 2001).
“[A]ll of us exert leadership in one form or another all the time. It may be in a formal position or by way of informal relationships, influence with fellow teachers, or, very simply but importantly, by the example we set. Our actions affect others and help set the tone of the school. …Leadership, then, means taking a more active and constructive role in the professional community and developing an authentic kind of power that legitimizes and strengthens this role. All of us contribute to the culture of the school in one way or another, whether we are outspoken or silent. But what we’re talking about is a more active and intentional approach to our role” (Zemmelman and Ross 2009).
“In the past few years, action research has become increasingly popular as a mode of research among practitioners who are constantly faced with the challenges of providing effective teaching strategies, raising achievement, exploring pedagogical issues and addressing the special needs of students. The main role of action research is to facilitate practitioners to study aspects of practice – whether it is in the context of introducing an innovative idea or in assessing and reflecting the effectiveness of existing practice, with a view to improving practice. …Action research creates knowledge based on enquiries conducted within specific and often practical contexts. …[T]he purpose of action research is to learn through action leading to personal and professional development” (Koshy 2005).
Teacher Leadership
“Perhaps the answers to concerns about education rest in the potential of a leadership structure that taps into everyone’s talents within the school community, especially the teachers. There cannot be significant progress within an educational system in which hierarchical control separates managers (school principals) from workers (teachers). Leadership must be ‘embedded in the school community as a whole.’ …By helping teachers recognize that they are leaders, by offering opportunities to develop their leadership skills, and by creating school cultures that honor their leadership, we can awaken the sleeping giant of teacher leadership” (Katzenmeyer and Moller 2009).
“[C]ulture building requires the skills to transform elements of the school’s culture into forces that support rather than subvert the purposes of the school, even though, all the while, no one may be giving us “permission” to do so. …[T]his is why culture changing is the most important, most difficult, and most perilous job of school-based reformers. School cultures cannot be changes from without; they must be changed from within (Barth 2001).
“[A]ll of us exert leadership in one form or another all the time. It may be in a formal position or by way of informal relationships, influence with fellow teachers, or, very simply but importantly, by the example we set. Our actions affect others and help set the tone of the school. …Leadership, then, means taking a more active and constructive role in the professional community and developing an authentic kind of power that legitimizes and strengthens this role. All of us contribute to the culture of the school in one way or another, whether we are outspoken or silent. But what we’re talking about is a more active and intentional approach to our role” (Zemmelman and Ross 2009).
Pivotal Texts, Resources, and Coursework
Like so many key ideas that I have discovered through my graduate studies, I was impressed and excited to learn that Teacher Leadership was “like, a thing” (as I once said to a professor about my newly discovered understanding of Multicultural Education). Frustrated by the administrative culture under which I have gained my first few years of professional experience, and in awe of the wealth of incredible teachers whom I have the benefit of calling my colleagues, I have struggled to find a solution for the leadership-classroom disconnect I perceive in my own school context. Teacher Leadership has become that solution for me.
Each of the writers I have been exposed to through Dr. Carol Pope’s “Teachers as Leaders” course (ECI 508) have shaped my new understanding of myself as en emerging teacher leader and the development of my personal and professional action plan for responding to and implementing the experience I have gained through the NLGL program. Marilyn Katzenmeyer and Gayle Moller’s (2009) Awakening the Sleeping Giant: Helping Teachers Develop as Leaders has offered me an actionable understanding of what Teacher Leadership is (and is not), and a scholarly rationale upon which to base my steps as a new leader in my school. Roland Barth’s (2001) Learning by Heart has challenged me to take responsibility for exhibiting the personal dispositions of Teacher Leadership, recognizing my own role as an example setter, a relationship builder, and a culture changer. Barth’s writing has offered me what I am certain will become the greatest challenge and most necessary lesson of my graduate program: “Think otherwise” (Barth 2001, p. 3).
While Katzenmeyer and Moller’s text has played the most ongoing role in my continued learning about Teacher Leadership and its potential, this book has also provided me with a foundation for an understanding of what I believe will be the future of formal leadership in American schools. The framework that Sleeping Giant offers implies (often explicitly) that school and district leaders must shift the paradigms shaping administrative structures to incorporate, affirm and develop, and focus on classroom teachers as the primary source of reform and development. Teacher Leadership must exist at the core of schools’ efforts to increase student achievement, through the molding of culture, the fostering of creativity, and distributed leadership structures (Zemmelman and Ross 2009).
Each of the writers I have been exposed to through Dr. Carol Pope’s “Teachers as Leaders” course (ECI 508) have shaped my new understanding of myself as en emerging teacher leader and the development of my personal and professional action plan for responding to and implementing the experience I have gained through the NLGL program. Marilyn Katzenmeyer and Gayle Moller’s (2009) Awakening the Sleeping Giant: Helping Teachers Develop as Leaders has offered me an actionable understanding of what Teacher Leadership is (and is not), and a scholarly rationale upon which to base my steps as a new leader in my school. Roland Barth’s (2001) Learning by Heart has challenged me to take responsibility for exhibiting the personal dispositions of Teacher Leadership, recognizing my own role as an example setter, a relationship builder, and a culture changer. Barth’s writing has offered me what I am certain will become the greatest challenge and most necessary lesson of my graduate program: “Think otherwise” (Barth 2001, p. 3).
