Chapter II - Supporting Literature and Theory - Conceptual Context 28 Adaptive Teaching Challenges in Education 30 Adaptive Teaching Challenges Involving English Learners 32 Diagnosing Learning Issues 37 Family Communication 37 Low Expectations 38 Curriculum 39 Teacher Collaboration 39 Assessment 41 Student Characteristics 41 Programming 42 Learning-Oriented Leadership Model and the Pillar Practices 43 The Learning-Oriented Leadership 43 The Concepts of Developmental Diversity and Professional Learning Spaces for Teachers of EL Students 48 Ways of knowing 49 Instrumental knowers 53 Socializing knowers 54 Self-authoring knowers 54 Self-transforming knowers 55 Transitioning from one way of knowing to another 59 Connecting concepts of ways of knowing and professional learning spaces for teachers of EL students 61 The Pillar Practices 60 Holding environment 61 Teaming 62 Mentoring 64 Providing leadership roles 65 Collegial inquiry 66 Bringing the pillar practices together within the learning-oriented leadership model 69 Cultural Dimensions of Professional Learning Spaces for Teachers of EL Students 69 Current Context for Professional Learning for All Teachers 71 Current Context for Professional Learning for Teachers of EL Students 74 Central Role of Culture and Language in Teaching English Learners 82 Chapter Summary 85 Chapter III - METHODOLOGY 87 Research Questions 87 Rationale for Qualitative Methodology 88 The Case Study Approach 89 The Multi-Site Case Study 89 Rationale for Site Selection 91
experiences with the pillar practices (i.e., teaming, mentoring, assuming leadership roles, and collegial inquiry) within the learning-oriented leadership model (Drago-Severson, 2004b, 2009, 2012 forthcoming). Finally, delve into my third area of inquiry, exploring the cultural dimensions of professional learning spaces for teachers of English learners. Before moving to the first section of the chapter on adaptive teaching challenges, I present the conceptual framework that guides the study and emerged through an iterative process of engaging with the literature review, research questions, goals, methods, and validity (Maxwell, 2005). My study focuses on the experiences of teachers of EL students engaging in the learning-oriented leadership model (Drago-Severson, 2004b, 2009, 2012 forthcoming), and my research questions focus on three areas of teacher experience: 1) adaptive teaching challenges, 2) the pillar practices (i.e., teaming, mentoring, assuming leadership roles, and collegial inquiry), and 3) the influences of cultural background as represented in Figure 3 below. Figure 3 highlights the central focus of my dissertation: the experiences of teachers of English learners. I have divided the general focus of teachers of English learners’ experiences into three sub-topics: adaptive teaching challenges, pillar practices (i.e., teaming, mentoring, assuming leadership roles, and collegial inquiry), and influences of cultural background. Each sub-topic is given equal weight, and each represents a different research question in my study. As I interview teachers who work within the context of the learning-oriented leadership model 2004b, 2009, 2012 forthcoming) in urban schools, I will use this conceptual framework to guide my data collection and analysis. The ultimate goal of my study is to yield an understanding able to influence and improve practice and offer tentative hypotheses to help structure future research in the area of professional learning spaces that help teachers grow to better meet the adaptive teaching challenges in their work with English learners.
