HOW MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHERS CONSTRUCT …

HOW MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHERS CONSTRUCT UNDERSTANDINGS OF THEIR

JOB-EMBEDDED LEARNING EXPERIENCES

by

BRANDI WADE WORSHAM

(Under the Direction of Dr. Gayle Andrews)

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to examine how middle school teachers constructed

understandings of their job-embedded learning experiences. In particular, the aim of this study

was to explore how middle school teachers made sense and gave meaning to their learning

experiences that occurred during the school day as they engaged in the work of being a teacher.

For the purpose of this study, job-embedded learning experiences referred to any formal or

informal learning opportunity that was grounded in the context of the school day and

characterized by active learning and reflection.

A qualitative approach was used to investigate how teachers made sense and gave

meaning to their job-embedded learning experiences. Specifically, an ethnographic, multi-case

study was designed since it allowed the researcher to examine multiple cases within a single

context while considering the influence of context and culture on the understanding and

interpretation of knowledge construction and experiences.

Data were collected via interviews, shadowing, teacher learning logs, and documents and

other artifacts. Within-case and cross-case analysis was conducted to examine the collected data.

The constant comparative method was employed to generate inductively a well substantiated

interpretation of how teachers constructed understandings of their job-embedded learning

experiences in the within-case and cross-case analysis. Themes were generated to present and

discuss the results of the data analysis.

A sensemaking framework was used to unpack teacher knowledge construction.

Sensemaking theory was a relevant framework since it considered how context and culture

influenced teachers’ meaning-making and negotiation of identity and experience with the social

co-construction of new knowledge.

After nine weeks of data collection at a middle school in northeast Georgia, the

researcher found five influences that impacted teacher sensemaking including: identity,

motivation, reflection, collaboration, and application. Each influence was critically discussed

within the context of the school and relevant literature on effective professional development and

job-embedded learning. Implications and suggestions for future research, administrators, and

policymakers were considered given the study’s findings.

INDEX WORDS: Job-embedded learning, Middle school education, On-the-job learning, Professional development, Sensemaking, Teacher learning

i



by

BRANDI WADE WORSHAM

B.A., Piedmont College, 2005

M.Ed., The University of Georgia, 2006

Ed.S., The University of Georgia, 2009

A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

ATHENS, GEORGIA

2015

ii

© 2015

Brandi Wade Worsham

All Rights Reserved

iii



by

BRANDI WADE WORSHAM

Major Professor: Gayle Andrews

Committee: Katherine Thompson

Sally Zepeda

Kathleen deMarrais

Electronic Version Approved:

Julie Coffield Interim Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2015

iv

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my family. To my Mom, Dad, and brother, I appreciate

the support and encouragement you have given me through all of my many learning endeavors.

To my husband, Michael, who has tolerated countless hours of questions and requests as I’ve

struggled to figure out what the literature and data all meant. To my daughter, Alivia, who was

born during the course of this dissertation, I hope to inspire you to enjoy and treasure learning as

much as I do. And to my Great Pyrenees, Killick, who has provided relief and fun during this

whole process.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to sincerely thank the contributions and support I have received from my

dissertation committee members. First, I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my

committee chair, Dr. Gayle Andrews, who taught, encouraged, and supported me throughout my

academic career at UGA. I will forever be indebted to you for all of your guidance and patience.

Thank you for taking this journey with me!

To Dr. Sally Zepeda – I appreciate all of the time you dedicated to reading and rereading

my dissertation chapters. Your feedback was invaluable and helped me become a more critical

writer. You were a true asset to my committee. Thank you for believing in me and my work!

To Dr. Katherine Thompson and Dr. Kathleen deMarrais – I am eternally grateful for

your commitment to serving on my dissertation committee. I know it was not always easy to find

time to meet, but your willingness to assist me in achieving my academic goals is much

appreciated. Thank you for your guidance and support!

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...............................................................................................................iv

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................ix

LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................................................x

1 INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study ..........................................................................................2

Statement of the Problem ..........................................................................................7

Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................8

Research Questions ...................................................................................................9

Conceptual Framework .............................................................................................9

Overview of the Method ...........................................................................................10

Significance of the Study ..........................................................................................13

Assumptions ..............................................................................................................14

Definition of Terms ...................................................................................................14

Subjectivity Statement ..............................................................................................15

Organization of the Dissertation ...............................................................................16

2 REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction ...............................................................................................................17

Definitions of Professional Development .................................................................17

Effective Professional Development .........................................................................20

Job-Embedded Learning ...........................................................................................31

vii

Professional Development in the Middle School ......................................................39

Sensemaking .............................................................................................................43

Chapter Summary .....................................................................................................48

3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLODGY

Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................49

Theoretical Framework .............................................................................................49

Research Design and Rationale ................................................................................51

Processes and Procedures for Conducting the Study ................................................54

Quality, Trustworthiness, & Reflexivity ...................................................................66

Subjectivity Statement ...............................................................................................67

Risks and Benefits......................................................................................................68

Chapter Summary .....................................................................................................68

4 FINDINGS

Introduction ...............................................................................................................70

Profile of the School District .....................................................................................71

Profile of the School and Community .......................................................................72

Participant Profiles .....................................................................................................74

Within-Case Analysis ................................................................................................75

Cross-Case Analysis ..................................................................................................100

Case Summary ...........................................................................................................113

5 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Summary of the Research Design ..............................................................................115

Discussion of the Findings .........................................................................................116

viii

Implications ................................................................................................................130

Concluding Thoughts .................................................................................................134

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................136

APPENDICES

A Recruitment Follow-up Email ...................................................................................................147

B Participant Consent Form ..........................................................................................................149

C Job-Embedded Learning Initial Interview Guide ......................................................................153

D Teacher Learning Log ...............................................................................................................155

E Sample Follow-up Interview Guide / Email Exchange .............................................................158

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Research in Support of the Key Features of

Effective Professional Development ................................................................................23

Table 2.2 Research in Support of Job-embedded Learning ..............................................................36

Table 2.3 Sensemaking Properties .....................................................................................................44

Table 3.1 Data Inventory Summary ...................................................................................................61

Table 3.2 List of Potential Codes from Amanda’s Case ....................................................................64

Table 3.3 Selected Revised Cross-Case Categories and Codes .........................................................65

Table 3.4 Selected Excerpt of Coding ...............................................................................................65

Table 4.1 Demographic Comparison for Percentage of Population 2013-2014 ................................72

Table 4.2 Teacher Participant Profiles ...............................................................................................74

Table 4.3 North Willow Middle School Teacher Demographic Comparison

to Participant Profiles ........................................................................................................75

Table 4.4 Research Question and Themes .........................................................................................101

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1 Sensemaking within Job-Embedded Learning ................................................................102

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Many scholars contend that improving professional learning is critical for transforming

schools, improving teacher quality, and increasing academic achievement (Darling-Hammond,

Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009; Guskey, 2009). In particular, these scholars have

asserted that by enhancing the knowledge, skills, and practices of teachers the successes of

students will be greater. Stakeholders—such as policymakers, community members, and

administrators—agree with scholars that the improvement of professional development and

teacher learning is paramount to the academic success of students. Specifically, increased interest

in school and teacher accountability over the last decade has amplified the focus on professional

development and teacher learning as a top concern for policymakers, community members, and

administrators (Islas, 2010). The increased interest from policymakers, community members, and

administrators is no surprise since the success of school reform—typically defined as increasing

student test scores—is often grounded in the idea of holding schools and teachers accountable for

those test scores (Jaafar & Earl, 2008; Leithwood & Earl, 2000; Willis & Sandholtz, 2009).

Thus, the professional learning of teachers has been and will continue to be a significant concern.

Guskey and Yoon (2009) noted that teachers need embedded, ongoing, and intensive

professional development to “adapt new curricula and new instructional practices to their unique

classroom contexts” (p. 497). In other words, the need for teacher learning to be sustained and

grounded in the context of the teacher’s work environment is underscored while simultaneously

acknowledging that the professional development of teachers is no easy task. Nevertheless, the

2

professional learning of teachers is a task that must be assumed if teachers are expected to

improve their professional practice as well as increase student achievement and growth.

The purpose of this study was to examine how middle school teachers construct


was to explore how middle school teachers make sense and give meaning to their learning

experiences that occur during the school day as they engage in the work of being a teacher. For

the purpose of this study, job-embedded learning experiences refer to any formal or informal

learning opportunities that are grounded in the context of the school day.

Background of the Study

Historically, professional development has been influenced by federal legislature and

policies. With the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983 (National Commission on Excellence

in Education [NCEE], 1983), the concern for teacher quality and accountability emerged as a top

priority. In particular, this report described public schools as mediocre and insufficient in the

effort to prepare students to compete in a global economy. Intending to highlight America’s risk

of losing its dominant position, A Nation at Risk blamed schools for America’s inability to

compete in an international marketplace and characterized citizens as lacking the necessary

skills, literacy, and training to function as contributing, knowledgeable members of society. A

Nation at Risk called for a commitment to equity and excellence in schools via four main

recommendations focused on content, expectations, time, and teaching. For schools, this report

meant a greater emphasis on core subjects, higher expectations for students and teachers,

prominence of standardized testing, and an increased interest in improving teacher quality.

In 1985, the National Commission on Excellence in Education published a companion

document, entitled A Call for Change in Teacher Education, in which the need to improve

3

teacher education and preparation was featured. Similarly, A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the

21st Century called for reform of teacher preparation and recommended changes for the teaching

environment of practicing educators (Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, 1986).

Almost a decade later, policy proposals such as President George H. W. Bush’s America

2000: An Education Strategy (1991) and President Bill Clinton’s Goals 2000: Educate America

Act (U.S. Congress, 1994a) offered a framework for improving the efficiency and effectiveness

of schools while increasing student achievement. In comparison to earlier publications, America

2000 (Bush, 1991) and Goals 2000 (U.S. Congress, 1994a) reiterated the desire to improve our

nation’s schools, both academically and socially; however, both reports denoted the importance

of providing teachers with professional development to improve their knowledge and skills.

Around the same time, Congress reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act of

1965 (ESEA) under the name Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 ([IASA] U.S. Congress,

1994b). Title I of IASA states that professional development should be intensive and focused on

teaching and learning while Title II of IASA encouraged districts to develop comprehensive,

long-term professional development plans that aligned with state and local expectations (Islas,

2010). Lastly, toward the end of the decade, the 1998 Amendments to the Higher Education Act

of 1965 (U.S. Congress, 1998) restated the importance of preparing prospective teachers as well

as strengthening the knowledge and skills of practicing educators.

Subsequently, in the 2000s, ESEA was reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act of

2001 ([NCLB] U.S. Congress, 2001). In 2010, the U.S. Department of Education, under the

Obama administration, issued a report outlining directions for future school improvement efforts,

A Blueprint for Reform (2010). First, NCLB continued the trend of improving schools and

increasing teacher quality; however, NCLB significantly altered public education by

4

emphasizing high-stakes accountability. In regard to professional development, NCLB provided

schools with a definition that underscored the importance of providing ongoing, sustained, and

intensive professional development for all school personnel. However, the complexity of NCLB

made it difficult to monitor professional development activities with fidelity and emphasized

student accountability over teacher quality (Islas, 2010).

Consequently, A Blueprint for Reform (USDE, 2010) retained the focus on increasing

student achievement and ensuring quality teachers, but it significantly altered evaluation systems

and failed to correct several apparent pitfalls of NCLB (Islas, 2010). Nonetheless, A Blueprint

for Reform affirmed the position of other policies and legislations by advocating for professional

development that is ongoing, job-embedded, and aligned with student, teacher, and district needs

(USDE, 2010).

Other notable political influences on professional development include the publications

of Teaching at Risk: A Call to Action (The Teaching Commission, 2004), A Nation Accountable:

Twenty-Five Years After a Nation at Risk (U.S. Department of Education [USDE], 2008), and the

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ([ARRA] U.S. Congress, 2009). Each of

these publications reiterated the importance of professional development to the success of

schools. In particular, Teaching at Risk provided a list of recommendations to “ensure that high-

quality teachers are given competitive compensation tied to student performance; that nobody is

allowed to teach without the right knowledge and skills; and that teachers are given on-the-job

support that enables them to succeed” (The Teaching Commission, 2004, p. 51). A Nation

Accountable (USDE, 2008) offered a follow-up to A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983) and

highlighted alternative routes to teacher certification. Finally, ARRA required each state to

5

design its own evaluation system for identifying effective professional development. ARRA also

called for every teacher to have access to effective, ongoing professional development.

Many scholars have studied what constitutes effective professional development

(Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Desimone, 2011; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Kwang,

2001; Guskey, 2003; Guskey & Yoon, 2009; Hirsh, 2009; Wayne, Yoon, Zhu, Cronen, & Garet,

2008; Wei, Darling-Hammond, & Adamson, 2010) and job-embedded learning (Croft,

Coggshall, Dolan, Powers, & Killion, 2010; Desimone, 2011; Redding & Kamm, 1999; Wood &

Killian, 1998; Wood & McQuarrie, 1999; Zepeda, 201la; Zepeda, 2011b; Zepeda, 2015). The

literature on professional development and job-embedded learning has described essential

features as ongoing, intensive, and embedded in the context of teachers’ daily work. Job-

embedded learning is often favored in comparison to traditional professional development

opportunities that function as sit-and-get workshops. Job-embedded learning offers flexibility,

and its variety of formats affords participants more opportunities to learn in the context of their

practice (Zepeda, 1999; Zepeda, 2011a; Zepeda, 2011b; Zepeda, 2015). Moreover, job-

embedded learning is often synonymous with professional development practices grounded in

school settings and tied directly to school and community contexts including situated learning

(Horn, 2005; Lave & Wenger, 1991); communities of practice (Angelle, 2008; Caskey &

Carpenter, 2012; Horn, 2005; Levine & Marcus, 2010); and professional learning communities

(DuFour, 2004; Graham, 2007; King & Newmann, 2000; Mindich & Lieberman, 2012; Vescio,

Ross, & Adams, 2008). Therefore, its emphasis on collaboration within a specific context makes

job-embedded learning a favored approach to professional development (Birman, Desimone,

Porter, & Garet, 2000; Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009; Garet et al., 2001; Mizell, 2010).

6

Traditional formats of professional development have been “criticized for not giving

teachers the time, the activities, and the content necessary for increasing their knowledge and

fostering change in their practice” (Birman et al., 2000, p. 29). In comparison, alternative models

of professional development that emphasize job-embedded learning incorporate the key features

of effective professional development to enhance reflection, decrease teacher isolation, improve

collegiality, and support the transfer of new knowledge and skills into practice (Zepeda, 2011a;

Zepeda, 2011b; Zepeda, 2012; Zepeda, 2015). These benefits are possible since job-embedded

learning opportunities consider the cognitive, emotional, and social needs of adult learners. In

particular, job-embedded learning opportunities acknowledge that adults are more self-directed,

that adults seek knowledge that applies to their current situation, and that adults use life

experiences to shape their learning (Dalellew & Martinez, 1988; Hansman & Mott, 2009).

Numerous research studies explicate the relationship between effective professional

development, teacher quality, and adult learning. For instance, for professional development to

have a positive influence on teacher learning, it should:

• Incorporate hands-on activities (Borko, 2004; Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon,

2009);

• Meet the needs of the teacher (Fenwick, 2004; Zepeda, 2011a; Zepeda, 2011b);

• Be embedded and ongoing (Garet et al., 2001; Yoon et al., 2007);

• Be learning-centered, knowledge-centered, assessment-centered, and community

centered (Coggshall, Rasmussen, Colton, Milton, & Jacques, 2012);

• Encourage collective participation (Garet et al., 2001; Murphy & Lick, 2005; Penuel,

Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007);

7

• Be content centered (Banilower, Heck, & Weiss, 2005; Borko, 2004; Cohen & Hill,

2001; Garet et al., 2001); and

• Be longer in duration (Cohen & Hill, 2001; Supovitz & Turner, 2000).

Avalos (2011) asserted, “professional development is about teachers’ learning, learning how to

learn, and transforming their knowledge into practice for the benefit of their students’ growth”

(p. 10). In other words, the overarching goal of professional development is to enhance teacher

knowledge and skills in practice to increase student learning and achievement.

Statement of the Problem

In 2009, a status report titled Professional Learning in the Learning Profession argued

improvement of professional learning is “a crucial step in transforming schools and improving

academic achievement” (Darling-Hammond et al., p. 3). The underlying intent of this report was

to establish the need for high-quality and on-going professional learning in schools while

highlighting the importance of revising current professional development practices. In fact,

numerous scholars contend most of the professional development teachers engage in follows the

traditional format of one-stop workshops in which little opportunity is given for collaborative

planning and implementation of knowledge and skills learned in the teachers’ work context

(Birman et al., 2000; Butler, Lauscher, Jarvis-Selinger, & Beckingham, 2004; Garet et al., 2001;

Guskey & Yoon, 2009).

Further, these traditional forms of professional development have been widely criticized

as shallow, top-down, and ineffective (e.g., Birman et al., 2000; Butler et al., 2004; Garet et al.,

2001) while ultimately lacking the follow-up and support necessary to deem such forms of

professional development effective (Guskey & Yoon, 2009; Zepeda, 1999; Zepeda, 2006;

Zepeda, 2011a; Zepeda, 2011b; Zepeda, 2011c; Zepeda, 2015).

8

Despite the status of most current professional development practices, a significant body

of research acknowledges that effective professional development includes such key features as a

focus on content, an emphasis on active learning, attention to coherence, consideration of

duration, and the encouragement of collective participation (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009;

Desimone, 2011; Garet et al., 2001; Guskey, 2003; Guskey & Yoon, 2009; Hirsh, 2009; Wayne

et al., 2008; Wei et al., 2010). Thus, scholars advocate for collaborative, embedded models of

professional development that emphasize active learning and application within the context of a

teacher’s work (Birman et al., 2000; Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009; Garet et al., 2001).

Attending to these key features increases the transfer of new knowledge and skills into practice,

encourages refinement of teaching, and fosters a sense of renewal for teachers (Birman et al.,

2000; Pate & Thompson, 2003; Wayne et al., 2008).

However, little research has been conducted on alternative forms of professional

development (Garet et al., 2001); the context and form of professional development that teachers

engage in (Wei et al., 2010); and the processes teachers use to make sense of professional

development (Coburn, 2001). Thus, greater attention to how teachers make sense of their

professional learning experiences might offer ideas for revising current professional development

practices as well as initiating changes in how teachers are supported during the school day.

Purpose of the Study






9

informal learning opportunity that is grounded in the context of the school day and characterized

by active learning and reflection.

Research Questions

The overarching research question for this study was how do teachers construct

understandings of their job-embedded learning experiences? This research question was

intentionally broad to allow the researcher the flexibility needed to explore how teachers make

sense and give meaning to their formal and informal learning experiences during the school day.

Additionally, the inclusive nature of the overarching research question allowed the researcher to

consider how the nature of professional development—such as its format, duration, and content,

or the school culture and context—influenced how teachers constructed understandings of their

job-embedded learning experiences.

Conceptual Framework

A sensemaking framework was used to unpack teacher knowledge construction since the

purpose of this study was to understand how middle school teachers make sense of and give

meaning to their job-embedded learning experiences. According to Weick (1995), sensemaking

is the ongoing, social process individuals use to make sense of or construct understandings of

their world. Sensemaking is a way of organizing and assigning meaning to experiences or ideas

(Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005).

Choo (1998) explained the purpose of sensemaking as a way to create “a structure of

shared meanings and understandings based on which concerted actions can take place” (p. 79). In

other words, Choo contended that sensemaking theory assumes interpretation and action are

influenced by the negotiation of social cues and the co-construction of knowledge. A

sensemaking perspective embeds the negotiation and co-creation of knowledge into the context

10

and the culture of the environment. Sensemaking theory was a relevant framework for

understanding how teachers made sense of job-embedded learning since it considered how the

context and culture of the school influence how teachers construct understandings of their

learning experiences.

Finally, Coburn (2001; 2005) noted that sensemaking is not only influenced by

workplace norms and patterns, but also by the existing worldviews and experiences of those

engaging in the sensemaking process. Teachers’ beliefs and prior experiences influence how they

understand, interpret, and adapt new knowledge just as the conditions of their learning

environment affect meaning making. Ultimately, the consideration of teacher worldviews will be

essential to understanding how teachers construct understandings of their job-embedded learning

experiences.

Overview of the Methods

A qualitative research approach was used to examine how teachers constructed

understandings of their job-embedded learning experiences. According to Creswell (2007) and

Merriam (2009), a qualitative approach is interpretative in nature and seeks to understand the

meaning people give to their experiences. Qualitative research strives to preserve and to analyze

the situated, contextual nature of knowledge construction and experience rather than reduce it to

decontextualized statistical analysis (Richardson, 1996). Thus, a qualitative approach was

appropriate for investigating how teachers made sense of job-embedded learning since it

considered teachers’ perspectives and experiences within the context of school.