While Katzenmeyer and Moller’s text has played the most ongoing role in my continued learning about Teacher Leadership and its potential, this book has also provided me with a foundation for an understanding of what I believe will be the future of formal leadership in American schools. The framework that Sleeping Giant offers implies (often explicitly) that school and district leaders must shift the paradigms shaping administrative structures to incorporate, affirm and develop, and focus on classroom teachers as the primary source of reform and development. Teacher Leadership must exist at the core of schools’ efforts to increase student achievement, through the molding of culture, the fostering of creativity, and distributed leadership structures (Zemmelman and Ross 2009).
Theory to Practice: "Research and Leadership" in Action
Sheltering science learning for English language learners with support for background knowledge and academic vocabulary
Facilitated by Dr. Meghan Manfra in a graduate course on teacher action research (ECI 523), I designed, implemented, and analyzed results from an action research project in my Earth and Environmental Science classes during the 2013-2014 school year. Most often full of students with identified special needs, a history of academic struggle in Middle School, and multiple sociocultural factors that have placed them at risk for academic failure, this course serves ninth-grade students entering the High School setting for the first time. In my first year teaching this course, unfamiliar and inexperienced teaching much of its science content, I was shocked by the prevalence of English language learners (ELLs) and the variety of native languages they brought to the classroom. How was I supposed to teach environmental science concepts to a classroom of Spanish, French, Thai, Arabic, and Vietnamese-speakers with whom I had no common language to communicate? I needed help… and it seemed that wherever I turned within my school, I was faced with negative attitudes and low expectations. Instead, through my “Teachers as Researchers” course, I found a process that I could use to implement research-based solutions in my teaching and to critically examine how these solutions influence student learning and achievement within my own classroom context.
After studying teacher-created resources and scholarly literature on supporting ELLs in the science classroom, I re-discovered an instructional strategy that had been first introduced to me in an earlier Content Area Literacy course. Sheltered instruction for students with limited proficiency in academic English, utilizing strategic visual aids during instruction, inquiry-based activities to activate and build background knowledge with English science vocabulary, and by increasing the instructional emphasis on developing confidence with academic English language, seemed to offer a reliable method for connecting my ELL students with key environmental science concepts (Lee and Buxton 2013, Short, Fidelman, and Louguit 2012, Vacca, Vacca, and Mraz 2011). Starting with an instructional unit on Earth’s geology and the rock cycle, students were encouraged to create and continually reference visual aids during in-class activities. These activities were designed to give students, who typically experience little active learning, opportunities to engage in inquiry and high-interest classwork, strategically adapted to eliminate unnecessary, inhibitory English vocabulary but to emphasize key English-language science terms.
The outcomes of these sheltered instructional strategies were an observable increase in student engagement and the use of key science vocabulary among ELL students in discussion with other students and the teacher, as well as a measureable increase in formative assessment scores for ELLs (as compared to assessment data from previous course units that did not utilize sheltered instruction). While, like all teachers working with a new course or a new classroom dynamic of needs, I continue to struggle to keep up with the needs of my Earth and Environmental Science students, the sheltered instructional strategies that I identified, implemented, and evaluated through this action research project have become an essential aspect of my ability to engage students with meaningful science content.
My continued goal has been to utilize the strategies of sheltered instruction on an ongoing basis in my classroom instruction, and to expand the range of strategies I am able to implement in direct response to my students’ learning. A new discussion has arisen among all of my school’s Earth and Environmental Science teachers (and increasingly across our entire science department) of the importance of providing targeted, adapted instruction for our large population of language learners. I am currently working with my professional learning team to re-design our Earth and Environmental Science course in the framework of sheltered instruction, in order to increase the achievement of our ELL students as well as our native English-speaking students who, we believe, have experienced academic struggle due to a lack of mastery of formal, academic language.
Facilitated by Dr. Meghan Manfra in a graduate course on teacher action research (ECI 523), I designed, implemented, and analyzed results from an action research project in my Earth and Environmental Science classes during the 2013-2014 school year. Most often full of students with identified special needs, a history of academic struggle in Middle School, and multiple sociocultural factors that have placed them at risk for academic failure, this course serves ninth-grade students entering the High School setting for the first time. In my first year teaching this course, unfamiliar and inexperienced teaching much of its science content, I was shocked by the prevalence of English language learners (ELLs) and the variety of native languages they brought to the classroom. How was I supposed to teach environmental science concepts to a classroom of Spanish, French, Thai, Arabic, and Vietnamese-speakers with whom I had no common language to communicate? I needed help… and it seemed that wherever I turned within my school, I was faced with negative attitudes and low expectations. Instead, through my “Teachers as Researchers” course, I found a process that I could use to implement research-based solutions in my teaching and to critically examine how these solutions influence student learning and achievement within my own classroom context.