Figure 3 Conceptual Framework In conducting my research I used several databases to find peer-reviewed studies and scholarly texts to help answer the research questions. These sources included ERIC, ProQuest, PsychINFO, EBSCOhost, CLIO, Linguistic and Language Behavior Abstracts, H.W. Wilson Education Full Text, SIRS Researcher, Gale, Google Scholar, and SAGE Education Full Text Collection. Key words used were: adult development, constructive-developmental, professional development, teacher, learning-oriented leadership, bilingual, ESL, CLD, EL, ELL, LEP, multilingual, mentoring, teaming, leadership opportunities, collegial inquiry, transformational learning, and adaptive challenge. My searches were bounded by articles and books ranging from 1995 to 2011 for the purpose of reviewing recent literature. Adaptive Teaching Challenges in Education Ronald Heifetz (1994) is a scholar whose ideas and research have impacted leadership studies across education, medicine, and business fields. His research increasingly over the last decade has greatly influenced the field of educational leadership. Heifetz’s (1994) theory of adaptive challenges originated from the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government as part of their Education Leadership Project, and Heifetz drew examples for his theory from medicine but related the theory to leadership more generally. In 2004, Heifetz and Linsky (2004) published a piece in Educational Leadership relating the theory specifically to K-12 education as did Michael Fullan in 2004 and 2006 published works, followed by Wagner et al. (2006) with Change Leadership. In the last five years many pieces of have published connecting Heifetz’s definition of adaptive challenges with the largest problems concerning educational leadership (Coates, 2010; Drago-Severson, 2009; Fullan, 2006; Higham et al., 2007; Hopkins et al., 2011;
challenges. My search strategies involved using Google Scholar to locate initial sources from the last 10 years (2001-2011) including “English learner” or “English language learner” or “bilingual” in the text as well as each of the following terms: “diagnosing learning issues,” “family communication,” “family culture,” “teacher collaboration,” “expectations,” “achievement gap,” “assessment,” “curriculum,” “student characteristics,” and “programming.” These terms were chosen based on a preliminary coding scheme for data analysis in a pilot study conducted for this dissertation study (Benis Scheier-Dolberg, 2011). I used these sources to identify eight adaptive teaching challenges involving English learners that appear in the literature (see Table 2 below). Table 2 Adaptive Teaching Challenges Involving English Learners Adaptive Teaching Challenges Definition Source(s) Diagnosing Learning Issues Teacher to diagnose specific learning issues she or he needs to address with each individual child and/or appropriate interventions. Teacher is seeking to differentiate between common learning challenges and language learning challenges using informal or formal RTI (Response to Intervention) processes Dorn & Henderson, 2010; Rinaldi & Samson, 2008; Ysseldyke et al., 2010. Family Communication Teacher tries to engage families of EL students and/or build meaningful relationships in the context of cultural, linguistic, and/or community discontinuities. Teacher expresses need for more or different resources to support family outreach. Ferguson, 2007; Hiatt-Michael, 2007; Gándara & Rumberger, 2007; Nieto, 2010 Low Expectations Teacher tries to help students close achievement gap with native English speaking peers and/or more economically-advantaged peers and faces chronically low expectations for EL students. Gándara & Rumberger, 2007 Curriculum Teacher tries to support biliteracy through developing and/or using a bilingual curriculum. Teacher tries to support noncognitive goals such as navigating U.S. culture. Gándara & Rumberger, 2007
environment and the individual’s way of knowing. If work or family life requires one to have a more complex system for making sense of experience, then a more expansive, complex way of knowing is called for in order for the individual to better manage these complexities 2004b, 2009, 2012 forthcoming). Consider Table 3, which shows the different ways of knowing and describes the system each uses to make meaning. Table 3 Ways of Knowing Way of Knowing Underlying Thought Structure Subject (S): What a person is identified with Object (O): What a person can reflect on and take perspective on Self Definition (SD) & Guiding Questions (GQ) 3 Common Ways of Knowing Instrumental S: Needs, interests, wishes O: Impulses, perceptions SD: Orients to self-interests, purposes, and concrete GQ: “Will I get punished?”, “What’s in it for me?” Socializing S: The interpersonal, mutuality O: Needs, interests, wishes SD: Orients to valued others’ (external authorities’) expectations, values, and opinions GQ: “Will you (valued still like/value me?”, “Will you (valued other/authority) approve of me?”, “Will you (valued other/authority) still think I am a good person?” S: Authorship, identity, psychic administration, ideology O: The interpersonal, mutuality SD: Orients to self’s values (internal authority) GQ: “Am I maintaining my own personal integrity, standards, and values?”, “Am I living, working, and loving to the best of my ability?”, “Am I achieving my goals and being guided by my ideals?” Less Common Way of Knowing O: Authorship, identity, psychic administration, ideology SD: Orients to multiple self-systems; open to learning from people