Acknowledging the need for a qualitative approach, an ethnographic, multi-case study

design was used. A case study is defined as a holistic investigation and analysis of a person,

group, or phenomenon within a real-life bounded system (Merriam, 2009; Simons, 2009). Case

11

studies offer researchers the opportunity to study the processes, perspectives, and experiences of

a person, group, or phenomenon in its original context and culture. Consequently, an

ethnographic case study emphasizes the examination of the context and culture being studied

(Merriam, 2009). The addition of ethnography to the case study design highlighted the influence

of context and culture on the understanding and interpretation of knowledge construction and

experiences.

Finally, a multi-case design was implemented since it allowed the researcher to examine

multiple cases within a single context. In this instance, each participating teacher represented one

case while the boundary was described as the learning that teachers experience during the school

day. For each case, the unit of analysis was consistent in that it focused on how teachers

constructed understandings of their job-embedded learning experiences.


artifacts. First, each teacher participated in an initial, in-depth interview. The initial interview

occurred face-to-face and used a semi-structured interview guide to gather data about each

teacher’s unique worldview, specifically focusing on her beliefs about professional development

and experiences with job-embedded learning.

Next, the researcher shadowed each teacher for one school day or eight-hour period as he

or she engaged in job-embedded learning experiences. The researcher documented in a field

journal how each teacher interacted and co-constructed meaning during the school day by

focusing on the talk and actions of each participant as she engaged in the work of being a

teacher. Additionally, the researcher chronicled insights and questions during and after

shadowing each teacher to aid in data analysis.

12

Teacher learning logs were used to document each teacher’s job-embedded learning

experiences. More specifically, after any formal or informal job-embedded learning experience,

each teacher wrote about her experience and uploaded supporting documents in a learning log

that was submitted to the researcher weekly. Each teacher was given potential prompts to help

facilitate her reflection and writing; however, it was ultimately the decision of each teacher to

decide what and how often to write about her job-embedded learning experiences. Follow-up

email exchanges and informal phone interviews were used to further explore or clarify the

content of the teacher job-embedded learning logs. The purpose of the follow-up email exchange

and informal phone interviews was to maintain constant, open communication between

participant and researcher. Constant communication during the data collection period was

essential to understanding teacher sensemaking of job-embedded learning experiences.

Finally, the researcher collected and analyzed supporting documents and other artifacts,

such as meeting minutes from job-embedded learning experiences, teacher professional

development plans, school improvement plans, etc. These documents and other artifacts were

used to construct an understanding of the study context as well as provide support and/or

rationale for how teachers make sense and give meaning to their job-embedded learning

experiences.

Within-case and cross-case analysis was used to examine the collected data. Creswell

(2007) highlighted that within-case analysis is used to identify categories within a single case

whereas cross-case analysis is more appropriate for refining themes across multiple cases.

Specific to the proposed study, this approach to analysis allowed the researcher to analyze each

teacher individually before collectively considering the commonalities across teachers.

Nonetheless, both the within-case and cross-case analysis used the constant comparative method

13

to generate inductively an understanding of how teachers constructed understandings of their

job-embedded learning experiences. Evolving from grounded theory, the constant comparative

method requires the researcher to search for the similarities and differences of data to generate

categories and themes (Bernard & Ryan, 2010). Ultimately, themes were generated to present

and discuss the results of the data analysis.

Significance of the Study

Numerous scholars have studied what constitutes effective professional development

(Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Desimone, 2011; Garet et al., 2001; Guskey, 2003; Guskey &

Yoon, 2009; Hirsh, 2009; Wayne et al., 2008; Wei et al., 2010; Zepeda, 2011c; 2015).

Collectively, these scholars agreed the key features of effective professional development

include a focus on content, an emphasis on active learning, attention to coherence, consideration

of duration, and the encouragement of collective participation. Similarly, scholars have

acknowledged that job-embedded learning offers a viable avenue for educators to transform their

beliefs, knowledge, and practice within the context of their schools while adhering to the key

features of effective professional development (Croft et al., 2010; Desimone, 2011; Redding &

Kamm, 1999; Wood & Killian, 1998; Zepeda, 2011a; Zepeda, 2011b; Zepeda, 2011c).

Therefore, this study seeks to contribute to the existing body of literature on effective

professional development by offering a critical examination of how teachers construct

understandings of their job-embedded learning experiences.

In addition to the literature on effective professional development and job-embedded

learning, most of the professional development research has focused on “teacher satisfaction,

attitude change, or commitment to innovation, rather than professional development results or

the processes that make it work” (Desimone, 2011, p. 68). Thus, this study aimed to address an

14

apparent gap in the literature on professional development processes by examining how teachers

make sense of and give meaning to their job-embedded learning experiences. Only a few studies

to date have examined teacher sensemaking processes (Coburn, 2001; Coburn, 2005; Colestock

& Sherin, 2009; Rosebery & Puttick, 1998), with the majority of these studies related to the

implementation of educational policy or to a particular subject area such as reading.

Finally, focusing on the process of knowledge construction and sensemaking may

provide administrators and policymakers with a wealth of knowledge about teacher learning

during the school day. In particular, the findings from this study might offer suggestions for how

to structure job-embedded learning, how to overcome challenges related to job-embedded

learning, and how to support teacher learning given each teacher’s unique worldview and work

context.

Assumptions

The researcher assumed that all participants understood the meaning of job-embedded

learning and were able to articulate what it looked like in their school by providing examples.

Additionally, the researcher reasoned that most teachers engage in job-embedded learning

because they desire refinement and improvement of their professional knowledge and teaching

practice. Since participation is voluntary, the researcher assumed that participants would strive to

maintain active engagement and collaboratively commit to learning throughout the study.

Definition of Terms

The following definitions clarify how this study used each term. Origins of the definitions

are included and limitations are established in relation to the context.

Professional Development – Professional development refers to any formal or informal

learning experience or process that refines and enhances the professional knowledge, skills, and

15

practices of teachers to improve student achievement and growth (Avalos, 2011; Hirsh, 2009;

National Staff Development Council, 2009; Zepeda, 2011b).

Job-embedded Learning – Also referred to as on-the-job learning, job-embedded learning

refers to the learning that is grounded in the daily work of teachers. It is characterized as learning

by doing and encourages teachers to actively engage in and reflect on their practices (Croft et al.,

2010; Desimone, 2011; Wood & McQuarrie, 1999; Zepeda, 2011a; Zepeda, 2011b; Zepeda,

2011c; Zepeda, 2012; Zepeda, 2015).

Sensemaking – An ongoing, social process individuals use to make sense of their world

(Weick, 1995). Sensemaking assumes that interpretation and action are influenced by the

negotiation of social cues and the co-construction of knowledge (Coburn, 2001; Coburn, 2005)

Middle School – A single school site which houses grades 6-8 with a dedicated, full-time

principal (O.C.G.A. 20-2-290).

Subjectivity Statement

While the researcher was not associated with the selected middle school and its teachers,

she was familiar with the organization of middle schools and professional development

opportunities. Specifically, as a practicing middle school teacher, the researcher’s assumptions

and biases about middle schools, professional development, and job-embedded learning may

influence the analysis or reporting of the data. Nevertheless, the researcher attempted to

minimize her subjectivities by thoroughly documenting her procedures, processes, and decisions

in a researcher’s journal with the intention of helping readers judge the quality and

trustworthiness of the research.

16

Organization of the Dissertation

The dissertation is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 provided an introduction of the

research by describing the background and rationale for the study, the statement of the problem,

and the significance of the study. Additionally, the first chapter included an overview of the

research methods and addressed the conceptual framework, study limitations, and researcher

assumptions.

Chapter 2 will present a review of the related literature relevant to policy and legislation

on professional development, professional development standards, effective professional

development, job-embedded learning, and the middle school. Next, Chapter 3 will present the

research design and methodology. It also includes samples of collected data and subsequent

analysis. Accordingly, Chapter 4 will report the findings of the data while Chapter 5 will discuss

the results and implications of the findings. The fifth chapter will conclude with

recommendations for administrators and policymakers and implications for further research.

17

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction



was to understand how middle school teachers make sense and give meaning to their learning

experiences during the school day. The overarching research question for this study was how do

teachers construct understandings of their job-embedded learning experiences?

Prior to presenting the research design and methods, it is essential to understand the

literature on professional development and job-embedded learning. Therefore, the first section

defines and discusses the meaning of professional development including an encompassing

definition drawn from the research. The next section delineates what constitutes effective

professional development using empirical research from the last decade. The third section

reviews job-embedded learning and offers a summary of empirical research. Focusing on the

present study more directly, professional development within the context of middle schools is

examined. The literature related to sensemaking theory is examined in relation to the purposes of

this study.

Definitions of Professional Development

Finding consensus on the meaning of professional development is nearly impossible

given the numerous scholars who have devoted their academic careers to discussing professional

development (e.g., Birman et al., 2007; Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Garet et al., 2001).

18

Nonetheless, it is essential to explore the meaning of professional development if one intends to

examine the features of effective professional development or posit its future. For example, the

National Professional Development Center on Inclusion [NPDCI] has defined professional

development is defined as “teaching and learning experiences that are transactional and designed

to support the acquisition of professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions as well as the

application of this knowledge in practice” (2008, p. 4). Professional development has also been

defined as “teachers learning, learning how to learn, and transforming their knowledge into

practice for the benefit of their students’ growth” (Avalos, 2011, p. 10). Collectively, these

definitions rely on the assumption that the goal of professional learning is to assist educators in

developing the knowledge and skills necessary for ensuring student success (Avalos, 2011;

NPDCI, 2008).

The National Staff Development Council (NSDC), now known as Learning Forward,

defined professional development as “a comprehensive, sustained, and intensive approach to

improving teachers’ and principals’ effectiveness in raising student achievement” (NSDC, 2009).

Learning Forward’s definition reflects their belief that successful teacher practice and student

achievement are linked to the implementation of professional development; specifically,

professional development that is comprehensive, aligned, and sustained (Mizell, Hord, Killion, &

Hirsh, 2011). Furthermore, the definition clarifies the importance of a continuous cycle of

improvement, follow-up, and collective responsibility on the effectiveness of professional

development. Lastly, Learning Forward’s definition helps to ensure that professional

development is grounded in the context and practice of teachers while maintaining focus on

student achievement and growth.

19

Professional development has been termed staff development, in-service, training,

professional learning, or continuing education (Mizell, 2010; Zepeda, 1999). While each of these

terms may differ slightly in meaning, the premise of educators learning knowledge and skills to

refine their practice and to improve student achievement remains intact. Therefore, for the

purpose of this study, professional development refers to any opportunity or process that teachers

engage in to enhance their professional knowledge and practice. Moreover, professional

development assumes that teacher learning and student success are equally important and forever

linked in a continuous cycle.

Standards for Professional Development

In addition to providing a standardized definition for professional development, Learning

Forward published a list of aligned professional learning standards to aid schools in their

endeavor to provide effective professional development. Following two earlier versions (NSDC,

1995; NSDC, 2001) of the organization’s professional development standards, the most current

iteration boasts noticeable differences, such as fewer standards, a more holistic vision, combined

content standards, a revised stem, and three new focus areas: Learning Communities, Leadership,

and Resources (Mizell et al., 2011) embedded across the areas of Data, Learning Designs,

Implementation, and Outcomes (Learning Forward, 2011). Furthermore, Learning Forward now

terms professional development as professional learning to emphasize the importance of active

learning. The researcher will use the term professional development for purposes of this study.

The Learning Forward standards can begin to communicate how schools can plan and

provide professional development that is intensive, ongoing, and job-embedded (Learning

Forward, 2011). In other words, the Learning Forward standards provide a means for guiding

and implementing effective professional development whereas most policies and legislation offer

20

only vague support for professional development often delineated by accountability measures,

such as student test scores and teacher growth models (Mizell et al., 2011).

Effective Professional Development

Numerous scholars have studied what constitutes effective professional development

(Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Desimone, 2011; Garet et al., 2001; Guskey, 2003; Guskey &

Yoon, 2009; Hirsh, 2009; Wayne et al., 2008; Wei et al., 2010). Collectively, these scholars

agree key features of effective professional development include a focus on content, an emphasis

on active learning, attention to coherence, consideration of duration, and the encouragement of

collective participation (Borko, 2004; Elmore, 2002; Wayne et al., 2008; Yoon, Duncan, Lee,

Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007; Zepeda, 2011a; Zepeda, 2011b). Understanding what makes

professional development effective is critical to improving both teacher and student learning

(Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009; Desimone, 2009; Garet et al., 2001). Moreover, Pate

and Thompson (2003) argued that effective professional development not only increases the

transfer of new knowledge and skills into practice, but also effective professional development

encourages refinement of teaching and a sense of renewal.

In 1999, Hawley and Valli’s seminal research summarized conditions that foster effective

professional development. Specifically, they identified eight design principles of effective

professional development that not only embodied current literature of the time, but also focused

on the improvement of student and teacher. The eight design principles were as follows:

1. Driven, fundamentally, by analyses of the differences between (1) goals and

standards for student learning and (2) student performance.

21

2. Involves learners (such as teachers) in the identification of their learning needs and,

when possible, the development of the learning opportunity and/or the process

to be used.

3. Is primarily school based and integral to school operations.

4. Provides learning opportunities that relate to individual needs but for the most part

are organized around collaborative problem solving.

5. Is continuous and ongoing, involving follow-up and support for further learning,

including support from sources external to the school.

6. Incorporates evaluation of multiple sources of information on outcomes for

students and processes involved in implementing the lessons learned through

professional development.

7. Provides opportunities to develop a theoretical understanding of the knowledge and

skills to be learned.

8. Is integrated with a comprehensive change process that deals with the full range of

impediments to and facilitators of student learning. (Hawley & Valli, 1999, p. 138)

Hawley and Valli’s (1999) principles of effective professional development highlight the

importance of continuous learning embedded within the school context. Over a decade later,

their principles remain constant as current literature continues to characterize effective

professional development as sustained, ongoing, and embedded in the daily work of teachers

(Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 2011; Hirsh, 2009; Zepeda, 2011a; Zepeda, 2011b; Zepeda,

2011c).

Several years later, Guskey (2003) broadened Hawley and Valli’s (1999) work as he

analyzed 13 educational associations’ lists of the characteristics of effective professional

22

development to determine if there was consensus in the field. Guskey (2003) noted 21 common

characteristics across all lists, including that effective professional development provides

sufficient time and resources, promotes teacher collaboration, includes aspects of evaluation,

aligns to reform initiatives, models high-quality instruction, and includes outside experts.

More recently, after analysis of extant empirical research, Desimone (2011) concluded

there were five common features of effective professional development often “associated with

changes in knowledge, practice, and, to a lesser extent, student achievement” (p. 69). Those core

features were as follows:

1. Content focus: Professional development activities should focus on subject matter

content and how students learn that content.

2. Active learning: Teachers should have opportunities to get involved, such as

observing and receiving feedback, analyzing student work, or making presentations,

as opposed to passively sitting through lectures.

3. Coherence: What teachers learn in any professional development activity should be

consistent with other professional development, with their knowledge and beliefs, and

with school, district, and state reforms and policies.

4. Duration: Professional development activities should be spread over a semester and

should include 20 hours or more of contact time.

5. Collective participation: Groups of teachers from the same grade, subject, or school

should participate in professional development activities together to build an

interactive learning community. (Desimone, 2011, p. 69)

Certainly, additional features or factors may contribute to the overall effectiveness of a

professional development program, such as leadership, resources, organizational features, school

23

climate and culture, or community (King & Newmann, 2000); However, numerous scholars

reiterate the features of content focus, active learning, coherence, duration, and collective

participation (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Birman et al., 2000; Garet et al., 2001; Guskey,

2003; Wayne et al., 2008; Wei et al., 2010; Zepeda, 2011b; Zepeda, 2012). Refer to Table 2.1 for

a summary of research that supports the key features of effective professional development.

Table 2.1 Research in Support of the Key Features of Effective Professional Development

Key Features Research

Effective professional development is content focused.

Banilower, Heck, & Weiss, 2007; Birman et al., 2000; Cohen & Hill, 2001; Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Desimone, 2011; Garet et al., 2001; Hill, Rowan, & Ball, 2005; National Institute for Excellence in Teaching, 2012; Wei et al., 2010

Effective professional development includes active learning.

Birman et al., 2000; Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Desimone, 2011; Garet et al., 2001; NIET, 2012; Wei et al., 2010

Effective professional development is coherent.

Birman et al., 2000; Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Desimone, 2011; Garet et al., 2001; NIET, 2012; Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallegher, 2007; Wei et al., 2010

Effective professional development is longer in duration.

Birman et al., 2000; Cohen & Hill, 2001; Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Desimone, 2011; Garet et al., 2001; NIET, 2012; Supovitz & Turner, 2000; Wei et al., 2010

Effective professional development includes collective participation.

Birman et al., 2000; Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Desimone, 2011; Garet et al., 2001; NIET, 2012; Penuel et al., 2007; Wei et al., 2010

In the next section, empirical research related to the characteristics of effective

professional development will be presented and discussed. Attention will be given to defining

and critically examining how each study has contributed to the body of research on professional

development.

24

Review of Selected Research on Effective Professional Development

Birman et al. (2000) surveyed a nationally representative sample of over 1,000 teachers,

who participated in a program offered by the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, to

identify the features of effective professional development. These scholars subdivided their

findings into two categories: structural features and core features. Their findings suggest the

structural features of form, duration, and participation influence the context for effective

professional development while the core features of content focus, active learning, and coherence

(alignment to professional development standards) characterize the processes for effective

professional development.

Further, Birman et al. (2000) found that so-called “reform-oriented professional

development”—or learning experiences that adhere to the key features of effective professional

development (e.g., study group, mentor, teacher network)—provided more content focus, active

learning, duration, and coherence than traditional sit-and-get workshops while professional

development that included collective participation was more likely to focus on content and

encourage active learning among teachers. Other scholars echo Birman et al. (2000) as they

criticize traditional, one-shot workshops for lack of time, focus, active learning, application, and

follow-up (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009; Desimone, 2011; Garet et al., 2001; Zepeda,

2012).

Scholars from the American Institute for Research analyzed over 1,300 professional

development studies that focused on linking professional development to student learning (Yoon

et al., 2007). Only nine of the reviewed studies, all conducted in elementary schools, met the

standards of credible evidence set by the What Works Clearinghouse. Despite the lack of

empirical evidence to link professional development and student learning, several commonalities

25

across the nine studies emerged as contributive features of effective professional development.

For instance, across these studies the professional development activities, including some

workshops, emphasized active learning with opportunities for implementation and follow-up.

Outside experts were used to extend in-house learning and to provide follow-up in specific

content areas. Lastly, the review conducted by Yoon et al. (2007) found that professional

development should be organized, purposeful, and last more than 30 hours in duration to have

positive effects on teacher practice.

Aligned with the findings of Yoon et al.’s (2007) findings, Garet et al. (2001) found that

the features of duration, content, active learning, coherence, and alignment are important to

sustaining ongoing, effective professional development. Specifically, Garet et al. (2001)

reviewed data collected from the Teacher Activity Survey to examine the “relationship between

features of professional development that have been identified in the literature and self-reported

change in teachers’ knowledge and skills and classroom teaching practices” (p. 918). The

nationally representative survey was collected as part of the Eisenhower Professional

Development Program and completed in the fall of 1998. In addition to finding evidence in

support of the five features of effective professional development, Garet et al. (2001) drew as

conclusion that joint collaboration allows teachers to integrate what they learned into their work

context. Joint collaboration not only creates a climate for individual growth and change, but also

fosters support for organizational learning.

In a decade long study by Cohen and Hill (2001) in California, it was deduced that

professional development linked to curriculum development was more likely to promote teacher

change than professional development on general pedagogy. More specifically, after examining a

state program to improve mathematic teaching, Cohen and Hill concluded that teachers

26

consistently and more successfully implemented state mathematics standards when given ample

opportunities to practice their new skills and knowledge through professional development

embedded in mathematics curriculum.

Another large-scale study by Penuel et al. (2007) examined the characteristics of

professional development on teachers’ knowledge and their ability to implement an inquiry

science program. After surveying 454 teachers who participated in the GLOBE program, an

international earth science program, researchers linked hours of professional development to

greater use of an inquiry protocol. Moreover, the more hours of professional development with a

university-related facilitator resulted in better implementation and use of the protocol than

programs facilitated by other partners. Mentioned earlier, this finding supports the use of outside

experts in designing and implementing some professional development activities (Guskey, 2003;

Hawley & Valli, 1999). Subsequently, Penuel et al. (2007) determined that the effectiveness of

the professional development was not only a result of the facilitator or hours engaged, but also

included how well the professional development fit within the local context. In other words,

teachers reported more coherence when district and school goals aligned with the professional

development.

In 2008, the National Staff Development Council (NSDC) in conjunction with

researchers from the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE) began a

four-phase study to examine the status of professional development in the United States. In the

first phase, researchers set out to examine the literature on professional development in the

United States in comparison to other high-performing countries. Darling-Hammond et al. (2009)

concluded:

1. Professional development should be intensive, ongoing, and connected to practice.

27

2. Professional development should focus on student learning and address the teaching

of specific curriculum content.