After studying teacher-created resources and scholarly literature on supporting ELLs in the science classroom, I re-discovered an instructional strategy that had been first introduced to me in an earlier Content Area Literacy course. Sheltered instruction for students with limited proficiency in academic English, utilizing strategic visual aids during instruction, inquiry-based activities to activate and build background knowledge with English science vocabulary, and by increasing the instructional emphasis on developing confidence with academic English language, seemed to offer a reliable method for connecting my ELL students with key environmental science concepts (Lee and Buxton 2013, Short, Fidelman, and Louguit 2012, Vacca, Vacca, and Mraz 2011). Starting with an instructional unit on Earth’s geology and the rock cycle, students were encouraged to create and continually reference visual aids during in-class activities. These activities were designed to give students, who typically experience little active learning, opportunities to engage in inquiry and high-interest classwork, strategically adapted to eliminate unnecessary, inhibitory English vocabulary but to emphasize key English-language science terms.
The outcomes of these sheltered instructional strategies were an observable increase in student engagement and the use of key science vocabulary among ELL students in discussion with other students and the teacher, as well as a measureable increase in formative assessment scores for ELLs (as compared to assessment data from previous course units that did not utilize sheltered instruction). While, like all teachers working with a new course or a new classroom dynamic of needs, I continue to struggle to keep up with the needs of my Earth and Environmental Science students, the sheltered instructional strategies that I identified, implemented, and evaluated through this action research project have become an essential aspect of my ability to engage students with meaningful science content.
My continued goal has been to utilize the strategies of sheltered instruction on an ongoing basis in my classroom instruction, and to expand the range of strategies I am able to implement in direct response to my students’ learning. A new discussion has arisen among all of my school’s Earth and Environmental Science teachers (and increasingly across our entire science department) of the importance of providing targeted, adapted instruction for our large population of language learners. I am currently working with my professional learning team to re-design our Earth and Environmental Science course in the framework of sheltered instruction, in order to increase the achievement of our ELL students as well as our native English-speaking students who, we believe, have experienced academic struggle due to a lack of mastery of formal, academic language.
Action Research Project, formal research report:
Activating and Captivating: Improving academic achievement for
English language learners through English language development
in a first-year High School Science classroom
Activating and Captivating: Improving academic achievement for
English language learners through English language development
in a first-year High School Science classroom
Breaking the silence: Advocating for a school-wide approach to supporting LGBTQ+A students
When I was approached by a group of students at the beginning of this school year, asking me to serve as a faculty advisor for our school’s (at that time) unrecognized, informal Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) student club, I agreed with a series of personal hesitations. Does this mean I have to address my own sexual orientation with my students? How will I negotiate the teacher-student relationships necessary to provide a safe, affirming environment while also detangling the problematic assumptions of sexual orientation and sexuality? What are my responsibilities to these students and their families, and to my professional supervisors who have previously taken steps to prevent this student organization from achieving legitimacy? But something told me that this was important. It was clear that these students needed a voice that was willing to advocate for their safety and validity in our school community.
Over the course of the school year, I have worked closely with student leaders in the face of continued unwillingness on the part of our school’s administrators to partner with this group. I have challenged them to stand out, not through negativity and complaint in the face of obvious discrimination, but through exemplary organization and citizenship. These students have taken the challenge proudly, and they have sought out support from other student groups, teachers, parents, and community partners. In response to the marginalization they have experienced, they have built a reputation of positivity that has garnered broad support across our school’s student body and faculty.
The students of GSA have launched a Millbrook-specific “Safe Space” initiative (based on NCSU’s university and GLBT Center-supported “Project Safe” program), recruiting teachers to commit to fostering inclusive learning environments that explicitly affirm the diversity of all students and posting an original “Everyone Welcome Here” sign on their classroom door. GSA made the brave choice to become visible to the student body by building an educational exhibit for our school’s International Festival, examining the rights of the LGBTQ+A community around the world and challenging their peers to become allies for the LGBTQ+ community here in their own school.
In an effort to empower our school’s teachers to better support their students who identify as members of the LGBTQ+A community, I provided resources prior to GSA’s participation in the 2014 National Day of Silence in April of this year. While this support was challenged by our school’s principal, the school’s faculty and student body responded with overwhelming support, with more participation and positive discussion surrounding the students’ day-long vow of silence than our school has ever experienced in the past. I have continued to advocate for this student organization through personal meetings with our school’s administrators, and an ongoing effort to develop a formal, school-wide plan for combating bullying and discrimination, and ensuring safety and affirmation for all of our students. Recently, as a part of my work in Dr. Carol Pope’s “Teachers as Leaders” course, I submitted a letter to our school’s district school board representative inquiring as to the county’s broader plans to build safe, inclusive, and affirming environments at each of WCPSS’s 170 campuses.