level, or way of knowing, might impact their experience of the pillar practice will help me hypothesize about future research including the lens of developmental level. In proceeding subsections, I briefly describe the attributes of each knower’s system for making meaning as well as what happens as learners transition from one level to the next. The ideas within these subsections on the four ways of knowing all stem from Drago-Severson’s work with school-oriented leadership (2004b, 2009, 2012 forthcoming). To avoid extensive citations within the text of these four subsections, I only cite Drago-Severson directly when using quotations. Instrumental knowers. Instrumental knowers make meaning in a school setting by seeking to the “rules” of the job. They have a dualistic way of thinking in that they believe there are “right” and “wrong” answers. As is evident in Table 4, they find leadership supportive when principals share explicit and clear goals, rules, and step-by-step procedures for teaching. They tend to ask: “What do you have that can help me?” or “Will I get punished?” Instrumental knowers feel supported and “comforted by concrete, more tangible expressions of support” (Drago-Severson, 2009, p. 44). Because they are unable to make generalizations from one situation to another and do not think abstractly, they tend to express their concerns and needs in concrete terms, hence Drago-Severson’s characterization of instrumental knowers as making meaning as a “rule-bound self.” Instrumental knowers also tend to organize their experiences by attributes, events and sequences; noticeable actions and behaviors; and their own individual point of view, needs, interests, and preferences. They may say things like: “I am good at my job”; “Good teachers follow the rules, work hard, and do things the ‘right’ way”; “If I do this assigned work, I will have a better chance of getting a better evaluation”; and “Other teachers are helpful or obstacles to my work.” Understanding what constructive-developmental theory has to say
understand their experiences with adaptive teaching challenges and with the opportunities for growth provided by their engagement in the pillar practices. of Knowing and Developmentally Appropriate Supports and Challenges Way of Knowing Supports (provided by leaders/peers) Challenges/ Growing Edge (provided by leaders/peers) Instrumental goals and expectations. step-by-step procedures for dialogue and working with other colleagues. examples of rules, purposes, and goals—and how to share them with others. in dialogue that provides specific advice, skills, and information about practice. this detail-oriented person to read policy/procedure and then report on it. reflections and give positive feedback/praise. clear, concise written and oral feedback. concrete advice and feedback. the purpose of reflective writing. opportunities to learn about multiple perspectives through dialogue. tasks that demand abstract thinking and scaffold knower through the process. movement beyond “correct” solutions and toward other perspectives. how multiple perspectives could build abstract thinking and increase perspective broadening. this learner to expand beyond information given. the opportunity to take on a leadership role in planning a grade-level assembly. teamwork such that this person encounters situations one must consider another perspective. permission and encourage “thinking outside of the box” and being “constructively critical.” reflective writing. Socializing that learner known and accepted. are confirmed by authorities. and valued colleagues and/or loved ones show acceptance. opportunities to perspectives in pairs or smaller groups before sharing with larger groups. that interpersonal relationships are not jeopardized when differences of opinion arise. opportunities to develop own beliefs, becoming less dependent on others’ approval. this knower to construct own values and standards, not co-construct them. the acceptance of conflicting points of view without feeling threatened. this learner in separating own feeling and responsibilities from another person’s. this knower in distinguishing own perspective from need to be accepted.
would benefit from the support of a coach who can help the coachee, or client, work through a process to reach a desired professional result. One example of coaching for teachers of EL students in an urban public school context is presented by Pardini (2006). Pardini (2006) describes the coaching model employed by an urban district in Minnesota working to reduce the achievement gap between EL students and native English speakers in their schools. Pardini’s (2006) article published by Learning Forward (formerly the National Staff Development Council) is based on a 2006 report released by the Council of Great City Schools, which conducted a city-by-city analysis of student performance on state test achievement gaps. The school district reshaped its professional learning spaces for teachers of EL students by in a number of ways. First, mainstream teachers attending summer institutes alongside teachers of EL students to receive informational trainings; in the past teachers of EL students alone would receive those trainings (Pardini, 2006). Second, the district provided “resource teachers” who acted as coaches across the schools in the district. These coaches worked directly with teachers of EL students doing site-based coaching tailored to teachers’ needs, and the coaches worked with leadership and teaching teams on specific concerns to the schools as they addressed the achievement gaps among EL students and mainstream students in their schools (Pardini, 2006). The school district hypothesized that in order to raise student achievement of English learners, they would need to transform their curriculum and their approach to instruction for EL students, and the district decided to do so using a collaborative leadership approach with coaching at the foundation. As mentioned above, professional development in the form of workshops and trainings were refocused to develop collaborative coaching relationships between mainstream teachers and specialized teachers of EL students. District leaders in Saint Paul,
“intensive, long-term involvement” (Maxwell, 2005, p. 110) and can collect “rich” data that will allow me to see the larger picture of what is happening both in terms of individual participants and in terms of the context of the site itself (Maxwell, 2005). I should be able to generalize within the setting and group of participants studied; Maxwell (2005) refers to this as internal generalizability. While I do not plan to write findings with external generalizability outside of the site I study, I do hope that other researchers might start similar projects and use the findings from my study to inspire and shape their own studies of other settings, using a variety of methodological approaches.