3. Professional development should align with school improvement priorities and goals.

4. Professional development should build strong working relationships among teachers.

(pp. 9-11)

Additionally, Darling-Hammond et al. (2009) compared findings in the literature to

disaggregated data from the National Center for Education Statistics’ 2003-2004 Schools and

Staffing Survey (SASS) and the NSDC’s Standards Assessment Inventory (SAI) from 2007-

2008 to determine the content, support, and conditions teachers in the United States experienced

through professional development. Darling-Hammond et al. (2009) found that 90% of U.S.

teachers participated in professional development with the majority of those experiences in the

format of traditional workshops or short-term conferences.

Other formats of reported professional development from the SAI included university

coursework (36%), classroom observations (22%), mentor programs (71%), and induction

programs (68%). Next, the researchers determined that only 23% of teachers reported more than

33 hours, or four days, of professional development during a school year. The number of hours

teachers engage in professional development is well below Darling-Hammond et al.’s (2009)

findings that teachers need close to 50 hours of professional development to improve their

practice and to increase student achievement. Moreover, teachers reported that most of the

professional development in which they participate is neither useful nor relevant. Most teachers

(59%) preferred content-related professional development to professional development related to

classroom management, teaching students with special needs, technology, or general pedagogy.

28

Lastly, the examination of both the literature review and surveys from Darling-Hammond

et al.’s (2009) work highlighted the status of professional development in the U.S. as

unsatisfactory and in need of improvement when compared to that of other high-performing

countries. For example, U.S. teachers spend less time collaborating, planning, and learning

together than teachers of other first-world countries. Further, U.S. teachers spend more personal

money on professional development than teachers of other first-world countries and have less

political influence.

The second phase of the NSDC and SCOPE study used the SASS survey results to assess

the quality of each state’s professional development on an 11-point Professional Development

Access Index (Wei et al., 2010). Of most importance, the findings showed that professional

development varies in duration, participation, and format across states. To illustrate, the majority

of teachers across the U.S. reported eight or fewer hours of professional development a year

while teachers in states such as Arkansas and Arizona reported 56 hours of professional

development. Next, participation rates for professional development depended on the topic and

content. For example, professional development focused on computer use involved 41% of

teachers in Rhode Island, but 89% of teachers in Arkansas. Similarly, professional development

on teaching students with disabilities ranged from 31% participation in South Carolina to 58%

participation in Montana.

Finally, accessibility of professional development formats, especially induction

programs, varied across states with South Carolina and Iowa reporting 93% participation and

South Dakota and North Dakota reporting the lowest participation at 41% and 42%, respectively.

While these statistics represent only a handful of the indicators researchers used to compare

professional development trends across states, the 11-point Professional Development Access

29

Index ultimately summarizes each state’s strengths and weaknesses with regard to professional

development.

In the third phase of NSDC and SCOPEs’ study, Jacquith et al. (2010) conducted case

studies of four “professionally active” (p. 3) states—Colorado, Missouri, New Jersey, and

Vermont—to examine how policy supports effective professional development. These states

were identified as “professionally active” based on teachers’ responses to the SASS survey and

their students’ above average achievement on the 2009 National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP) exam. Jacquith et al. (2010) clarified, “Teachers in all four states had high

participation rates in a wide range of professional development, from teacher induction to

curriculum support and study groups focused on specific subject areas. While their approaches to

professional development varied, the four states shared a number of key characteristics and

face[d] similar challenges” (p. 3). For example, each of the four states had professional

development standards or other accountability systems for teachers; a professional organization

that oversaw teacher licensure, renewals, and professional development; and similar

requirements for new teacher induction and mentoring programs.

Overall, the Jacquith et al. (2010) study identified four factors that impact policy and

professional development: leadership, infrastructure, resources, and outside providers. The

findings denoted the relationship between policy and effective professional development is

enhanced when leadership and decision-making are shared among stakeholders; when local

organizations, such as Regional Educational Service Agencies, partner with schools to provide

organizational structures conducive to learning; when funding and resources are secured and

aligned with school improvement goals; and when professional organizations actively support

both state and school goals.

30

The final phase of the four-part study by NSDC and SCOPE examined the elements of

effective professional learning communities in two New Jersey middle schools. After the two

schools were selected from a survey of 33 New Jersey public schools, Mindich and Lieberman

(2012) conducted in-depth, qualitative case studies on each school. The researchers concluded

that context was a crucial element in how each school functioned as a professional learning

community. Accordingly, Mindich and Lieberman (2012) observed effective professional

learning communities need flexible and distributed leadership, safe spaces for collaboration,

protected time for collaboration, and the creation of norms and goals for purposeful learning.

These findings extend the literature on effective professional development beyond characteristics

to the realization that context affects teacher learning. In fact, Borko (2004), DuFour (2004),

King and Newmann (2000), Vescio et al. (2008), and Zepeda (2000; 2005; & 2011b) recognized

the importance of context in creating professional learning communities. All acknowledged that

effective professional development does not occur if the context and conditions of a school or

organization do not support learning.

In summary, professional development is effective when it is ongoing, sustained, and

embedded in the work of teachers (Zepeda, 2011a; Zepeda, 2011b; Zepeda, 2011c). Several key

features influence the effectiveness of professional development, such as content, active learning,

coherence, duration, and collective participation (Desimone, 2011). Mizell (2010) summarized:

Professional development is most effective when it occurs in the context of educators’

daily work. When learning is part of the school day, all educators are engaged in growth

rather than learning being limited to those who volunteer to participate on their own.

School-based professional development helps educators analyze student achievement

31

data during the school year to immediately identify learning problems, develop solutions,

and promptly apply those solutions to address students’ needs. (p. 7)

Thus, the situated nature of professional learning cannot be ignored if professional development

is to be effective in the future. Guskey (2009) explained, “The most powerful content will make

no difference if shared in a context unprepared to receive it or use it. Similarly, a seemingly

powerful professional development activity poorly suited to a particular context will likely fail

miserably” (p. 229). Hence, opportunities for job-embedded learning offer a viable avenue for

educators to transform their beliefs, knowledge, and practice within the context of their school

while adhering to the key features of effective professional development.

Job-Embedded Learning

Similar to professional development, the literature offers an array of definitions for job-

embedded learning. Wood and McQuarrie (1999) defined job-embedded, or on-the-job, learning

as “learning by doing, reflecting on the experience, and then generating and sharing new insights

and learning with oneself and others” (p. 10). Their definition emphasized that job-embedded

learning occurs when teachers are actively engaged in and reflect on their daily work via formal

or informal activities. Likewise, Croft, Coggshall, Dolan, Powers, and Killion (2010), Desimone

(2011), Redding and Kamm (1999), Wood and Killian (1998), Wynne (2010), and Zepeda

(2011a; 2011b; 2011c) concurred that job-embedded learning is grounded in the daily practice of

teachers and, as such, presents a viable way to foster both formal and informal learning

opportunities while acknowledging the influence of the context on learning.

The School Improvement Fund program from the U.S. Department of Education

suggested the following definition:

32

Job-embedded learning is professional learning that occurs at a school as educators

engage in their daily work activities. It is closely connected to what teachers are asked to

do in the classroom so that the skills and knowledge gained from such learning can be

immediately transferred to classroom instructional practices. Job-embedded professional

development is usually characterized by the following:

• It occurs on a regular basis (e.g., daily or weekly);

• It is aligned with academic standards, school curricula, and school

improvement goals;

• It involves educators working together collaboratively and is often facilitated

by school instructional leaders or school-based professional development

coaches or mentors;

• It requires active engagement rather than passive learning by participants; and

• It focuses on understanding what and how students are learning and on how to

address students’ learning needs, including reviewing student work and

achievement data and collaboratively planning, testing, and adjusting instructional

strategies, formative assessments, and materials based on such data (Islas, 2010,

p. 12)

Considered collectively, each definition emphasizes the situated nature of job-embedded

learning. Further, each immediately aligns and connects learning to teacher practice as it

facilitates the application and adaptation of new skills (Coggshall et al., 2012; Sparks & Hirsh,

1997; Zepeda, 2000; Zepeda, 2005). Hence, each definition assumes that job-embedded

professional learning maintains focus on student learning and encompasses the key features of

effective professional development.

33

Job-embedded learning typically occurs informally although more formal opportunities

exist. Formal learning opportunities are those that are planned, structured, and generally focused

on a predefined topic (Ginsberg & Wlodkowski, 2010; Merriam & Brockett, 2007; Pate &

Thompson, 2003). Formal learning opportunities include activities such as conferences,

certification courses, or graduate coursework. In the context of job-embedded learning, formal

learning might refer to critical friends groups ® (Harmony School Corporation), book studies,

lesson studies, or learning circles (Zepeda, 2011b; Zepeda, 2011c). Conversely, informal

learning refers to loosely structured, continuous learning that is often the result of collaboration

and interaction (Ginsberg & Wlodkowski, 2010; Marsick, Watkins, Callahan, & Volpe, 2006;

Merriam, 2007; Pate & Thompson, 2003). To clarify, Marsick and Volpe (1999) characterize

informal learning as:

• It is integrated with daily routines.

• It is triggered by an internal or external jolt.

• It is not highly conscious.

• It is haphazard and influenced by chance.

• It is an inductive process of reflection and action.

• It is linked to learning of others. (p. 5)

Informal learning can occur anytime or anywhere. Specific to job-embedded learning, informal

learning may take place during peer coaching, mentoring, and collaborative meetings.

Subsequently, Marsick and Watkins (2001) argued that informal learning could be further

explored by examining instances of incidental learning, or learning that occurs unintentionally

throughout the course of day. Le Clus (2011), in her literature review on informal and incidental

learning, clarified:

34

In most cases incidental learning is unintentional or unplanned learning that results from

other activities, such as interaction with co-workers. In contrast to informal learning,

which may be facilitated through strategies like mentoring, incidental learning can be the

result of learning from mistakes. (p. 367)

Regardless of the distinction between informal and incidental learning, job-embedded

professional development provides a means for fostering teacher learning through activities and

experiences that are situated in the work environment.

For instance, informal and incidental learning opportunities might include, but not be

limited to, such job-embedded activities and experiences as coaching, mentoring, peer coaching,

action research, study groups, book studies, lesson study, observations, learning circles, critical

friends groups ®, common planning time, discussion of student work, lesson reflection, grade-

level or department meetings, and co-teaching (Desimone, 2011; Islas, 2010; Parylo, Zepeda, &

Bengtson, 2013; Wood & McQuarrie, 1999; Zepeda, 2011a; Zepeda, 2011b; Zepeda, 2011c;

Zepeda, 2012). While it is beyond the scope of this literature review to describe all forms of job-

embedded learning, Croft et al. (2010) and Zepeda (2011b; 2011c; 2012; 2015) offered detailed

definitions, descriptions, and empirical examples of job-embedded learning.

A number of scholars have expanded our understanding of job-embedded learning by

describing the essential conditions or attributes necessary for successful implementation

(Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 2011; DuFour, 2004; King & Newmann, 2000; Zepeda,

2011a; Zepeda, 2011b; Zepeda, 2011c; Zepeda, 2012). For example, Zepeda (2012) described

four conditions essential to job-embedded learning. The four conditions are as follows:

1) Learning needs to be consistent with the principles of adult learning.

2) Trust in the process, in colleagues, and in the learner.

35

3) Time within the regular school day needs to be made available for learning.

4) Sufficient resources must be available to support learning. (p. 126)

Relative to these conditions, job-embedded learning follows adult learning principles, relies on

collaboration, occurs within the context of school, and is supported by sufficient resources.

Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (2011), King and Newmann (2000), Wood and

McQuarrie (1999), and Zepeda (2011b) agreed that job-embedded learning was most effective

when it adheres to adult learning principles. These scholars note that adults are unique, self-

directed learners who are motivated to learn when it is related to tasks or problems that occur in

their daily lives. Finally, Zepeda (2012) identified three attributes that help facilitate job-

embedded learning: successful job-embedded learning is relevant to teachers, includes feedback,

and encourages the transfer of new knowledge and skills into practice.

Job-embedded learning has many noted benefits. Empirical studies have found that job-

embedded learning “enhances reflection, promotes collegiality, combats isolation, makes

learning more relevant to each teacher, increases transfer of newly learned skills, supports the

ongoing refinement of practice, and fosters a common lexicon that facilitates dialogue and

improvement” (Zepeda, 2011b, pp. 126-127). Additionally, Wood and McQuarrie (1999)

reasoned that job-embedded learning decreased the amount of time spent away from the job,

encouraged immediate application of new knowledge and skills, typically costed less, and

considered more fully how adults learn best. Finally, Coggshall et al. (2012) noted that job-

embedded professional development was useful to both teachers and evaluators since it provides

“multiple opportunities for teachers to document and evaluators to collect evidence to determine

the extent to which teachers analyze the impact of their instruction, reflect appropriately on that

analysis, and actively collaborate with colleagues” (p. 20). Refer to Table 2.2 for a summary of

36

research in support of job-embedded learning. Undoubtedly, job-embedded learning is important

in an era that underscores the importance of teacher and school accountability.

Table 2.2 Research in Support of Job-embedded Learning

Key Features Research

Job-embedded learning is grounded in the daily practice of teachers.

Croft, Coggshall, Dolan, Powers, & Killion, 2010; Desimone, 2011; Redding & Kamm, 1999; Wood & Killion, 1998; Wynne, 2010; Zepeda, 2011b; Zepeda, 2011c

Job-embedded learning enhances reflection.

Coggshall, Rasmussen, Colton, Milton, & Jacques, 2012; Croft et al., 2010; Lenski & Caskey, 2009; Wood & McQuarrie, 1999; Zepeda, 2011b

Job-embedded learning promotes collegiality.

Caskey & Carpenter, 2012; Coggshall et al., 2012; Croft et al., 2010; Graham, 2007; Levine & Marcus, 2010; Mawhinney, 2009; Mindich & Lieberman, 2012; Zepeda, 2011b

Job-embedded learning facilitates the application and adaptation of new skills into practice.

Borko, 2004; Coggshall et al., 2012; Croft et al., 2010; Sparks & Hirsh, 1997; Strahan & Hedt, 2009; Wood & Killion, 1998; Zepeda, 2000; Zepeda, 2005; Zepeda, 2011b

Job-embedded learning adheres to adult learning principles.

Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 2011; King & Newmann, 2000; Wood & McQuarrie, 1999; Zepeda, 2011b

In the next section, empirical research related to the key features of job-embedded

learning will be presented and discussed. Attention will be given to defining and critically

examining how each study has contributed to the body of research on job-embedded learning.

Review of Selected Research on Job-Embedded Learning

Akiba (2012) conducted a statewide survey of Missouri middle school mathematics

teachers to examine what types of professional development activities teachers engaged in and

for how long. After examining the seven types of predetermined activities, Akiba (2012) found

37

that most teachers spent their time involved in individual learning, teacher collaboration, or site-

based programs. These findings highlighted the informal nature of teacher learning and

supported the idea that teacher learning was greatly influenced by context.

Levine and Marcus (2010) conducted a multi-level case study of four mathematics and

science teachers at a high school in California. The aim of their study was to explore how

teachers learn from ongoing collaborations with colleagues during the school day. The

teachers/participants met three times a week to discuss and analyze student data and explore

social and academic issues. The researchers found that intentionally planning teachers’

collaboration improves practice and increases teacher empowerment. In other words, establishing

norms and determining the focus of collaborative meetings influenced the success of the

meetings. Levine and Marcus (2010) also suggested that schools examine when it is important to

engage in multiple types of collaboration. For instance, multiple types of collaboration, such as

using protocols or informal study groups, might be complementary for certain topics whereas

other topics might be better suited to another type of collaboration.

In 2009, Mawhinney conducted an ethnographic study of how teachers learn incidentally

during the day. Primarily by observing collaborations in the teachers’ lounge and other

congregational spaces, the researcher discovered that these spaces could be positive places for

sharing professional knowledge. More specifically, Mawhinney (2009) found:

It helped teachers informally earn and understand the practice of teaching, spontaneously

collaborate and create projects, and collectively share information. Thus, all the

professional knowledge in these spaces either directly or indirectly filtered back into the

classroom. (p. 974)

38

Teachers, both novice and veteran, collaborated to improve their practice, find instructional and

emotional support, and share their professional knowledge.

The findings of Mawhinney (2009) are further supported by Horn (2005), who conducted

a similar ethnography of two high school mathematics departments in California. In this study,

Horn (2005) wanted to find out how mathematics teachers learned about content and pedagogy

via the context and culture of the work environment. She found that teachers better understood

content and pedagogy when they had frequent opportunities to collaborate and to reflect. Further,

Horn (2005) posited that the everyday nature of teacher learning through informal, collaborative

models account for the majority of teacher change as opposed to more traditional, structured

models of teacher learning offered as formal professional development outside of the work day

(after school, summer, or before school).

Finally, the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching ([NIET], 2012) reported that

job-embedded learning could improve student achievement if it occurs in an environment that

has sufficient organization and resources to support it. For instance, summarizing research by

Biancarosa, Byrk, and Dexter (2010) and Saunders, Goldenberg, and Gallimore (2009), the

NIET stated:

Effective professional development (PD) strategies were successful only under certain

circumstances or only in some schools and classrooms. The determining factor was not

the quality of the PD itself, but rather the conditions under which it was delivered. It turns

out that job-embedded PD can be highly effective, but only when there is a sufficient

infrastructure in place to support it. (p. 1)

Professional development is inexplicably intertwined with the context and culture of a school.

39

Thus, considering how schools can provide opportunities for and enhance the process of job-

embedded learning is essential to improving teacher practice and student achievement.

Professional Development in the Middle School

Historically, professional development in the middle school has been a key component

for reforming schools and refining teacher practice. In particular, most professional development

in the middle school has followed a “whole-school” model as schools and teachers prepared to

transition from the junior high school model to the middle school model in the early 1960s

(Dickson, Butler, & Pittard, 2003). During this time, professional development focused on

redefining the middle school as an organization with emphasis on the understanding of

interdisciplinary teaming, flexible scheduling, and exploratory classes. Subsequently,

professional development in the 1980s focused on instruction and assessment while professional

development in the 1990s called attention to service-learning and integrative curriculum (Pate &

Thompson, 2003). More recently, professional development in the 2000s has been dominated by

such topics as specific subject content and curriculum and school accountability.

Aside from the topical trends of professional development in the middle school, middle

school scholars recommended that professional development should be ongoing, focused on

student outcomes, aligned with standards, and embedded in the work of teachers (Hirsh, 2004;

Jackson & Davis, 2000; National Middle School Association, 2010; Pate & Thompson, 2003).

For instance, the National Middle School Association’s [NMSA] seminal position paper entitled

This We Believe: Keys to Educating Young Adolescents (2010) recommended professional

development focused on student learning and grounded in data, reflection, and collaboration.

Furthermore, NMSA, now known as the Association for Middle Level Education [AMLE],

reasoned that professional development should be continuous and based on the identified needs

40

of teachers. Similarly, Jackson and Davis (2000) argued for professional development that is

“results-driven, standards-based, and embedded in teachers’ daily work” (p. 110). Finally, Pate

and Thompson (2003) provided a list of seven recommendations for professional development in

the middle school. The seven recommendations called for professional development to:

1) Promote internal/external and informal/formal professional development

opportunities.

2) Involve all teachers, support personnel, and administrators in professional

development.

3) Determine school, teacher, and student needs so that professional development is

relevant.

4) Identify knowledgeable instructors for formal professional development so that

experience is credible.

5) Provide time to discuss, share, and engage in reflection.

6) Document professional development experiences.

7) Evaluate professional development activities. (p. 132)

Pate and Thompson’s (2003) recommendations for professional development in the middle

school mirror research on effective professional development. Consequently, professional

development in the middle school should be focused on content, offer opportunities for active

learning; encourage collective participation embedded within the context of practice; include

ongoing supports with follow-up, and align with federal, state, and local expectations.

Review of Selected Research on Professional Development in the Middle School

Caskey and Carpenter (2012) examined organizational models for teacher learning in

middle schools; specifically, common planning time, professional learning communities, and

41

critical friends groups ®. Alarmed that many middle school teachers still work in isolation,

Caskey and Carpenter (2012) argued that interdisciplinary teaming and common planning time

provided a perfect structure for collaborative teacher learning built in to the regular school day

and grounded in teacher needs and practice. Similarly, the researchers maintained that

professional learning communities and critical friends groups ® offered teachers opportunities to

refine their professional knowledge and practice while attending to the unique nature of middle

schools. Thus, job-embedded learning via these organizational structures promoted not only

collective responsibility and engagement, but also kept the focus on meeting the intellectual,

social, and emotional needs of middle school teachers and students.

Comparably, Graham (2007) used DuFour’s (2004) concepts of professional learning

communities to conduct a mixed methods case study of sixth, seventh, and eighth grade teachers

at a middle school in a large Southeastern district. The purpose of this study was to explore the

relationship between teacher effectiveness and same-subject professional learning communities.

Using the tenets of effective professional development to frame his discussion, Graham (2007)

concluded that same-subject professional learning communities improved the practice of teachers

because those structures followed a reform model that encouraged collective participation, a

focus on content, and active learning.

Interestingly, Graham (2007) suggested the findings illuminated a shift from

interdisciplinary teaming to content area teaming. He argued, “middle school leaders may need

to rethink some of their assumptions around teaming, the primary work focus of teams, and the

types of team configurations most likely to lead to real improvements in teaching and learning”

(p. 14). Essentially, Graham (2007) contributed to the field of middle school education by

42

considering alternative forms of teaming, how to improve teacher effectiveness, and the

relationship of both to job-embedded learning.

After surveying 33 New Jersey public schools, Mindich and Lieberman (2012) conducted

case studies of two schools to understand how interdisciplinary teams and content teams

functioned within professional learning communities. Mindich and Lieberman (2012) argued that

interdisciplinary and content teams had different benefits or advantages. However they found

that the success of both types of teams in promoting teacher learning was influenced by

leadership vision, school community, and resources. Specifically, interdisciplinary teams were

useful for data analysis while content teams were better for fostering ongoing collaboration about

instruction and assessment.

In an earlier study, Strahan and Hedt (2009) conducted a case study of two seventh grade

teacher teams as they worked with a literacy coach and university partner to improve reading and

writing across the curriculum. Focusing on how participants changed their instructional practice,

how they collaborated with each other, and how instruction impacted student learning, Strahan

and Hedt (2009) concluded that professional growth begins with dialogue about curriculum,

pedagogy, and student achievement. Furthermore, Strahan and Hedt (2009) noted that working

with a coach and university partner helped the teachers to produce more engaging lessons and to

improve assessment practices through a cycle of inquiry grounded in relationships and context.

Echoed by Borko (2004), this study supported the notion that job-embedded learning deepens

content knowledge, enhances understanding of assessment for student growth, and encourages

the integration of new knowledge and skills.

In 2009, Lenski and Caskey explored the use of lesson study with teachers from three

middle schools. These scholars asked interdisciplinary teachers to create collaboratively lessons

43

on a given topic, to observe the created lesson, and to engage in reflection and feedback

afterward. As a result, Lenski and Caskey (2009) concluded that lesson study was a great way to

encourage “teachers to reflect on their teaching practice through a cyclical process of

collaborative lesson planning, lesson observation, and examination of student learning” (p. 50).

The lesson study approach embodied the key features of effective professional development and

provided a way to embed learning within the work context.

Sensemaking

There are many definitions of sensemaking; however, generally those definitions

emphasize sensemaking as a process of meaning making and interpretation (Weick, 2012).

Sensemaking can be defined as the ongoing, active, and social processes of knowledge

negotiation and construction (Glynn, 1997; Weber & Glynn, 2006; Weick, 1995; Weick et al.,

2005). Sensemaking is often characterized as how people come to understand and adapt new

knowledge within existing knowledge in the context of their daily lives (Coburn, 2001; Coburn

& Woulfin, 2012; Sleeger, Wassink, van Veen, & Imants, 2009). Sensemaking occurs when one

uses prior knowledge and experience to understand new knowledge and experience. For instance,

Kezar and Eckel (2000) argued:

Sensemaking is the reciprocal process where people seek information, assign meaning,

and act…. Sensemaking allows people to craft, understand, and accept new

conceptualizations…and then to act in ways consistent with those new interpretations and

perceptions” (p. 33).

Sensemaking is an individual and collective process of negotiation that ties the worldview,

understanding, and beliefs of individuals to their actions (Weick, 1995). From a social justice

perspective, Mitchell (2014) delineated sensemaking into six properties: (1) grounded in identity,

44

(2) retrospective, (3) referencing, (4) contradiction, (5) social, and (6) driven by plausibility

(Refer to Table 2.3 Sensemaking Properties).

Table 2.3 Sensemaking Properties Property Description Grounded in Identity

Sensemaking begins with self-awareness (Weick, 1995). Identity-grounded sensemaking allows [individuals] to understand themselves and their relationship to [other] concepts. Who we think we are (identity) shapes our actions and interpretations (Weick et al., 2005).

Retrospective Sensemaking is based in experience (Weick, 1995). Individuals reflect on their experiences to reconsider their thoughts on and action towards [experiences]. This process allows individuals to evaluate their views and (re)align their actions to be consistent with their beliefs.

Referencing Based on the notion of self-authorship (Kegan, 1994), referencing looks at the sources (reading, individuals, experiences) a person includes in her conception of an [experience]. Referencing is either isolated or integrated: isolated meaning the description includes sources without benefit of the person’s voice and/or perspective; integrated meaning outside sources inform the conception but an individual’s understanding is primary.

Contradiction The discrepancy between the actual condition (Jasso, 1998) and an individual’s expectations of community/society/ the world triggers sensemaking (Glanz, Williams, & Hoeksema, 2001). The uncertainty and discomfort fostered by contradiction encourages and inspires a reconstruction of meaning and action.

Social Sensemaking is based in our interactions with others (Kegan, 1994; Wieck, 1995). The process of dialogue and relationship building allows for the introduction and integration of multiple perspectives as well as the collaborative construction of meaning which often brings validity to the process.

Driven by Plausibility

Plausibility relies on confidence more so than accuracy (Weick, 1995). Rather than dependence on the “right answer”, sensemaking pushes individuals to develop a conception in which they are confident enough to take action on these beliefs (Eckel & Kezar, 2003)

Adapted from Mitchell, T. D. (2014). How service-learning enacts social justice sensemaking. Journal of Critical Thought and Praxis, 2(2), 4. For the purpose of this study, sensemaking is defined as how one makes sense of and gives

meaning to new knowledge and experiences based on her prior worldviews, beliefs, and

understandings.

45

Review of Selected Research on Sensemaking

Most of the research on teacher sensemaking is centered on the interpretation and

implementation of educational policy (Coburn, 2001; Coburn 2005; Coburn & Woulfin, 2012;

Schmidt & Datnow, 2005). However, a few scholars are beginning to explore teacher

sensemaking within the context of professional development (Blignaut, 2008; Colestock &

Sherin, 2009; Rosebery & Puttick, 1998).

First, Coburn (2001) conducted an in-depth case study of one California elementary

school to uncover how teachers negotiated and co-constructed reading policy. Specifically,

Coburn (2001) used sensemaking theory to explore how “teachers adapted, adopted, combined,

or ignored messages and pressures about reading instruction in their professional communities

and how these deliberations shaped classroom practice” (p. 147). She found that who teachers

talked to, the depth of their conversations, and how leadership structured those collaborations

influenced how teachers made sense of reading policy. The social interactions and workplace

conditions affected how teachers interpreted and implemented reading policy.

In a follow-up study, Coburn (2005) conducted an embedded case study of two California

elementary school principals to examine the role principals have in influencing teacher learning

about reading policy. Coburn (2005) concluded that the sensemaking of principals directly

influenced how teachers made sense of reading policy since principals are largely responsible for

delivery of such reform initiatives and choose which aspects to emphasize or omit. Additionally,

Coburn (2005) noted that the sensemaking of principals is equally dependent on the principal’s

worldview, or beliefs and philosophies, and the school context and culture.

In a different study, Coburn and Woulfin (2012) sought to understand the “role of reading

coaches in mediating the relationship between policy and teachers’ classroom practice” (p. 5).

46

This in-depth, longitudinal case study of one elementary school in Massachusetts focused on the

perspectives of seven first and second grade teachers, two reading coaches, and two school

administrators in implementing reading policy. Coburn and Woulfin (2012) found that teachers

were more likely to alter their classroom practices when reading coaches delivered the policy

messages rather than an administrator. The researchers attributed this to the coaches’ familiarity

with the classroom context and ability to persuade reluctant teachers.

Similarly, Schmidt and Datnow (2005) used data from a four-year longitudinal case study

of five schools in California and Florida to examine teachers’ emotions in the process of making

sense of Comprehensive School Reform (CSR), a program established by the U.S. Department of

Education to provide financial assistance to schools that implement research-based practices in

the areas of academics and parental involvement. The researchers argued:

Teachers’ prior knowledge affects sense-making, pointing to how teachers arrive at

different interpretations of the same policy message, sometimes even misunderstanding

the policy intent. Values and emotions, therefore, affect this sense-making process, and

highlight how teachers are often biased towards policy interpretations that fit (or do not

fit) with their prior beliefs and values. (p. 950)

Moreover, Schmidt and Datnow (2005) concluded that teachers made sense of reforms in terms

of their own practices, thus highlighting the need to include teachers in implementation

processes. They summarized that teachers attached more emotions to the reforms intended to

impact their classroom practice rather than the reforms intended to impact school climate and

culture.

A smaller number of studies have focused on sensemaking and classroom practices. First,

in 1998, Rosebery and Puttick conducted a case study to investigate how one teacher, Liz, made

47

sense of her professional development experiences. In particular, the researchers used videotaped

episodes to examine the ways Liz “took up and transformed particular ideas, experiences, and

tools” (Rosebery & Puttick, 1998, p. 654) as she engaged in a professional development seminar

on science instruction and inquiry. Interestingly, Rosebery and Puttick (1998) discovered that as

Liz became more comfortable asking herself clarifying questions about her own learning, she

extended those reflective opportunities to her students.

More recently, Colestock and Sherin (2009) identified five strategies that teachers used to

make sense of video clips on mathematics instruction. Collecting data from 15 middle and high

school teachers, the researchers discovered that teachers focused on issues related to pedagogy

and classroom management rather than student understanding. Additionally, teachers used such

sensemaking strategies as comparison, generalization, perspective-taking, reflective thinking,

and problem solving to connect their own prior knowledge and experiences to understanding

new content in the mathematics video.

In the same year, Quinn (2009) conducted a case study on sensemaking and policy to

explore how a team of middle school teachers implemented reading policy into science. He

found that members of the team interpreted the reading policy differently; however, he noted that

establishing a community of practice, or a group of colleagues who share knowledge and

experiences, helped teachers implement reading into science especially when students were

resistant to the change. Quinn (2009) recommended that the district continue communities of

practice to support teachers in their professional learning and growth.

Internationally a few scholars have begun to use sensemaking as a means to investigate

curriculum and teacher practices. For instance, Blignaut (2008) used semi-structured interviews

to investigate how teachers viewed content, learning, teaching, and assessment in three diverse

48

South African educational contexts. The researcher discovered that teachers adapt curriculum

policy based on their prior beliefs and knowledge about teaching and learning. Further, Blignaut

(2008) contended the unique context of each school influenced how teachers made sense of

curriculum policy and ultimately guided teachers in their classroom practices. Similarly, Marz

and Kelchtermans (2013) conducted a multi-case study of 20 mathematics teachers

implementing a new statistics curriculum in Belgian secondary schools. Marz and Kelchtermans

(2013) inferred that teacher understanding and interpretation of the curriculum policy varied

among schools and between teachers from the same school. This conclusion underscored both

the social and contextual nature of sensemaking.

Chapter Summary

The purpose of this chapter was to examine the literature on professional development,

job-embedded learning, and sensemaking. Beginning with a concise examination of the

definitions of professional development and the presentation of professional learning standards,

the chapter focused on describing effective professional development and job-embedded

learning, broadly and within the context of the middle school, as well as introducing the

literature on sensemaking. In particular, the chapter provided a foundation for designing the

study by analyzing the perspectives of scholars and the findings of recent or seminal empirical

studies. The next chapter presents the research design and methods used to examine how middle

school teachers constructed understandings of their job-embedded learning experiences.

49

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

The research design and methodology provided in this chapter details the research

process used from beginning to end of the study. Included are the (1) purpose of the study, (2)

research questions, (3) theoretical framework, (4) research design and rationale, (5) processes

and procedures for conducting the study, (6) validity, quality, and trustworthiness, (9) limitations

of the study, and (10) risks and benefits.

Purpose of the Study



was to understand how middle school teachers make sense and give meaning to their learning

experiences that occur during the school day as they engage in the work of being a teacher. The

overarching research question for this study was how do teachers construct understandings of

their job-embedded learning experiences?

Theoretical Framework


purpose of the study was to understand how middle school teachers construct understandings of

their job-embedded learning experiences. According to Weick (1995), sensemaking is the

ongoing, social process individuals use to make sense of or construct understandings of their

world. Sensemaking is a way of socially organizing and assigning meaning to experiences or

50

ideas since it encourages a connection between active reflection and communication (Weick et

al., 2005).

Choo (1998) explained the purpose of sensemaking as a way to create “a structure of

shared meanings and understandings based on which concerted actions can take place” (p. 79).

Thus, Choo argued that sensemaking theory assumes interpretation and action are influenced by

the negotiation of social cues and the co-construction of knowledge within a given context and

environment.

Accordingly, Lee (1991) asserted that sensemaking occurs on both an individual level as

well as a social level:

The sense, meanings, or interpretations individuals attach to their experiences are

developed in social contexts through social mechanisms, such as various forms of

communication and interaction; a sense-making approach focuses on developing and

supporting the capacity of the members of the school to (a) examine the meanings they

give to their experiences and (b) to consider how these meanings influence the way in

which they carry out their work. (p. 85)

Lee noted how important reflection is to the process of sensemaking. Individuals must consider

how their worldviews and experiences influence how they interpret and implement information

from social negotiations to make sense of and give meaning to their experiences. Additionally,

Coburn (2001) stated:

Sensemaking is not solely an individual affair, but is social in two important respects.

First, it is collective in the sense that it is rooted in social interaction and negotiation.

People make sense of messages in the environment in conversation and interaction with

51

their colleagues…. Second, sensemaking is social in the sense that it is deeply situated in

teachers’ embedded contexts. (p. 147)

Thus, a sensemaking perspective was appropriate for this study since it examined the meaning

teachers gave to their learning experiences during the day. Further, a sensemaking framework

was befitting because it embedded the negotiation and co-creation of knowledge into the context

and culture of the school site.

Finally, Coburn (2001; 2005) noted that sensemaking is not only influenced by

workplace norms and patterns, but also by the existing worldviews and experiences of those

engaging in the sensemaking process. For instance, teachers’ beliefs and prior experiences

influence how they understand, interpret, and adapt new knowledge just as the conditions of their

learning environment affect meaning making. In fact, Coburn and Woulfin (2012), Colestock

and Sherin (2009), and Sleeger et al. (2009) confirmed the importance of considering teacher

worldviews when studying teacher sensemaking. Thus, the consideration of existing knowledge

and past experiences of teachers was essential to understanding how teachers constructed


Research Design and Rationale

A qualitative approach was appropriate for this research given the purpose of this study

was to examine how middle school teachers construct understandings of their job-embedded

learning experiences. Creswell (2007) and Merriam (2009) noted that qualitative research is a

relevant research approach when the goal of the researcher is to understand the meaning people

give to their experiences. Particular to this study, the focus remained on the processes people

used to make sense of their world rather than to test hypotheses related to an empirical

experiment.

52

The nature of qualitative research emphasizes inductive inquiry and thick description to

accurately understand, interpret, and portray the experiences and perspectives of the people being

studied. Bogdan and Biklen (1998) argued that qualitative research emphasizes context,

descriptive data, process, and meaning making. Given that the study concentrated on context,

descriptive data, process, and meaning making, a qualitative approach was necessary to

illuminate teachers’ perspectives and experiences within the context of school.

Acknowledging the need for a qualitative approach, an ethnographic, multi-case study

design was used to examine how teachers constructed understandings of their job-embedded

learning experiences. To begin, a case study is defined as a holistic investigation and analysis of

a person, group, or phenomenon within a real-life bounded system (Merriam, 2009; Simons,

2009). Case studies offer researchers the opportunity to study the processes, perspectives, and

experiences of a person, group, or phenomenon in the original context and culture. Schwandt

(2007) noted:

Case studies are preferred when the inquirer seeks answers to how or why questions,

when the inquirer has little control over events being studied, when the object of study is

a contemporary phenomenon in a real-life context, when the boundaries between the

phenomenon and the context are not clear, and when it is desirable to use multiple

sources of evidence. (p. 28)

Thus, case studies allow researchers to study a particular how or why question in great detail

within the parameters of the person, group, or phenomenon’s unique context.

Consequently, an ethnographic case study emphasizes the examination of the context and

culture being studied (Merriam, 2009). Similar to traditional ethnographic studies, the addition of

53

ethnography to a case study design prioritizes the relationship and influence of context and

culture on the interpretation of experiences. Simons (2009) stated:

Ethnographic case study has its origins in an anthropological or sociological tradition.

This type of case study uses qualitative methods, such as participant observation, to gain

close-up descriptions of the context and is concerned to understand the case in relation to

a theory or theories of culture. It can be conducted in different timescales, in familiar or

unfamiliar cultures and increasingly uses a wider range of methods than in classic

ethnography…ethnographic case studies focus on a particular project or programme,

though still aspiring to understand the case in its socio-cultural context and with concepts

of culture in mind. (pp. 22-23)

Specific to the aim of this research, an ethnographic case study was appropriate since the

examination of how teachers make sense and give meaning to their job-embedded learning

experiences was equally informed by an individual’s understanding and interpretation of her

experiences as well as the influences that context and culture contribute to those understandings

and interpretations.

Given the appropriateness of using an ethnographic, multi-case study design, the first

step to beginning the research was to clearly define the unit of analysis and boundaries of the

case (Merriam, 2009; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2009). Defining the unit of analysis and boundaries of

the case relates to the refining of the research question and context; specifically, the location,

duration, and other descriptive criteria that narrow the research focus and intent (Simons, 2009).

Therefore, recognizing the intent of this research was to examine how teachers construct

understandings of their job-embedded learning experiences, each case of the multi-case design

was defined as one middle school teacher. For each case, the unit of analysis focused on how that

54

particular teacher made sense or gave meaning to what the teacher learned during the school day.

The boundary of the case was described as the learning that the teachers experienced during the

school day while they engaged in the work of being a teacher.

Lastly, a case study design offers many elements that make it appropriate for examining

how teachers made sense and gave meaning to their job-embedded learning experiences. First,

case studies offer a detailed understanding of complex social interactions and situations. For

instance, Merriam (2009) summarized:

The case study offers a means for investigating complex social units consisting of

multiple variables of potential importance in understanding the phenomenon. Anchored

in real-life situations, the case study results in a rich and holistic account of a

phenomenon. It offers insights and illuminates meanings that expand its readers’

experiences. These insights can be construed as tentative hypotheses that help structure

future research; hence, case study research plays an important role in advancing a field’s

knowledge base. (pp. 50-51)

Additionally, numerous scholars have argued that case studies enable researchers to document

multiple perspectives and interactions, explore processes of change, and experience how socio-

cultural contexts influence perspectives, interactions, and processes of individuals and groups

(Simons, 2009; Yin, 2009).

Processes and Procedures for Conducting the Study

To reiterate, the purpose of this ethnographic, multi-case study was to examine how

middle school teachers constructed understandings of their job-embedded learning experiences.

Thus, the presentation and discussion of the processes and procedures for conducting this study

include selecting the research site and participants, collecting data that best reflects the intention

55

of the research questions while representing the experiences and perspectives of participants,

analyzing data appropriately and in consideration of the theoretical framework, and addressing

issues of quality, trustworthiness, and reflexivity.

Research Site

Purposeful sampling was used to select the research site for this study. Purposeful

sampling is a sampling strategy in which particular persons or places are selected because of the

valuable insights and information they can contribute to the understanding of a research

phenomenon or problem (Creswell, 2007; Maxwell, 2009).

In selecting the research site, the researcher located a middle school in Georgia that

seemed to embrace the leadership and organizational characteristics of effective middle schools.

Specifically, the National Middle School Association ([NMSA], 2010) defined these

characteristics in their position paper follows:

• A shared vision developed by all stakeholders guides every decision.

• Leaders are committed to and knowledgeable about this age group, educational

research, and best practices.

• Leaders demonstrate courage and collaboration.

• Ongoing professional development reflects best educational practices.

• Organizational structures foster purposeful learning and meaningful relationships.

(p. 14)

Of these criteria, the requirements related to ongoing professional development and

organizational structures were most important as these provided the case and boundary for the

proposed study. Purposefully selecting a middle school with administrators who embraced

ongoing professional development was essential to understanding how teachers constructed

56

understandings of their job-embedded learning experiences. Thus, the research site was selected

using the following criteria: (1) the school strived to implement the leadership and organizational

characteristics of effective middle schools and (2) the school had organizational structures in

place that encourage and support job-embedded learning. The researcher surveyed local

educational leaders to determine an appropriate research site.

To gain access to the research site, the researcher first met with the school’s principal to

explain the research purpose and secure support to seek approval from the school district to

conduct the study in the principal’s school. Then, the researcher sought support from the school

district to conduct the study at the selected school. After the district gave approval for conducting

the study, the researcher proceeded to invite potential research participants at an initial meeting

at the school.

The research site was located in northeast Georgia. The county school system served

approximately 7,000 students in eight elementary schools, three middle schools, a ninth grade

academy, and a high school. The chosen research site met the characteristics of effective middle

schools established by NMSA’s (2010) seminal position paper. Furthermore, the research site

was recognized by the National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform as a Lighthouse

School to Watch in 2008. The Schools to Watch program “identifies schools across the United

States that are well on their way to meeting the Forum’s criteria for high performance” (National

Forum, 2012). The Schools to Watch criteria reflect the goals of the National Forum by

evaluating the academic excellence, developmental responsiveness, social equity, and

organizational structures of successful and high-performing middle schools.

57

Sample Selection

Participants were initially recruited during a post-planning faculty meeting. The purpose

of the initial meeting was to explain the research objective and goals to potential participants. A

follow-up email was sent to the entire school staff as a reminder to consider participation in the

research study. The follow-up email (see Appendix A) provided a brief description of the study

and outlined the expectations of participants who choose to volunteer. As teachers expressed

interest in the study, the researcher clarified the research purpose and expectations and answered

any lingering questions. The researcher then sent an electronic copy of the consent for

participation form (see Appendix B) to participants for their review. In total, six teachers chose

to participate in the research study. Participation was completely voluntary, and participants

understood they could withdraw from the study at any time.

Although participants were recruited through a desire to participate, the researcher ideally

wanted to purposefully select teachers according to their teaching assignment, years of

experience, education, and professional activities; however, the number of volunteers willing to

participate in the study did not allow for a purposeful, representative sample of participants.

Nevertheless, the sample of five participants represented the demographics of teachers at the

research site remarkably well. The five participants included:

• A seventh grade language arts/reading teacher with 18 years of experience;

• A sixth grade science/social studies teacher with 24 years of experience;

• A seventh grade social studies teacher with 29 years of experience;

• A seventh grade language arts/reading teacher with six years of experience; and

• A sixth grade language arts/reading teacher with 19 years of experience.

The profile for the participants who took part in the study is displayed in Table 4.2.

58

Data Collection

One of the benefits of case study research is its reliance on multiple data collection

methods to represent the unique perspectives and experiences of individual participants

(Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2009). Therefore, the data collection methods for this study included

interviews, shadowing, teacher learning logs, and documents and other artifacts. Considered

collectively, these data sources offered the best possibility of holistically understanding how

middle school teachers constructed understandings of their job-embedded learning experiences.

Interviews. Each teacher participated in an initial, in-depth interview. The initial

interview occurred face-to-face for approximately one hour and used a semi-structured interview

guide (see Appendix C) to gather data about each teacher’s unique worldview, specifically

focusing on her beliefs about professional development and experiences with job-embedded

learning. According to Merriam (2009), semi-structured interviews use an interview guide to

flexibly ask participants a combination of more and less structured questions. Thus, semi-

structured interviews allowed the researcher to ask specific questions in an open-ended format

while providing opportunities for the researcher to adjust questions based on the participants’

responses. Interviewing offered the researcher a chance to explore teachers’ sensemaking while

underscoring the influential role of context.

Interviews were scheduled at the convenience of each individual participant and the

researcher. Prior to conducting each interview, the researcher provided each participant with an

interview guide to allow for thoughtful consideration of and reflection on each question. Further,

at the start of the interview itself, the researcher reviewed with the participant the purpose and

goals of the interview. All interviews were electronically recorded using Audacity and

59

transcribed verbatim by the researcher. Any identifying information was removed and replaced

with pseudonyms during the transcription process.

Shadowing. To better understand each teacher’s sensemaking processes within their

unique context, the researcher shadowed each participant for a single eight-hour school day or

for two half days (four hours each) as the participant engaged in job-embedded learning

experiences. Shadowing is a qualitative research method in which a researcher closely follows a

participant over a period of time to understand how he or she behaves and interacts with his or

her environment throughout the course of a normal day (McDonald, 2005; Quinlan, 2008).

More specifically, shadowing a research participant within a particular organization or

context requires the researcher to observe and record the body language, behaviors, opinions, and

interactions of participants for an extended period of time (McDonald, 2005). Shadowing can

provide alternative insights and interpretations of how individuals act and interact throughout the

course of a day since shadowing can capture the fragmented and varied nature of relationships

(Weick, 1974). Not only does shadowing allow the researcher a unique perspective into the

actions and interactions of individuals, but it may also help illuminate the internal, sensemaking

processes of individuals within the complexities of their work context and culture.

During each shadowing session, the researcher documented in a field journal how each

teacher interacted and co-constructed meaning during the school day by focusing on the talk and

actions of each participant as the participant engaged in the work of being a teacher.

Additionally, the researcher chronicled her own insights and questions after each teacher’s

shadowing session to aid in follow-up conversations and data analysis.

Teacher Learning Logs. Teacher learning logs were used to document each teacher’s job-

embedded learning experiences. More specifically, after any formal or informal job-embedded

60

learning experience, each teacher wrote about her experience and uploaded supporting

documents in an electronic learning log that was submitted to the researcher weekly (see

Appendix D). Each teacher was given the same set of prompts to help facilitate her reflection and

writing; however, it was ultimately the decision of each teacher to decide what and how often to

write about her job-embedded learning experiences. The learning log helped teachers document

the nature of their job-embedded learning experiences as well as reflect on those experiences

using prompts from the researcher. Each teacher’s learning logs were electronically stored in a

password-protected/private Google drive document and available for the researcher to review

and follow-up on weekly. Only each participant and the researcher had access to that

participant’s learning logs.

Finally, the learning logs were used to facilitate regular follow-up interviews (see

Appendix E) conducted by exchanging emails or scheduling informal telephone conversations.

The purpose of the follow-up email exchanges and informal phone interviews was to maintain

constant, open communication between participant and researcher. Constant communication

during the data collection period was essential to understanding teacher sensemaking of job-

embedded learning experiences. While there was not a formal protocol for the follow-up emails

and/or informal phone interviews, the researcher asked questions to clarify or to probe further

each teacher’s learning log responses. All emails were retained and became part of the data to be

coded. Additionally, informal phone interviews were recorded, transcribed, and also became part

of the data to be coded.

Documents and Other Artifacts. A number of documents and other artifacts were

gathered to facilitate understanding of how teachers constructed meaning in relation to their job-

embedded learning experiences. Simons (2009) posited that “document analysis is often a

61

helpful precursor to observing and interviewing, to suggest issues it may be useful to explore in

the case and to provide a context for interpretation of interview and observational data” (p. 64).

Prior to conducting research, the researcher informally reviewed and analyzed public documents

and other artifacts in an attempt to gain a better understanding of the district and school contexts.

Documents and other artifacts included district and school websites, the school’s

improvement plan, the district’s balanced scorecard (e.g., strategic plan for improvement), and

the Georgia Department of Education’s database. In addition to publicly obtainable material, the

researcher requested recorded meeting minutes and presentation visuals (e.g., PowerPoint, Prezi,

webinar) from team, content, or other group meetings to clarify and support findings from the

interviews, shadowing, and teacher learning logs. Refer to Table 3.1 for an inventory summary

of the data collected.

Table 3.1

Data Inventory Summary Data Collection Method Inventory Interviews Amanda – 58 minutes

Sarah – 36 minutes Leslie – 47 minutes Madison – 51 minutes Emily – 42 minutes

Shadowing Amanda – 8 hours on 9/2 Sarah – 8 hours on 9/3 Leslie – 8 hours on 9/9 Madison – 4 hours on 9/10 and 4 hours on 9/17 Emily – 4 hours on 9/17 and 4 hours on 9/18

Teacher Learning Logs Amanda – 9 Sarah – 9 Leslie – 8 Madison – 6 Emily – 6

Documents and Other Artifacts

District and School Websites, School Improvement Plan, Team Meeting Minutes, Content Area Meeting Minutes, and Lesson Plans

62

Data Analysis

Merriam (2009) and Yin (2009) agreed that data analysis is a continuous process of

examining, categorizing, and interpreting a collection of data. Beginning from the first moments

of the study and continuing until the final write-up, data analysis is an all-encompassing process

that requires the researcher to examine data for themes and patterns repeatedly and often.

Similarly, Stake (1995) extended this understanding to argue, “Analysis is a matter of giving

meaning to first impression as well as to final compilations. Analysis essentially means taking

something apart” (p. 71). Hence, the researcher attended to data analysis immediately following

the first collection of data and continued with data analysis throughout the study.

For this study, the researcher conducted both within-case analysis and cross-case analysis

given the nature of the multi-case study design. Creswell (2007) highlighted that within-case

analysis is used to identify categories within the unit of analysis whereas cross-case analysis is

more appropriate for refining themes across multiple unit of analysis. To clarify, Merriam (2009)

outlined the process:

For the within-case analysis, each case is first treated as a comprehensive case in and of

itself. Data are gathered so the researcher can learn as much about the contextual

variables as possible that might have a bearing on the case. Once the analysis of each

case is completed, cross-case analysis begins. (p. 204, emphasis in the original)

Therefore, the researcher began analysis by exploring the data of each teacher, or case, and

concluded with an analysis that collectively examined across teachers, or cases.

Data were analyzed using techniques of grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967),

specifically, the constant comparative method. Typically, grounded theory is used to generate

theory, however in this case it was used for its inductive and comparative nature. In particular,

63

this analytic approach was appropriate for understanding how teachers constructed

understandings of their job-embedded learning experiences since the emphasis was on

interpretation and unique to each participant and situation.

The aim of grounded theory is to “discover theories—causal explanations—grounded in

empirical data, about how things work” (Bernard & Ryan, 2010, p. 267). Grounded theory is one

of the most widely used methods in the social sciences for collecting and analyzing data that

focus on the language and experience of participants. Further, grounded theory is inductive and

involves the disaggregation of data into concepts and categories. Newer conceptions of grounded

theory include a process called axial coding or the notion of “crosscutting or relating concepts to

each other” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 195). Axial coding helps researchers to understand the

relationship between and among concepts and categories.

Additionally, grounded theory relies on the “continuous comparison of data and theory

beginning with data collection” (Eisenhardt, 2002, p. 8). This process of comparing segments of

data has been labeled constant comparative. Eisenhardt (2002) and Bernard and Ryan (2010)

defined the constant comparative method as searching for the similarities and differences of data

beginning with data collection and continuing until the final write-up. Schwandt (2010) extended

this idea by describing constant comparative as a method in which “each segment of the data is

taken in turn and (a) compared to one or more categories to determine its relevance and (b)

compared with other segments of data similarly categorized” (p. 37). Thus, due to the relational

power of the constant comparative method, it is frequently used in both grounded research as

well as other qualitative research that assumes some of the principles of grounded research.

In terms of application, grounded theory is typically coded line-by-line (Denzin, 2002).

While it takes a lot of time and effort to carefully consider each line of a transcript, it provided

64

the researcher with valuable first impressions of the data. For instance, Bernard and Ryan (2010)

agreed that disaggregating the text line-by-line allows the researcher more time to effectively

consider, code, and compare the data. It also encouraged the researcher to interact with the data

by asking questions, defining the properties and dimensions of concepts, and comparing concepts

(Corbin & Strauss, 2008).

Specific to this study, the researcher began analysis concurrently with the collection of

data to inform, for example, the prompts used in teacher learning logs, questions asked in follow-

up email exchanges and informal phone conversations, the timing and focus of shadowing

sessions, and determining which documents and other artifacts to collect and/or revisit. Adhering

to techniques of grounded theory, the process of analyzing the interviews and teacher learning

logs included an initial reading of each interview transcript or log to generate potential codes, a

review of the potential codes to consider the properties and dimensions of each to reduce overlap

and redundancy, and a reread of the transcript to apply the new codes line-by-line. More

specifically, as the researcher initially read the interview transcript and teacher learning logs, she

jotted down potential codes. Table 3.2 displays the potential codes generated from Amanda’s

initial analysis.

Table 3.2

List of Potential Codes from Amanda’s Case

• Formal • Informal • Team Meetings • Content Meetings • Book Study

• Workshops • Conferences • Collaboration • Motivation • Application

After generating potential codes from each case, the researcher attempted to clarify and combine

the initial codes into categories by considering the properties and dimensions of each code.

65

Table 3.3 summarizes selected revised categories and codes used for analysis across cases. Table

3.4 provides selected excerpts of how data was coded line-by-line during analysis.

Table 3.3

Selected Revised Cross-Case Categories and Codes

Identity • Worldview • Beliefs • Experience

Motivation • Intrinsic • Extrinsic • Obligation • Refinement

Reflection • Recall from Experience • Make Connections • Source

Collaboration • Team • Content • Informal • Formal

Application • Desire • Lack of • Relevance • Duration

Table 3.4

Selected Excerpt of Coding

Excerpt Coding We do book studies. We have content level meetings, We do a lot of vertical and horizontal plannings…a lot of collaboration. We do RTI group meetings. We meet to talk about RTI students and their needs every other week—just a lot of collaboration on the job. We have teacher collaboration days with our content areas…there’s just a lot of teacher development through workshops and meetings…They [administrators] purposefully put content areas on the same hall so that we can walk across the hall and check-in daily. We talk in the morning and at lunch we check-in with each other and again at the end of the day. We do frequent checks to evaluate what we might do differently and set it up for tomorrow.

(Amanda, initial interview)

Formal (F), Content Meetings (CM) Collaboration (C) Collaboration (C) Workshops (W) Informal (I), Check-in (CI) Check-in (CI)

66

Ultimately, this process of analysis occurred for each case before assuming a similar approach to

analyze across cases. The cross-case, comparative analysis continued until data saturation was

achieved and the development of themes accomplished.

Quality, Trustworthiness, and Reflexivity

Merriam (2009) contended “all research is concerned with producing valid and reliable

knowledge in an ethical manner” (p. 209). Validity and reliability can be ensured by carefully

considering how a study was conceptualized and how data were collected, analyzed, and

reported. For case study research, this meant addressing issues of quality, trustworthiness, and

reflexivity (Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 2009; Simons, 2009).

Yin (2009) discussed the quality, trustworthiness, and reflexivity of case study research

through the examination of construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability.

First, he stated that construct validity can be achieved in case study research by using multiple

sources of evidence and establishing a plan that links evidence to the research purpose. Secondly,

Yin (2009) met the challenges of internal and external validity through pattern matching,

building explanation from theories, developing logic models, and addressing rival explanations.

Lastly, he suggested the creation of a case study protocol and a case study database as ways to

address reliability. Likewise, other scholars addressed quality, trustworthiness, and reflexivity by

outlining strategies for ensuring validity and reliability, such as prolonged field observations,

peer review, triangulation, negative cases, member checking, thick description, and audit trails

(Creswell, 2007; Maxwell, 2009; Merriam, 2009; Stake, 1995).

Particular to this study, the researcher addressed issues of quality, trustworthiness, and

reflexivity by using data and methodological triangulation, member checking, thick description,

and audit trails. To begin, the triangulation of data and methodology helped clarify and refine the

67

interpretation of interviews and shadowing sessions. More importantly, the collection of multiple

sources of evidence from multiple participants ensured an accurate portrayal of each case. Next,

participants were asked to assess the researcher’s interpretation of how they constructed

understandings of job-embedded learning through member checks. Asking participants for

feedback via follow-up email exchanges and informal phone conversations verified their

perspectives and actions in an effort to reduce the chance of misrepresentation or

misinterpretation.

The researcher used rich, thick descriptions to capture the context and findings of each

case. Rich, thick descriptions will aid readers and other researchers to generalize or consider how

the findings might be transferred to their specific context or situation. Finally, the researcher kept

an audit trail, or a detailed account of methods, procedures, and decisions (Merriam, 2009), as

data were collected and analyzed. In other words, the audit trail helped the researcher document

the processes and procedures of the study so others may understand how and why the study

proceeded as it did.

Subjectivity Statement

While the researcher was not associated with the selected middle school and its teachers,

she was familiar with the organization of middle schools and professional development

opportunities. Specifically, as a practicing middle school teacher, the researcher’s assumptions

and biases about middle schools, professional development, and job-embedded learning may

influence the analysis or reporting of the data. Nevertheless, the researcher attempted to

minimize her subjectivities by thoroughly documenting her procedures, processes, and decisions

in a researcher’s journal with the intention of helping readers judge the quality and

trustworthiness of the research.

68

Risks and Benefits

The risks associated with this research were minimal since its activities were considered a

normal part of the teacher’s school day. However, to minimize psychological and social

discomfort, participants were given pseudonyms when appropriate and applicable (e.g., quoting

the interview responses of a participant). Furthermore, the data collected from participants

remained confidential for anyone other than the researcher.

The benefits to participants focused on the overall refinement of their professional

knowledge, beliefs, and practices. Specifically, discussing and reflecting on how they made

sense of job-embedded learning may have helped each teacher become more aware of her

learning and hopefully, in turn, improve her teaching. Additionally, this study contributed to the

field of teacher education and adult learning by providing insights into how teachers understood

and interpreted their learning experiences during the school day. Finally, this research may

broaden scholars' understanding of how context and culture influence teacher learning.

Chapter Summary

An ethnographic, multi-case study design was completed to examine how teachers

constructed understandings of their job-embedded learning experiences. The study was

conducted at a middle school in Georgia during the school day while teachers engaged in their

work. Data collection methods for the case study included interviews, shadowing, learning logs,

and reviews of documents and other artifacts related to the participants’ experiences of job-

embedded learning. Data analysis was framed from a sensemaking perspective and incorporated

techniques from grounded theory to inductively and holistically explore how teachers made

sense and gave meaning to their job-embedded learning experiences. More specifically, the

constant comparative method was used to examine within and across cases. Lastly, the

69

researcher addressed issues of quality, trustworthiness, and reflexivity by incorporating

triangulation, member checking, thick description, and audit trials into the research design.

70

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS

Introduction



was to explore how middle school teachers make sense and give meaning to their learning

experiences that occur during the school day as they engage in the work of being a teacher. For

the purpose of this study, job-embedded learning experiences refer to any formal or informal

learning opportunity that is grounded in the context of the school day and characterized by active

learning and reflection.

The overarching research question for this study was how do middle school teachers

construct understandings of their job-embedded learning experiences? This research question

was intentionally broad to allow the researcher the flexibility needed to explore how teachers

make sense and give meaning to their formal and informal learning experiences during the

school day. Additionally, the inclusive nature of the overarching research question allowed the

researcher to consider how the nature of professional development—such as its format, duration,

and content, or the school culture and context—influenced how teachers construct


The participants of this study included five teachers from a high performing middle

school in Northeast Georgia. Data collection began in August 2014 and concluded in October

2014. Through one-on-one interviews, teacher learning logs, shadowing field notes, and artifact

71

analysis, the data reflected the perspectives and beliefs of teachers. Within-case and cross-case

analyses were conducted prior to the development of themes. More specifically, data were

analyzed using the constant comparative method to generate codes and categories necessary for

theme development.

To acquaint the reader with the participants and context of this study, this chapter

provides a description of the school district, the school, and the participant profiles. Next, the

chapter details within-case and cross-case analysis of data derived from participant interviews,

teacher learning logs, shadowing field notes, and artifacts related to the research question.

Profile of the School District

This study took place in Willow County Public School District (pseudonym, WCPSD), a

small suburban school district, located northeast of a large metropolitan city in Georgia. The

Georgia Department of Education (GADOE) reported that WCPSD served 7,256 students during

the 2012-2013 school year while the WCPSD website estimated enrollment for the 2014-2015

school year to reach 6,982 students. WCPSD is composed of 14 schools—eight elementary

schools, three middle schools, one ninth-grade academy, one high school, and one alternative

education school. Overall in the school district, 63% of students qualified for free or reduced

price meals, 14% qualified for special education services, and 14% were classified as English

Language Learners in 2014. The per-pupil expenditure for 2014 was $8,307.95. Table 4.1

summarizes the demographics of the state of Georgia, WCPSD, and the research site, a middle

school in the district.

72

Table 4.1

Demographic Comparison for Percentage of Population 2013-2014

State of Georgia Willow County North Willow Middle School

Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic Native American Multi-racial White English Language Learners Economically Disadvantaged Students with Disabilities

4% 37% 13% 0% 3% 44% 7% 60% 11%

3% 2% 25% 0% 3% 67% 14% 63% 14%

1% 1% 7% 0% 3% 88% 1% 55% 16%

Profile of the School and Community

Originating as a high school and then a junior high school, North Willow Middle School

(pseudonym, NWMS) opened its doors to students in the fall of 1995 with a new facility and the

promise of engaging a new group of adolescents with emerging research on the middle school

concept. Through the years, North Willow Middle School established itself as the highest

performing middle school in the county as well as one of the highest performing middle schools

in the Regional Educational Service Agency (RESA) district as evidenced by their many

accolades and achievements. For instance, North Willow Middle School has received the Gold

Award from the Georgia Governor’s Office for the greatest gain in students meeting and

exceeding the Georgia Criterion Referenced Competency Test (CRCT), has earned the title of

Distinguished Middle School from the Georgia Department of Education for consistently

achieving Annual Yearly Progress (AYP), and has been recognized as a Lighthouse School to

Watch by the National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform.

In March 2012, Georgia was granted a waiver from some of the accountability

requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2002). This waiver allowed the Georgia

73

Department of Education to replace Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) with a new school

accountability system known as the College and Career Readiness Performance Index (CCRPI).

During the first year of implementation, North Willow Middle School earned a CCRPI score of

91.5 on a 100-point scale. In 2013, North Willow Middle School earned a CCRPI score of 91.7.

In 2014, North Willow Middle School earned a CCRPI score of 89.4. The average CCRPI score

for a middle school in the state of Georgia was 73.8 in 2012, 74.6 in 2013, and 73.2 in 2014.

Thus, North Willow Middle School has outperformed most middle schools in the state of

Georgia.

With regard to demographics, North Willow Middle School has not changed significantly

since its establishment as a middle school almost twenty years ago. The demographics and socio-

economics of North Willow Middle School have remained consistent since much of the outlying

community is composed of housing subdivisions, rather than rental properties and apartment

complexes. In 2014-2015, the year of this study, approximately 550 students in grades six

through eight attended North Willow Middle School. The student demographic at North Willow

Middle School was comprised of 88% White, 7% Hispanic, 1% Asian, 1% Black, and 3% Multi-

racial. Approximately 55% of the 550 students at North Willow Middle School received free or

reduced price meals while 16% of the student body received special education services and 10%

gifted services.

North Willow Middle School employs approximately 42 full-time certified faculty

members. Of those, 35 have earned a degree beyond a bachelor’s while three have received

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification. The range of experience at

North Willow Middle School is as follows: 11 teachers have 10 years or less experience, 20

teachers have between 11 and 20 years experience, eight have between 21 and 30 years

74

experience, and three have more than 30 years of experience. Finally, the professional

memberships of the faculty at North Willow Middle School faculty represent approximately 22

different professional organizations, including the Professional Association of Georgia Educators,

the National Education Association, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, and the

Georgia Conservancy.

Participant Profiles

A total of five teachers voluntarily participated in this research study. Participants taught

language arts, social studies, and science and represented grades six and seven. Participants had

six to 29 years of teaching experience while the number of years at the research site ranged from

one to 14. Each participant represented one case within a multi-case study design. Table 4.2

summarizes the profiles of each participant while Table 4.3 compares the characteristics of the

staff at North Willow Middle School to the participants. Overall, the research participants closely

represented the population of teachers at North Willow Middle School with regard to years of

experience, certification, and grade/subject.

Table 4.2

Teacher Participant Profiles

Name Race Grade Subject Total Years Teaching

Years at Site

Amanda Sarah Leslie Madison Emily

W W W W W

7th 6th

7th 7th

6th

Language Arts/ Reading Science/Social Studies Social Studies Language Arts/ Reading Language Arts/ Reading

18 24 29 6 19

4 1 14 3 1

75

Table 4.3

North Willow Middle School Teacher Demographic Comparison to Participant Profiles

School Participants

Certification T-4 T-5 T-6 T-7 Average Years of Experience <1 1-10 11-20 21-30 > 30 Gender Male Female

7 20 14 1 0 11 20 8 3 11 31

0 0 4 1 0 1 2 2 0 0 5

Within-Case Analysis

Given the intent of the research was to examine how teachers construct understandings of

their job-embedded learning experiences, each participant represented one case of a multi-case

study design. For each case, the unit of analysis focused on how that particular teacher made

sense or gave meaning to what they learned during the school day. The boundary of each case

was established as the learning that participants experienced during the school day while they

each engaged in the work of being a teacher.

From the onset of data collection, the researcher began to concurrently analyze data

collected from each participant’s initial interview, learning logs, shadowing session field notes,

and any relevant documents and other artifacts. Each participant was analyzed inclusively using

the constant comparative method to identify emergent codes and categories within each case and

unit of analysis. The emergent codes and categories later provided the foundation for cross-case

analysis and the establishment of themes.

76

Case #1: Amanda

Amanda has taught at North Willow Middle School for four years. Currently, she teaches

regular, advanced, and gifted seventh grade language arts and reading. Amanda is a member of

the school leadership team, the school’s book study group and, the Response to Intervention

(RTI) committee. She is also the school’s language arts and reading department chair and the

seventh grade team leader. Amanda is certified in middle grades language arts, reading, and

social studies as well as early childhood education. In addition to her teaching credentials,

Amanda holds three advanced degrees and is certified in gifted education. She is a member of

the International Reading Association (IRA).

With 18 years of teaching experience, Amanda has taught at several schools prior to her

tenure at North Willow Middle School. She taught seventh and eighth grade reading in inner-city

Kansas City, Missouri for two years; seventh grade reading in an affluent suburb of Omaha,

Nebraska for ten years; fifth grade at a Title-1 elementary school in WCPSD for three years; and

sixth grade language arts and reading at a different middle school in Willow County for three

years. She is currently in her fourth year at North Willow Middle School.

Amanda is a content and grade level leader in her school. She expresses her opinions and

beliefs with conviction and professionalism while acknowledging the thoughts of others.

According to her colleagues, Amanda is a well-read and intentional teacher. She reads

educational theory and instructional books in her spare time and strives to share her knowledge

with others in the school. Amanda’s classroom is inviting and well organized. The classroom

walls are decorated with a combination of instructional posters, motivational statements, and

student work. Lamps light the room rather than bright overhead lighting and a scent of lavender

is diffusing in the air. The teacher’s desk is neat and clean with space dedicated for students to

77

turn in work or ask for assistance. Student desks are arranged in vertical rows, but easily moved

to accommodate different learning activities and groups. As evident from her shadowing session,

students seem to respect Amanda and understand her expectations. She engages students with a

variety of activities and offers assistance and praise when necessary.

During her initial interview, Amanda defined job-embedded learning as “on-the job

training to make myself a better teacher, but done on the job, not outside of school.” However,

Amanda noted that she does a lot of independent learning outside of school and brings those

ideas into the classroom. She pondered if job-embedded learning must occur within the walls of

the school or if any learning experienced by a teacher, regardless of location and time, should

encompass job-embedded learning. Despite her uncertainty about the meaning, expectations, and

limits of job-embedded learning, Amanda was able to provide several examples of how she

learns during the school day. For instance, Amanda stated:

We do book studies. We have content level meetings, We do a lot of vertical and

horizontal plannings…a lot of collaboration. We do RTI group meetings. We meet to talk

about RTI students and their needs every other week—just a lot of collaboration on the

job. We have teacher collaboration days with our content areas…there’s just a lot of

teacher development through workshops and meetings…They [administrators]

purposefully put content areas on the same hall so that we can walk across the hall and

check-in daily. We talk in the morning and at lunch we check-in with each other and

again at the end of the day. We do frequent checks to evaluate what we might do

differently and set it up for tomorrow.

Amanda’s interview and learning logs on job-embedded learning revealed the scope of learning

experiences available to her at North Willow Middle School. Amanda found opportunities for

78

learning through formal experiences, such as the book study, meetings, and workshops, in

addition to informal experiences like hallway chats, daily check-ins, and independent reflections

throughout the day.

First, Amanda made sense and gave meaning to information presented in an ongoing,

multi-year workshop titled Common Core Boot Camp. The purpose of this workshop was to

examine Webb’s (2009) Depth of Knowledge (DoK) and develop strategies for how to

incorporate it within the Common Core standards. DoK is a way to think about content

complexity and demand through four levels of questioning—Level 1: Recall, Level 2:

Conceptual, Level 3: Strategic Thinking, and Level 4: Extended Thinking. In describing the

purpose and expectations of the workshop, Amanda stated,

I had already heard about Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (DoK), but the presenter took my

understanding to a whole new level. She helped me see the relationship between Bloom’s

taxonomy and DoK. She provided a matrix that clearly showed a continuum of

knowledge and skills. I was surprised that she recommended that we not look at the

verbs. For years, we’ve been told to deconstruct standards by examining verbs. She shed

new light on DoK and how to ensure we are using level 3 and 4 in our classrooms rather

than 1 or 2.

Amanda found the workshop’s purpose and content meaningful since the presenter was able to

challenge and extend Amanda’s thinking beyond her prior understandings and conceptions of

DoK and Common Core Standards. The presenter helped Amanda refine her understanding of a

familiar topic and develop a plan for ensuring the use of higher level questioning strategies in the

classroom. One might argue that Amanda’s sensemaking may have been different had the

79

presenter not been able to connect with Amanda’s prior understandings or encourage her with

practical, relevant examples of classroom implementation.

In comparison, during her initial interview, Amanda described her worst learning

experience as one in which she had to unpack, or deconstruct, the Georgia Performance

Standards (GPS). She explained that the presenter did not acknowledge participants’ prior

knowledge or consider their professional experience. For instance, Amanda recalled that

participants were asked to identify and discuss the verbs within each standard rather than focus

on how to design and implement lessons and assessments that met the expectations of each

standard.

Despite the failure of her GPS learning experience, it is noteworthy that Amanda was still

able to find meaning in the Common Core Boot Camp workshop. She explained the Common

Core Boot Camp workshop not only helped to enhance her knowledge about “types of questions,

performance tasks, and discussions that take place in my classroom” but its long-term, coherent

design provided her with practice and feedback. The learning experience allowed Amanda to

gain a new perspective and insight into what her students need to be able to know and do with

the implementation of Common Core and “Next Generation” testing. She learned how to

incorporate more Level 3 and 4 questions in her lessons and assessments and established a

support group while she implemented her new knowledge and skill.

Amanda used the job-embedded learning logs to reflect on several formal school

meetings, such as content, grade level, and leadership team meetings. Collectively, she found

necessity and value in each meeting, however meaningfulness was influenced by the delivery,

relevancy, and applicability of presented content. For instance, in a learning log entry about

content meetings, Amanda noted:

80

It’s always useful to find out if you are on the same page as your cohorts. It gives us both

a sense of direction and solidifies our expectations. The collaboration and understanding

of what we expect kids to walk in knowing and what we expect them to learn over the

year was powerful. It reaffirmed our common goals and missions. It helps us to hold each

other accountable and gives us a true sense of all being in this together.

Amanda found content meetings meaningful since the nature of each meeting was collaborative,

relevant to her classroom, and afforded her the chance to apply her content and instructional

knowledge to new tasks. Furthermore, the opportunity to discuss successes and failures, set

expectations, and plan for student learning with her colleagues, formally every week and

informally daily, encouraged Amanda to continuously refine her teaching knowledge and skills.

Similarly, Amanda elaborated on the objectives and usefulness of grade level meetings.

She wrote:

We met to learn new information for the school year. It was a way for principals to have

a quick meeting. I found all of it useful. I didn’t feel as though my time had been wasted

and it was relevant information that I needed to know. It was very business-like, to the

point, and went quickly and smoothly.

In another entry on grade level meetings, Amanda recalled:

Our principal met with the grade level to familiarize everyone with the Teacher Keys

Effectiveness System (TKES) platform. I was part of the pilot group last year, so I found

it helpful to refresh my understandings of the new teacher evaluation system. We

completed our self-assessments and I was thankful for the time to sit and complete my

self-assessment in an unhurried environment.

81

In these two examples, Amanda presented the range of grade level meeting objectives. In one

instance, grade level meetings were used as a way to deliver important, and timely, information

whereas the second example highlighted how grade level meetings may be used as an avenue for

providing professional development and teacher evaluation.

In a follow-up conversation Amanda shared that discussing TKES as a grade level was

not new. In fact, during the previous school year, each grade level met monthly to discuss one of

the teacher performance standards developed by the Georgia Department of Education. She

recalled how the principal began each meeting by asking teachers to read and discuss an article

related to the performance standard. Then the principal would explain, in lecture style, the

expectations and necessary evidence needed to achieve each of the four levels on the TKES

rubric. Amanda acknowledged that the content and duration of the TKES grade level meetings

not only increased her understanding of TKES, but also influenced what and how she taught

since she aspired to be better than average on her annual evaluation.

Finally, independently, and initiated by her innate drive to improve, Amanda devoted

significant portions of her time every day to refining her knowledge about teaching and learning.

In one instance, Amanda scribed in her learning log:

I’m training to be a “Trailblazer” with Edmodo Snapshot. This is a new feature that

allows teachers of ELA and math to give short, formative assessments on Common Core

Standards. I spent over an hour reading through teacher posts, folders of information, and

watching the webinar. I am amazed that this is a free resource for teachers. I will be

presenting this feature to all ELA and math teachers in a few weeks.

In her entry, Amanda highlighted the benefits of digital learning communities. She discovered a

professional development format that aligned with her learning desires and needs. Furthermore,

82

Amanda found meaning in the Edmodo Snapshot teacher posters, folders, and webinars because

she was able to determine how she spent her time and govern which pieces of information she

found most relevant for her classroom practice.

Lastly, Amanda used personal time at school to read a peer-recommended book about

writing across the curriculum. Amanda wrote:

I found most of the book meaningful because writing is part of our school improvement

plan. Also, the next generation of testing has a lot of writing and I needed a refresher

course on the art of teaching writing. I’m going to share this book with other ELA

teachers and ask the librarian to add this book to our professional development collection.

There was a lot of good information, especially on how to motivate young writers, and

keep them motivated, even when the task seems overwhelming. This book has inspired

me to use mentor texts to challenge my writers to emulate the craft of quality writing.

Amanda’s intrinsic motivation to refine and improve her knowledge and skills about writing not

only influenced her professional learning goals now and in the future, but also challenged her to

reflect on who she is as an educator and what she wants to do professionally and for her students

in the future.

Case #2: Sarah

Sarah has taught for 24 years, however this is her first year teaching at North Willow

Middle School. She was transferred to North Willow at the end of last school year from another

middle school in Willow County Public School District (WCPSD). Sarah teaches sixth grade

science and social studies and is certified in middle grades science and social studies, high school

science, and early childhood education. Sarah holds three advanced degrees and is a member of

the Professional Association for Georgia Educators (PAGE).

83

Prior to teaching at North Willow Middle School, Sarah taught sixth and seventh grade

for 11 years at a middle school in a neighboring county to WCPSD, five years as a fourth and

fifth grade teacher at an elementary school in WCPSD, five years as a sixth grade science and

social studies teacher at a different middle school in WCPSD, and three years as an eighth grade

science teacher at the third middle school in WCPSD.

Sarah is vocal with her opinions and beliefs with fellow teachers, however she is very

reserved when in the company of administrators. She relentlessly advocates for her students and

goes above and beyond what is required in the classroom to ensure success and well being for

her students. Sarah’s classroom is inviting to students and clearly shows her dedication to

designing lessons that are interactive, project-based, and student-centered. Specifically, lab tables

replace traditional student desks and examples of student work with teacher commentary are

displayed on the walls, on top of cabinets, and on the floor. Sarah’s shadowing session provided

a glimpse of her creative lessons as her science students spent the class period at the outdoor

classroom collecting pond water and examining it under a microscope. During one of her social

studies class periods, Sarah engaged students in a project that incorporated technology and

product construction.

During her initial interview, Sarah defined job-embedded learning as “something that

occurs on the job to help you with your job during the hours that you are at work.” She believed

job-embedded learning was confined to learning experiences that occurred during the school day

and offered information and ideas that were relevant to her as a teacher. As Sarah’s interview

progressed, she refined her definition of job-embedded learning to include “learning from the

people that you are around.” Her revision underscored the importance of collegial relationships

when teachers seek to improve and refine their teaching knowledge and skills.

84

Since this is Sarah’s first year at North Willow Middle School, she reflected on prior

learning experiences when asked to give examples of effective and ineffective professional

development. First, Sarah recalled an overnight workshop at Cumberland Island, Georgia, as her

best learning experience despite the fact that it took place away from the school and after school

hours. Sarah recalled, “We stayed in dorms. We did all the kinds of ecosystems that are on the

island. We saw all the animals that were on the island. We picked up shells. It was awesome and

it was just fun.” When asked if this learning experience could be replicated at a school during the

school day, Sarah firmly answered no. Sarah believed the meaningfulness of the experience was

attributed to its location and hands-on nature. Nevertheless, she recalled how each participant left

Cumberland Island with lessons and activities to implement in the classroom. However, Sarah

cautioned that only discussing the curriculum at a professional development workshop at a

school site—rather than conducting actual experiments in the ecosystem—would not have been

as powerful or meaningful. In fact, Sarah argued that the implementation of the curriculum back

at the school site may not have been as successful for her students if she had not been provided

the opportunity to apply it and discuss with others how to transfer her learning experiences to a

classroom.

Conversely, Sarah described her worst learning experience as one involving Fountas and

Pinnell’s Literacy Collaborative Framework (2014). She elaborated:

It was not my thing. It was language arts and it was not my thing. It was not my

preference. The presenter was okay and it was good information, but it was not what I

wanted to do. I went though it and I did the stuff and it was useful in class and very

helpful for what I had to do in the elementary school setting in language arts.

85

When asked if there was something that would have helped her embrace the experience more,

Sarah noted:

I think it was all me. It could have been better if I had one person come into my room and

actually do it with kids. Some teachers did have that. They had a teacher come in and do

nothing but literacy collaborative and they seemed to like it and didn’t struggle as much

because the literacy coach showed them what to do on daily basis. I might have been

more excited about it if I had that experience because that’s the way I learn—by seeing

and doing it myself.

Sarah’s experience with Literacy Collaborative offers valuable insight into how teachers learn

and find meaning during the school day. Foremost, teachers may find value and meaning in an

experience they recall as their least favorite if the content of the learning experience is relevant

and embedded in their job. Furthermore, teacher sensemaking of learning experiences can be

enhanced when they are provided opportunities to collaborate with coaches and mentors who are

familiar with the new initiative or instructional strategy. Consideration should be given to how

teachers learn in relation to their identities and prior experiences. For instance, a plan for follow-

up and support should align with teacher learning styles and preferences. Thorough follow-up

and support during and after learning experiences may aid reluctant and struggling teachers with

the implementation of new knowledge and skills into practice.

Sarah’s learning logs proved equally insightful as she reflected on a variety of job-

embedded learning experiences, including content meetings, administrator and academic coach

observations and feedback, and digital learning modules provided by the Georgia Department of

Education. First, Sarah stated numerous times how often she relies on her colleagues during

86

content and grade level meetings since this is her first year at North Willow Middle School. She

wrote in her learning logs:

Content planning is huge! I’m not familiar with the social studies that I’m doing, but

from what little time we’ve already had to plan, I’ve learned so much from the people

who know about it. They have given me a lot of resources, past lesson plans, and ideas

for projects. For science, they have shown me every experiment, how to set it up, and

given me a list of what I’ll need. It all has been so helpful!

Sarah admitted that she may not use everything her new colleagues have shared, however she

stressed, “team work is the only way to survive. Never forget those new teachers or new to the

building teachers are not used to what is going on.” Sarah’s transparency about the importance of

collegiality was a common theme throughout her learning log entries.

In a follow-up email, Sarah elaborated on the structure and timing of content meetings.

Conducted formally on a bi-monthly basis, and informally as necessary, Sarah wrote:

We met on Wednesday to plan the next week’s lesson. We discussed the first standard we

would be teaching and brainstormed activities to teach it. We also pulled out all the

master copies of maps and things we would need for the week and worked to put together

lesson plans from all of our ideas and resources.

Once again, Sarah found value and meaning in her learning experiences when she was provided

the opportunity to collaborate with her peers during scheduled content meetings. Specifically,

Sarah used the dedicated work time to refine her existing knowledge and skills by negotiating the

new information and ideas presented by her peers. At the conclusion of the meeting, Sarah was

able to reflect on how she co-constructed new knowledge to create a better understanding of the

social studies content. She was also able to develop a strategy for implementing lessons and

87

activities to meet the expectations of the standards, the needs of her students, and fit within her

teaching identity and philosophy.

Next, Sarah devoted several learning log entries to administrator and academic coach

observations and feedback. In one entry, Sarah described a follow-up meeting she scheduled

with her assistant principal to discuss why she received a Level II on Standard 4: Differentiated

Instruction during an earlier Teacher Keys Effectiveness System (TKES) walk-through. She

recorded in her learning log:

I set up a meeting with my assistant principal to discuss my first TKES observation. It

was very meaningful. I am not only new to TKES, but new to North Willow and I wanted

to know exactly what they were looking for and how to improve my Level II. I was given

some suggestions and told that the documents I presented on the portal were enough to

raise the II to a Level III. I now know how to make sure Standard 4 is covered in my

lesson plans and documented. I would like to have more strategies to try though.

As a veteran teacher of 24 years, it was difficult for Sarah to receive a Level II on her initial

TKES walk-though, however Sarah was determined to improve her practice and sought support

when needed. In fact, Sarah also scheduled a meeting with the school’s academic coach to help

her identify and implement some strategies for differentiation. She wrote:

I asked the academic coach to find me some ideas for differentiation since I received the

Level II on my evaluation in that area. She gave me some strategies and information on

how to differentiate my instruction. It was absolutely what I needed. It was a relief to

have some strategies and ideas to improve my performance. I have already started

building her ideas and strategies into my lesson plans.

88

Sarah’s motivation and drive to improve her teaching skills led her to seek support from others

who had the knowledge and ability to help her succeed. Sarah did not let being both a newbie

and veteran teacher deter her from seeking help; in fact, her thirst for knowledge and

improvement is an example for all teachers to reflect on the value and meaning one can glean

from colleagues outside of your content area and grade level.

Finally, Sarah used the learning logs to archive her learning experiences with digital

learning modules provided by the Georgia Department of Education. For example, Sarah

completed a course on how to create a classroom blog and how to analyze and provide digital

feedback to students. Sarah recalled, “actually seeing teachers in action giving feedback to

students was amazing. I learned a lot of strategies to give feedback to students in many different

forms. I can’t wait to use this.” During Sarah’s shadowing session, she was excited to share how

she implemented the digital feedback in her social studies class. In particular, she asked students

to create a PowerPoint using GoogleDocs and requested that they share it with her when they

were ready to turn it in. Sarah was able to view each PowerPoint and provide feedback

electronically. The digital learning module allowed Sarah to learn something of interest and at

her own pace. She was completely responsible for learning the material and implementing it into

her classroom. She loved this type of learning and has already committed to completing

additional digital learning modules in the future.

Case #3: Leslie

With 14 years experience at the research site, Leslie is a veteran social studies teacher at

North Willow Middle School. She currently serves on the school council, sponsors the Junior

Beta Club, and is coordinator of Katie’s Closet, a program that collects and donates used

clothing to students in need. In past years, Leslie has been a member of the school leadership

89

team and the department chair for the social studies department. Leslie holds three advanced

degrees and is certified to teach middle school social studies and language arts. She also holds

endorsements in gifted education and teacher support specialist.

Before teaching at North Willow Middle School, Leslie taught one year as a fifth grade

teacher in an impoverished area of South Carolina. She then taught sixth grade social studies,

language arts, and math for 14 years at a metro-area middle school in Georgia. Leslie plans to

retire at the end of the school year.

Leslie is an innovative teacher and popular among her peers as someone who never does

the same thing twice. She dedicates herself to not only learning about her students, but also

keeping relevant and up-to-date with trending instructional strategies and reading to expand her

content knowledge. Leslie’s classroom is arranged for maximum student participation and is

littered with exemplars of student work. While she does arrange her student desks in rows,

Leslie’s students move fluidly from desk to desk and form groups in all the empty spaces of her

room and the hallway when working. During her shadowing session, Leslie’s lesson plans

revealed how she infuses technology, group-based learning, and authentic projects into her

instructional plan on a consistent basis.

In her initial interview, Leslie defined job-embedded learning as “just what you learn

from your students, what you learn yourself by reading things or taking some classes, as well as

what you learn from your other colleagues and anything in your environment.” Leslie

acknowledged that she was not familiar with job-embedded learning prior to the study, however

her definition reflects the general nature of job-embedded learning as specific to one’s working

environment and contingent on the relationships of colleagues. Leslie provided several examples

of job-embedded learning to support her definition. For instance, she has participated in the

90

following formal learning experiences at North Willow Middle School: book studies; collegial

observations and feedback; peer mentoring; content, grade level, and leadership team meetings;

content workshops; and conferences. Leslie also mentioned several informal learning

experiences, such as impromptu hallway conversations and content check-ins.

One of Leslie’s most interesting learning log entries chronicled her time mentoring a

student teacher. During an initial meeting with her student teacher’s advisor, Leslie compared

her teaching experience to the requirements and expectations of her student teacher:

One thing the professor mentioned is that student teacher candidates are to use academic

language in their lessons. As I’m sitting there listening, I’m thinking about my own

lessons and I don’t think I totally use academic language or reinforce it with my students.

I guess I just automatically assume my students know what I am talking about when I say

compare and contrast or analyze.

She continued:

I didn’t realize I would be focusing so much on my own teaching. I plan to be more

conscientious of using and explaining these terms to the students better. I want them to

have a better and total understanding of what is being asked of them.

Despite Leslie’s intent to retire at the end of the school year, she found meaning and value in

mentoring a student teacher candidate. Not only did she enjoy helping to prepare the next

generation of teachers, she used the mentorship as a way to reflect and refine her teaching

practice for the benefit of her current students.

In another instance, Leslie elaborated on a grade level meeting focused on presenting

information about the new Georgia Milestone test and how to prepare students for answering

91

constructed response questions in science and social studies. Delivered by the academic coach,

Leslie noted in her learning log entry:

I found the information about the Milestone very interesting. I understand that the

questioning won’t just be recall questions so I do know that I really need to continue

including open-ended questions on my assignments and tests. I found the information

about close reading the most helpful. The academic coach gave us a notebook about close

reading with helpful hints, an assortment of possible assignments, and a box of

highlighters for the students to use when reading articles.

Leslie appreciated the support the academic coach provided as she worked to negotiate and

implement strategies to prepare her students for new testing expectations and requirements.

Moreover, she considered her students’ learning needs when deciding what information was

most relevant to her and created a plan for implementation that best accommodated the unique

needs of her classroom.

Leslie used the job-embedded learning logs to reflect on several informal learning

opportunities. On one occasion, Leslie recollected how disappointed she was that her students

did not perform well on a social studies test. She compared her results with that of another

colleague and discussed a plan for remediation and ways to prevent similar results in the future.

In a separate instance, Leslie described how visiting other teachers’ classrooms during planning

could spark new ideas and applications. She stated, “I walked into Shanna’s room and asked

what she was doing. She said that she was thinking of making a foldable or using a choice board.

I loved both of the ideas and so now I’m working to do these in my classroom.” In a follow-up

conversation, Leslie remarked, “just walking down the hall and seeing how people do things, you

learn, you know…oh, I could tweak this or do that.” Thus, Leslie’s impromptu hallway chats and

92

classroom visits helped her stay flexible and enthusiastic about her subject. In fact, another

participant in the study commented on how much she admires Leslie because she never uses the

same assignment twice even in the later stages of her career.

Finally, Leslie’s learning logs documented the influence a school-wide book study can

have on teaching and learning. Every year, teachers at North Willow Middle School participate

in a book study selected by the principal. Typically, teachers discuss assigned chapters at the

monthly faculty meeting and complete an activity to help extend what they read into the

classroom. Leslie recalled:

We’ve read Schlecty’s Working on the Work (2002), Ruby Payne’s (2005) A Framework

for Poverty, and many others. Last year only the math teachers did it, but in the past it’s

been everybody. This year the focus is only on science and social studies teachers, but we

meet once a month to talk about the book and find ways to use it in the classroom.

Leslie admitted that the book study can sometimes be overwhelming with all the other daily

tasks a teacher performs, however she found value and meaning in the books she had read. She

believed the book studies, especially the Ruby Payne book, helped her relate to and consider the

unique needs her students bring to school.

Case #4: Madison

Madison is beginning her third year at North Willow Middle School. She is the only

participant who did not begin a career in teaching. Rather, she returned to school to attain a

degree in secondary English after five years in the business world. Madison worked as an

undergraduate admissions counselor for a small, private college in Willow County and spent

three years as an eighth grade language arts and reading teacher at a different middle school in

Willow County Public School District (WCPSD) prior to transferring to North Willow Middle

93

School. Madison recently completed an educational doctorate degree in curriculum and

instruction and currently works as an adjunct writing professor for a small, private college in a

neighboring county.

In addition to her teaching responsibilities, Madison is a member of the Response to

Intervention (RTI) committee, a member of the school improvement team, serves as a team

leader, and serves as both the reading and French club advisor. Professionally, Madison is a

member of the National Council of Teachers of English and the Conference in English

Education.

Madison’s classroom is warm and inviting. She decorates it with lamps, oversized floor

pillows, and paintings. She encourages her students to do their best work and continually

monitors their performance to ensure progress with their reading goals. Madison’s colleagues

describe her as quiet and reserved, but committed to lifelong learning and the improvement of

her teaching skills.

In her initial interview, Madison defined job-embedded learning as “learning how to

teach from teaching.” When prompted to extend her response, Madison clarified, “I think there is

definitely some value in watching other people like a mentorship, but there is also a lot of value

in just getting in there and trying it yourself.” To Madison, job-embedded learning was

characterized by active practice and reflection while one is engaged in the art of teaching or

dedicated to observing someone else teaching.

Madison described her best professional development experience as a workshop titled Go

Green. Go Green was presented by the Georgia Department of Education and provided writing

strategies for teachers to use with their students. She stated:

94

Go Green was great when I was giving the 8th grade writing test, but now I’m in 7th

grade. Go Green was great because the state shared all of the materials and all of the

samples so I could easily go back to it whenever I was ready to do a writing lesson…just

to make sure that I’m hitting everything that I thought was important…just the fact that

when you start teaching writing, it is always sort of an in-the-air kind of thing. What do

we start with? And Go Green sort of gives you a lesson to follow. First, they’ve got to do

this and then they’ve got to be able to do this. It gives you a visual understanding with all

of the different colors. Just things that I’ve never really thought about before, but found

to be really powerful. And the kids really benefited from it.

Madison continues to incorporate strategies from Go Green because she found the workshop to

be meaningful to her and beneficial to her students. When asked to elaborate, Madison stated

how she enjoys being able to visually witness student understanding and growth, so she

advocates for her students to Go Green when they write.

Madison chronicled few instances of job-embedded learning throughout the first nine

weeks of the current school year; however, she provided numerous examples of meetings and

events that she characterized as more focused on business, i.e., suited for the purpose of

delivering information or planning an event, such as open house, meeting to design a transition

plan for a student with limited English proficiency, and planning for a Veteran’s Day program at

school. While these business-focused meetings are necessary to plan and manage functions of the

school, these meetings will not be discussed further since the intent of such business-focused

meetings is not teacher learning and improvement. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that Madison

found value and relevance in these meetings even though the impact of such meetings had little

influence on the refinement and improvement of her teaching knowledge and skills. Specifically,

95

she recounted how the information from each business-focused meeting helped her plan

instruction around school events and stay updated on issues of safety and personnel.

Returning to learning during the school day, Madison dedicated one learning log entry to

describing how she worked with colleagues from her school and the other two county middle

schools to create a coherent English-Language Arts benchmark examination. She wrote, “I

believe in collaboration with other teachers. I was very appreciative to be included in this

process. It reaffirmed my beliefs in using resources and people at your school to make things

happen.” To Madison, teacher collaboration was essential in making sense of what students are

required to know and do to demonstrate content mastery. In other words, developing quality,

common assessments as a collaborative cohort ensured the development of a benchmark that

reflected the knowledge and experience of several teachers rather than one. The collaboration

among teachers from the entire county also served as a catalyst for creating a thoughtful

instructional plan to help students demonstrate success on the benchmark. Overall, Madison was

able to align her expectations and beliefs with those of teachers from her school and other

schools in the county to accomplish an otherwise burdensome task.

In another example, Madison explained how she used information from a grade level

meeting on Teacher Keys Effectiveness System (TKES) to reflect on her teaching beliefs and

preferences. Madison recorded:

I found out some useful information about the TKES website and how we were being

evaluated this year. I’m not sure that the new TKES evaluations will change anything

about my teaching style, but it is nice to know what the administrators are looking at

when they come into our classrooms.

96

In other words, Madison acknowledged that administrator evaluations would minimally

influence her classroom practice. Madison seemed to appreciate the information for the sake of

her evaluation, however she was not certain as to whether she would find value or meaning in

her administrators’ feedback. When asked to clarify, Madison recalled how prior administrator

feedback did not reflect a need for improvement or suggest ideas for consideration. The feedback

tended to focus on what she did “right” rather than challenge her to improve. However, her prior

experience with administrator feedback does not seem to represent the norm for teachers at North

Willow Middle School.

Case #5: Emily

Emily is in her first year teaching regular education language arts and reading at North

Willow Middle School. Previously, she taught one year as a special education preschool teacher

in a neighboring county, four years as a high school special education teacher also in a

neighboring county, and 13 years as a middle school special education teacher in Willow County

Public School District (WCPSD). Emily holds three advanced degrees and is certified to teach

special education, middle school language arts, and early childhood education. She also holds

endorsements in reading, ESOL, and gifted education.

Emily serves as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) sponsor at North Willow

Middle School; however, she has served in numerous roles during her career, such as student

council advisor, school webmaster, assistive technology coordinator, and newspaper liaison.

With almost 19 years of experience, Emily brings expertise and confidence to her classroom. For

instance, Emily’s new content and grade level teammates at North Willow Middle School have

solicited her for advice on how to integrate technology into the classroom and how to provide

academic support for students with special needs.

97

Emily defined job-embedded learning as “learning while on the job through professional

development and collaboration.” Her definition emphasized teacher learning as embedded, on-

going, and relevant to one’s profession. Emily viewed learning as collaborative and contingent

on the relationships and environment of the workplace. She listed content, grade level, and

faculty meetings as well as digital learning modules and videos as examples of job-embedded

learning. Over the course of the research period, Emily participated in many of the

aforementioned opportunities, however she tended to gravitate towards online, independent

learning rather than face-to-face, collaborative learning.

First, Emily dedicated several learning logs to documenting digital learning experiences.

Her first entry focused on using Edmodo to collaborate with other teachers and classroom. Emily

recalled:

I have used Edmodo to collaborate with other teachers. I have met teachers from

Argentina, South Africa, New York, North Carolina, and Georgia, and my classes have

Skyped and collaborated with other students over the years. Also, I love Edmodo because

I was able to find several things other teachers were doing to teach a novel and was able

to set up an interactive blog between my class and hers in North Carolina.

Emily stated how she enjoys the ease of use and flexibility Edmodo brings to her classroom. She

was not only able to collaborate with other teachers at her own convenience, but also apply what

she has learned with her students. Emily finds meaning and value in learning experiences that

meet her needs and desires in the time and manner she chooses.

In comparison, Emily shared during her initial interview how the Compliance Director

digital learning modules represented one of her worst learning experiences. A self-defined

technology guru, Emily stated, “I hated completing the Compliance Review Modules. I didn’t

98

like reading and clicking though the various screens. It was time consuming and I didn’t learn

anything. I wish the content and format were more engaging.” Emily explained that each teacher

in the school was required to complete the Compliance Director Modules at the beginning of the

school year. The seven modules reviewed educator laws, expectations, and procedures. Emily

did not find meaning and value in the modules because the content was familiar and the format

underwhelming. She suggested the development of “refresher” modules for teachers who have

already completed the lengthier, more thorough modules. Emily poses both an interesting

problem and a possible solution for required professional development.

Finally, Emily provided another example of how digital learning has influenced her

teaching knowledge and skills. Emily volunteered to participate in a training session on flipped

classrooms. Instructed by the local Regional Educational Service Agency (RESA), Emily wrote:

I was given some new information, strategies, and websites to use in my classroom. I

learned to make a screencast and create videos and QR codes to make learning more

engaging in the classroom. The experience was more fun than I expected and the activity

was engaging because the information was something I could use in the classroom.

In a follow-up email, Emily specified that she would be responsible for redelivering information

about flipped classrooms to her colleagues. She seemed enthusiastic about designing and

implementing flipped lessons with her students and equally excited to share her new knowledge

with other teachers. Emily found meaning and value in the learning experience since she was

interested in the topic and given a chance to assume a leadership role.

In a more traditional face-to-face, collaborative meeting, Emily discussed a content area

meeting in which the principal and academic coach shared information about the Georgia

Milestones test. Emily remembered:

99

Our principal shared information about the items that would be on the Georgia

Milestones test and gave us some constructed response samples. This is the first

information teachers have received about the specific number of questions and time of

questions, so this helps me prepare for my students. Overall, I learned I would need to

work with my students to carefully analyze texts and teach them how to do close

readings.

In other words, Emily found the meeting insightful since it provided her with essential and

relevant information in a coherent format. She did, however, point out that tips and follow-up for

how to prepare students for close reading would have been helpful. Emily received a PowerPoint

handout with information about close reading, but she was not provided an opportunity to

practice it or discuss what it’s like with peers who have used it successfully.

Similarly, Emily recalled a content area meeting focused on discussing student learning

objectives for an upcoming language arts unit and finding resources to teach content. Emily

elaborated in her learning log entry:

We met to go over our next unit of study. We divided up duties to create and find

resources for the next unit. We also discussed what was working and what wasn’t

working in regards to how we were teaching content. It is difficult to make time to meet

during the school day, but it is useful to make contact with teachers who are teaching the

same content in order to share ideas and develop lessons collaboratively. It helps keep us

all on the same page.

Although Emily stated a preference for independent, digital learning, her sentiments about

collaborative planning stress the importance of dedicating a common and consistent time and

space for reflecting and collaborating on instruction, assessment, and student progress. Teaching

100

does not occur in isolation, but rather as a collective experience. Nonetheless, Emily’s interest in

independent, digital learning does highlight an interesting source for professional development

that is differentiated and in-tune with a teacher’s identity and background.

Cross-Case Analysis

Cross-case analysis commenced after each case, or participant, was examined

individually using within-case analysis. During cross-case analysis, the researcher collectively

considered the emergent codes and categories from each case to identify patterns within the

overall data. The constant comparative method was used to establish common themes from the

patterns and develop generalizations about the data. The findings from the cross-case analysis

will be presented in the context of the related literature review and in relation to the emergent

categories and themes.

Five themes were generated from the data. Each theme represented the processes or

influences that guided teachers in their construction and negotiation of new knowledge and

skills. While these processes or influences often occurred concurrently, each theme is presented

as a disaggregated sub-section for depth and clarity. Each sub-section discusses findings related

to the research question from a sensemaking perspective. The sub-sections include the following:

Identity, Reflection, Collaboration, Motivation, and Application. Table 4.4 summarizes the

research question, themes, and description of themes derived from data analysis.

101

Table 4.4

Research Question and Themes

How do middle school teachers construct understandings of their job-embedded learning experiences?

Themes Description

Identity Motivation Reflection Collaboration Application

Teachers made sense and gave meaning to new learning experiences using their unique worldviews, beliefs, and understandings. Teacher identity encouraged self-awareness and shaped the actions and interpretations of learning experiences. Teachers made sense and gave meaning to new learning experiences when motivated intrinsically and extrinsically. Teacher motivation considered relevancy and applicability of new learning experiences to explain why teachers engage in job-embedded learning. Teachers made sense and gave meaning to new learning experiences by reflecting on prior beliefs, understandings, and experiences. Teacher reflection fostered the negotiation and melding of new and old learning experiences. Teachers made sense and gave meaning to new learning experiences when they collaborated with colleagues. Teacher collaboration provided support for new learning experiences and challenged teachers to examine how their interactions influence their teaching practices. Teachers made sense and gave meaning to new learning experiences that were applicable to their jobs. The transferability of the learning experience encouraged teachers to establish a purpose for learning something new and to identify a course of action for acquiring and applying the new knowledge and skills in practice.

To reiterate, the findings of this research will be presented as five disaggregated

subsections for the purpose of discussion, however the relationship among the findings is worthy

of emphasis. Figure 4.1 illustrates the connections among the findings within the frame of job-

embedded learning. Identity provides the foundation for sensemaking since teachers use their

unique and respective worldviews, beliefs, and experiences to begin the sensemaking process.

Within identity, the motivations for engaging in job-embedded learning influence the

sensemaking process of teachers. The identities and motivations of teachers are consistently

102

refined as represented by the arrow. Beyond identity and motivation, teachers engage in

reflection, collaboration, and application to continuously negotiate and co-construct new

knowledge and skills. The Venn Diagram represents how reflection, collaboration, and

application contribute to the sensemaking process independently, in tandem, or as a collective

group. Overall, the five findings of identity, motivation, reflection, collaboration, and application

occur concurrently as teachers construct understandings of their job-embedded learning

experiences.

Figure 4.1

Sensemaking within Job-Embedded Learning

Identity

Each teacher made sense and gave meaning to her job-embedded learning experiences

using her unique worldview, beliefs, and understandings to negotiate and construct new

knowledge and skills. For instance, Amanda’s beliefs about student learning and achievement

103

have largely been shaped by her initial teaching experiences. Amanda stated:

I did my student teaching with CUTE, Cooperative Urban Teacher Education program, in

Kansas City, Missouri. Under the guidance of a professor, we learned about the culture of

our students. We did police ride alongs. We also had to volunteer to teach ESOL for three

nights a week for the duration of our student teaching. We had to live in the community,

work in the community, and volunteer in the community and it was to help prepare us for

the rigors of inner city teaching. That experience changed me as a person and has made

me the teacher I am today. I developed a do whatever it takes kind of attitude to make

sure that my students are successful no matter the circumstances they may bring to the

classroom.

Amanda’s identity as a teacher was guided by her initial teacher preparation program and

continued to influence how she learned during the school day. She believed teacher learning was

essential to improving the quality of teachers, however the responsibility for engaging in learning

activities and applying learned knowledge was up to the individual teacher. In other words,

teachers who are “self-motivated, highly organized, outside the box thinkers, and teacher leaders

tend to be student-driven and always looking for new opportunities to improve, rather than

teachers who are self-driven, tired, and burned out from their job.”

Likewise, Leslie agreed that her worldview and beliefs about teaching and learning have

been influenced by her first couple of years teaching. Specifically, she went from teaching in a

low-income, rural elementary school in South Carolina to teaching in one of the biggest middle

schools in a large metropolitan area of Georgia. Given her experiences, she recalled, “In all of

my teaching experiences, I learned a lot about myself, my strengths and weaknesses, because

each situation was different. The faculty, the students, and the building were all different and

104

influenced how and what I taught.” According to Leslie, learning on the job was a continuous

process as she periodically needed to assess and improve her knowledge and skills to be a better

teacher. The constant retrospection contributed to Leslie’s overall identity as a teacher since she

continues to practice a cycle of self-reflection and revision even in her final year of teaching.

Finally, Madison’s initial preparation also influenced her unique worldview, beliefs, and

understandings of how teachers learn during the school day. For instance, Madison earned an

undergraduate degree in Recreation Theory with an English minor and later returned to school

for a Master of Arts in Teaching degree after five years in the business world. Madison shared:

I returned to school because I felt like teaching was what I needed to do. I’ve become

passionate about it and try to learn as much as I can to help my students. I find myself

reading and trying a lot of new ideas because I want my students to also feel safe and take

risks in the classroom. So I guess how I learn during the day mirrors that sentiment of

risk-taking and student focus.

Madison’s experience with a profession prior to education not only inspired her to relentlessly

try new ideas and instructional strategies in her classroom, but also to keep the focus of her

learning on student growth and achievement. Being from the business world, Madison seems to

understand that success is often measured in terms of data and growth. Therefore, she fearlessly

tries new ideas and instruction strategies in an effort to maximize her students’ growth and

achievement.

In each scenario, the preparation and continuation of teacher learning was dependent on

each teacher’s initial, past, and current learning environment. Essentially, each teacher’s distinct

and personal identity, molded by years of experiences, promoted self-awareness and influenced

her interactions and interpretations while learning on the job.

105

Motivation

There were a number of factors that influenced the motivation, intrinsically and

extrinsically, of teachers to engage in job-embedded learning. In particular, self-improvement,

passion for teaching, annual evaluation, and the need to strengthen knowledge and skills

influenced the motivation teachers had for learning during the school day. First, self-

improvement and passion for teaching were two of the biggest indicators of teacher learning. For

example, Amanda stated, “I do at lot of reading to help me improve my teaching. I just ordered a

bunch of stuff today on writing practices. I’m always trying to keep it fresh.” Similarly, Emily

recalled, “I love using technology in the classroom, so I’m always looking for new websites to

pull resources from or finding apps and interactive links for my students to use.” Both teachers

often initiated their own on-the-job learning, informally, because they were interested in the

improvement and refinement of their teaching albeit because of an instructional need or personal

interest.

Next, Sarah was motivated to learn more about differentiation after her initial

administrator walk-through. In particular, Sarah asked the academic coach for ideas on

differentiating in the social studies classroom after receiving a lower than desired ranking on the

TKES teacher rubric. Sarah remarked:

I asked the academic coach to find me some ideas for differentiation since I received the

Level II on my evaluation in that area. She gave me some strategies and information on

how to differentiate my instruction. It was absolutely what I needed. It was a relief to

have some strategies and ideas to improve my performance.

In this example, Sarah was determined to improve her knowledge and skills after receiving her

initial administrator walk-through. Her prior experience with a less than stellar review prompted

106

her to seek help and support, thus encouraging her to learn ways to enhance her teaching. Sarah’s

sensemaking of differentiation was influenced after she received guidance from her administrator

and the academic coach.

Finally, lack of motivation can hinder teacher learning during the school day. Sarah

recalled her prior learning experience with Literacy Collaborative as one in which she had no

motivation to participate, but did so out of obligation. She recalled:

It [Literacy Collaborative] was not my preference. The presenter was okay and it was

good information, but it was not what I wanted to do. I went though it and I did the stuff

and it was useful in class.

In a follow-up conversation, Sarah elaborated, “seeing and doing it myself is how I learn so I

need chances to try things in my classroom with actual kids.” Madison shared the sentiment, “if I

have to learn something with technology and it was expected that I implement it, I would need

someone to work with me one-on-one in my classroom; otherwise, it probably won’t happen.”

Thus, through Sarah and Madison’s descriptions of motivation, they believed they were

limited in their sensemaking since they were not interested in the content and had concerns

about its delivery. Both teachers believed they would have more motivation to participate in job-

embedded learning experiences if the presenter considered their learning preferences and skill

level when planning and delivering the content.

Reflection

Reflection, during and after a learning experience, proved to be very beneficial to

teachers acquiring new knowledge or skills. By reflecting on prior beliefs, understandings, and

experiences, teachers were able to negotiate and meld old and new experiences. For example,

while mentoring a student teacher from a local college, Leslie remarked:

107

He hasn’t begun to teach yet. He’s just been observing me teach, but because of this I’m

more conscious of how I’m teaching and the activities I provide for the students. I want

my teaching to be a positive and meaningful experience for him. Having him here has

really made me reflect on my own teaching and what I do well and what I need to do

better.

In a follow-up conversation, Leslie commented, “I will never forget one student teacher that

came in and did stations on Egypt. I’d never done stations before, but I really liked the idea and

saw it work with my kids, so I kept the idea to adapt for future students.” Leslie found meaning

and value in working with future teachers because it inspired her to take risks and keep up-to-

date on instructional strategies. Moreover, Leslie’s work with student teachers encouraged her to

reflect on her own teaching practices to learn more about herself and her teaching abilities.

Reflection was key to Leslie’s sensemaking processes because it allowed her to meld new

knowledge and skills with her prior understandings and experiences.

In comparison, Amanda dedicated one of her learning log entries to the Socratic Method.

Amanda reflected:

When I taught in Omaha, the whole school was trained to use Mortimer Adler’s Socratic

Method. We were giving Socrates and Aristotle to read to eighth graders who were

reading on a fourth or fifth grade level and they were able to make meaning of it through

Socratic seminars. And when I saw it in action, it was so powerful…and I let it go

through my many moves, but I’ve kept coming back to it and now one of the high school

classes uses the method and I didn’t know it until I started to do it with my kids here. I

thought I was doing something in isolation, but now I see that I’m not alone at all.

108

Amanda recalled and applied past knowledge to benefit her current students. Amanda admitted

that she did not always use the Socratic Method with her students, however she decided to revisit

and use her prior knowledge and experiences to implement the Socratic Method once again in

her classroom because she felt like it suited the needs of her gifted students. Amanda made sense

of her current instructional desires and needs by reflecting on strategies that worked in the past.

In other words, Amanda’s understanding of the Socratic Method and her classroom context

allowed her to recall and modify past knowledge and experiences for application with a new

group of students.

Lastly, during a meeting to present the new Teacher Keys Effectiveness System (TKES),

Sarah stated:

The academic coach gave us some information about the constructed response questions

on the new Georgia Milestone test and listening to her got me to thinking about the types

of questions I ask in class and what I could do to make my questions better.

In this example, Sarah reflected on her current practices and brainstormed ways to increase the

rigor of her formative and summative student questions. She made sense of the new information

on constructed response questions by thoughtfully considering what she already knew,

determining the information she needed to learn, and developing a plan for attaining that

information.

Collaboration

How teachers constructed understandings of their job-embedded learning, positively or

negatively, was largely determined by their opportunity for teacher collaboration. Teacher

collaboration provided support for new learning experiences and challenged teachers to examine

how their interactions had or will influence their teaching practices. For example, Sarah and

109

Emily discussed the importance and benefit of collaboration when planning with their content

area teams. Sarah blatantly stated:

I could not survive without other teachers to work with and to plan with. When I taught

elementary school, I felt much more isolated. At least at the middle school, I feel like I

am part of a team and can get help with planning when I need it, especially this year since

I’m teaching a new grade level and subject. I’m appreciative of all the stuff my

teammates have given me. I might use some of their ideas, but I don’t feel pressure from

them to do things exactly like they do. It’s just nice to have their support.

Sarah’s response highlighted how collaboration helps to combat the feeling of isolation and

promotes teachers taking risks and trying new instructional strategies. Overall, Sarah believed

that she was capable of learning her new content area and meeting the needs of her students since

she was encouraged to collaborate with her colleagues on an on-going basis through required

content and grade level meetings.

Comparably, Emily agreed, “It is useful to make contact with teachers who are teaching

the same content in order to share ideas and develop lessons collaboratively. I actually wish we

had more time during the day to meet because planning with others is most helpful.” During her

interview, Emily suggested that she learns best by discussing her content with others. She noted,

“I am able to learn new ways of presenting content and can get help with trying something new.

Also, it’s nice to meet with others because they look at stuff differently and can challenge you to

do something different.” In this case, Emily hinted that collaboration not only encourages

teachers to learn from one another, but also works as a sounding board, or teacher support

system, when attempting a new instructional plan or strategy. She suggested teacher

110

sensemaking of an instructional strategy or activity is largely influenced by collegial

collaboration.

Finally, collaboration occurred in a more informal manner. When asked how she learns

about new activities and ideas, Leslie remarked, “just walking down the hall and seeing how

people do things, you learn, you know…oh, I could tweak this or do that.” Recently Leslie noted

that she incorporated foldables, choice boards, and close reading into her social studies lessons as

a result of informally visiting other teachers’ classrooms. Conversations with Leslie also

revealed that impromptu hallway chats about student engagement and understanding of a new

activity or lesson as the day progresses were beneficial in planning for future classes. Leslie

commented, “I sometimes tweak what I do from one period to the next based on how the lesson

went or from what I’ve discussed with other teachers.” Leslie made sense and gave meaning to

what she heard and observed from colleagues as she negotiated how to implement their ideas and

instructional strategies into her own classroom.

Application

How teachers made sense and gave meaning to their learning was dependent on the

potential application of the job-embedded learning experience. The transferability of the job-

embedded experience encouraged teachers to establish a purpose for learning something new and

to identify a course of action for acquiring and applying the new knowledge and skills in

practice. Additionally, job-embedded learning experiences that were relevant, coherent, and

ongoing were found to ignite greater transfer and application of new knowledge and skills. For

example, prompted by a collegial recommendation to read a book titled 10 Things Every Writer

Needs to Know by Jeff Anderson, Amanda reflected:

111

I had been told that this [book] was a wonderful resource by Carolyn, who worked for the

Georgia Department of Education. I figured she wouldn’t recommend a mediocre book

and I was right. This book has inspired me to use mentor texts to challenge my writers to

emulate the craft of quality writing. I’m going to share this book with other ELA teachers

and ask the librarian to add this book to our professional development collection. There

was a lot of good information, especially on how to motivate young writers, and keep

them motivated, even when the task seems overwhelming.

Amanda found meaning and value in reading the book at the encouragement of a colleague

whom she trusted and respected. Amanda was able to directly apply what she read to her

classroom for the benefit of her students. Additionally, she made plans to share her learning

experience with other colleagues so that they may refine and improve their knowledge and skills

for teaching students how to write using mentor texts. The job-embedded experience was

relevant to Amanda and encouraged her to transfer and apply her new knowledge to her

classroom; thus, highlighting how sensemaking of learning experiences is a process of

negotiation and co-construction.

Next, Emily and Amanda were inspired to learn during the school day by accessing

digital media; specifically, both teachers independently dedicated time to learn about the

instructional features and functions of Edmodo for the purpose of incorporating its online

community into their classrooms. Emily commented, “I love using Edmodo to find ideas and

activities for teaching novels. I have been able to find lots of resources and communicate with

other teachers to find lessons that suit the needs of my students.” Similarly, Amanda wrote:

Since Edmodo does the work of creating and grading assessments for me, I have more

time to revisit concepts and personalize learning for my students. This not only helps to

112

improve individual progress, but also makes me think about what I’m teaching and how

to do it best.

In both instances, the ease of accessing and using digital media, such as Edmodo, to collaborate

with other teachers and plan for student learning, encouraged Emily and Amanda to constantly

refine and improve their teaching knowledge and skills with the end goal of increasing student

achievement. Certainly, each teacher’s worldview, beliefs, and prior understandings influenced

their decision to implement Edmodo into their classrooms, however the experience also gave

them the confidence and support to seek out and try new resources in their classroom on an

ongoing basis. Both Emily and Amanda were able to make sense and give meaning to the

resources available in Edmodo since the lessons and activities were applicable and transferable

to their classrooms.

Finally, Sarah best summarized the connection between applicability and how teachers

make sense and give meaning to their job-embedded learning experiences when she stated:

We meet often with our content areas to plan. I don’t mind participating in these meetings

because it gives me new ideas and resources. It also serves as a sounding board for my

ideas and can help me meet the needs of my students when I’m having a problem. I don’t

like meetings where we sit and listen, however I understand that sometimes the purpose

of the meeting is to deliver information rather than learn something.

In this instance, Sarah not only conveyed the importance of collaboration, but also illustrated the

many benefits of content planning. She found the most value and applicability in content

planning experiences since those meetings were intended to offer ideas, encouragement, and

support rather than information. Sarah believed her sensemaking was enhanced following

113

content meetings since the focus was on finding and strategizing how to implement teaching

resources.

Case Summary

The findings of this chapter were grounded in the context of the review of the literature

and presented from a sensemaking perspective. After within-case and cross-case analysis, several

themes were generated from the data; specifically, the researcher found that teacher identity,

reflection, collaboration, motivation, and application determined how middle school teachers

constructed understandings, or made sense and gave meaning to, their job-embedded learning

experiences. Figure 4.1 illustrated the relationship among the findings while Table 4.4

summarized each finding independently for depth and clarity. Overall, teachers were more likely

to participate in learning experiences that were embedded, relevant, and applicable to their job.

Interestingly, a lot of teacher learning occurred independently and informally and was initiated

because of need or desire.

The next, and final, chapter will discuss the findings in relation to the current literature on

effective professional development, job-embedded learning, and sensemaking. Additionally, the

chapter will make connections and applications from the findings to present possible

implications for practicing teachers, administrators, and policymakers at the local, district, and

state levels.

114

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

This chapter draws connections and applications from the findings presented in Chapter 4

and relevant literature. Furthermore, the discussion will consider how the findings might provide

administrators and policymakers with a wealth of knowledge about teacher learning during the

school day as well as offer suggestions for how to structure job-embedded learning, how to

overcome challenges related to job-embedded learning, and how to support teacher learning

given each teacher’s unique worldview and work context.






informal learning opportunity that was grounded in the context of the school day and

characterized by active learning and reflection. The overarching research question for this study

was how do teachers construct understandings of their job-embedded learning experiences? The

inclusive nature of the research question allowed the researcher to consider how the nature of

professional development—such as its format, duration, and content, or the school culture and

context—influenced how teachers constructed understandings of their job-embedded learning

experiences.

115

To further define the study, North Willow Middle School was chosen as the research site

since the context of the research focused on the professional development practices at a high-

performing middle school. For the purpose of this study, the research site was defined as high-

performing within the context of the district and the state of Georgia according to their College

and Career Readiness Performance Index score (CCRPI) and student Criterion Referenced

Competency Test (CRCT) scores. Furthermore, North Willow Middle School was selected as the

research site given the numerous accolades bestowed on the school, such as Distinguished

Middle School from the Georgia Department of Education and Lighthouse School to Watch by

the National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform.

Summary of the Research Design


purpose of this study was to understand how middle school teachers make sense of and give

meaning to their job-embedded learning experiences. Sensemaking theory was a relevant

framework since it considered how context and culture influenced meaning-making and actively

melded the negotiation of identity and experience with the social co-construction of new

knowledge. The study was thus designed to examine how sensemaking processes influence

teacher learning given a job-embedded learning experience.

A qualitative approach was used to investigate how teachers made sense and gave

meaning to job-embedded learning since such an approach considered teachers’ perspectives and

experiences within the context of school. Specifically, an ethnographic, multi-case study design

was used to examine how teachers constructed understandings of their job-embedded learning

experiences. An ethnographic, multi-case study design allowed the researcher to examine

116

multiple cases within a single context while considering the influence of context and culture on

the understanding and interpretation of knowledge construction and experiences.


other artifacts. Within-case and cross-case analysis was used to examine the collected data. Both

the within-case and cross-case analysis applied the constant comparative method to generate

inductively an understanding of how teachers constructed understandings of their job-embedded

learning experiences. Themes were generated to present and discuss the results of the data

analysis.

Current and seminal literature was reviewed prior to the start of the study to ground the

researcher’s perspective. Initially, the review focused on defining professional development and

examining characteristics of effective professional development using empirical research. Next,

the literature review centered on job-embedded learning and what it might look like within the

context of a middle school. Finally, the review concluded with a brief overview of research

studies that employed sensemaking theory as a conceptual and theoretical framework. Each

section of the literature review assisted the researcher in designing, implementing, analyzing, and

discussing the current research study.

Discussion of the Findings

Research has found that effective professional development programs include a focus on

content, an emphasis on active learning, attention to coherence, consideration of duration, and

the encouragement of collective participation (Borko, 2004; Elmore, 2002; Wayne et al., 2008;

Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007; Zepeda, 2011a; Zepeda, 2011b). A continued

commitment to developing effective professional development programs is imperative since it

has been proven to improve both teacher and student learning (Darling-Hammond & Richardson,

117

2009; Desimone, 2009; Garet et al., 2001) and increase the transfer of new knowledge and skills

into practice (Coggshall et al., 2012; Pate & Thompson, 2003; Sparks & Hirsh, 1997; Zepeda,

2000; Zepeda, 2005).

Job-embedded learning offers a viable avenue for educators to transform their beliefs,

knowledge, and practice within the context of their school while adhering to the key features of

effective professional development. Job-embedded learning occurs when teachers are actively

engaged in and reflect on their daily work via formal or informal activities (Wood & McQuarrie,

1999). Moreover, job-embedded learning is grounded in the daily practice of teachers, occurs on

a regular basis, aligns with school standards and goals, occurs collaboratively, and encourages

active participation (Croft et al., 2010; Desimone, 2011; Redding and Kamm, 1999; Wood and

Killian, 1998; Wynne, 2010; Zepeda, 2011a; 2011b; 2011c).

Since the purpose of this study was to examine how middle school teachers construct

understandings, or make sense and give meaning to, their job-embedded learning experiences, it

is necessary to first summarize the major findings or themes and then, second, analyze those

findings in light of the related current and seminal literature. Thus, the significant findings will

be presented in the next five sub-sections with a focus on how teacher learning and sensemaking

paralleled with the characteristics of effective professional development and job-embedded

learning identified in the literature.

Identity

The teachers at North Willow Middle School used their respective and unique

worldviews, beliefs, and understandings to negotiate and construct new knowledge and skills.

First, the data suggested that initial teacher preparation significantly influenced teachers’

teaching identities, e.g., their teaching and learning philosophies, but also guided how they made

118

sense and gave meaning to their subsequent job-embedded learning experiences. For instance,

Amanda’s initial teacher preparation culminated with participation in the Cooperative Urban

Teacher Education (CUTE) program. In this program, Amanda was given the opportunity to

experience the teaching context and culture of future students by completing her student teaching

in an inner-city Kansas City classroom, visiting local homes and businesses, and participating in

police ride-alongs. When asked to explain how her initial teacher preparation influenced her

sensemaking of job-embedded learning experiences, she replied, “I learned it is my job to do

whatever it takes to keep learning about students. So I try to approach content and grade level

meetings with a whatever-it-takes attitude.” In this case, Amanda’s teaching identity reflected

her values and beliefs about teaching and learning as well as influenced how she approached and

considered new information during her learning experiences.

Additionally, the first few years of teaching influenced the ongoing perceptions teachers

developed about students, the roles and functions of school, and their expectations and beliefs

about professional development. For example, Leslie recalled:

I taught fifth grade and that was in a very low-income school. The projects were right

behind the school and it was approximately 90% African American. It was a wonderful

learning experience for me. I learned more about myself that year and my strengths and

weaknesses. It was hard for a first-year teacher, but I learned how to survive and how to

help my students regardless of their home situation.

Even in her 29th year of teaching, Leslie continued to value the experiences from her early career

and hinted at how what she learned during those early years shaped her worldviews, beliefs, and

understandings throughout her teaching career. In regards to the current study, her sensemaking

of job-embedded learning was influenced by her teaching identity and early career experiences

119

because those early experiences helped her recognize and address strengths and weaknesses,

understand the duties and responsibilities of a teacher and colleague, and establish conceptions of

students and schools within a local context.

In the related literature, identity—or one’s worldviews, beliefs, and prior experiences—

has been identified as the foundation for sensemaking (Coburn, 2001; Kezar & Eckel, 2000;

Mitchell, 2014; Sleeger, Wassink, van Veen, & Imants, 2009; Weick, 1995). More specifically,

Weick (1995) noted that sensemaking begins with self-awareness. Teachers must understand

their values, beliefs, experiences, and abilities to make sense and give meaning to new learning

opportunities during the school day. Teachers need an understanding of their identity to negotiate

and construct new knowledge and skills into practice (Mitchell, 2014).

In their study on teachers’ emotions in the process of making sense of Comprehensive

School Reform (CSR), Schmidt and Datnow (2005) found that teachers’ prior knowledge and

understandings affected the sensemaking and interpretations teachers had of policy. In fact,

teachers were found to misunderstand or reject policy interpretations that did not align with their

identity. In a similar study designed to investigate how teachers viewed content, learning,

teaching, and assessment in three diverse South African educational contexts, Blignaut (2008)

discovered that teachers adapt curriculum policy based on their prior beliefs and knowledge

about teaching and learning. In this instance, teacher identity once again proved to be a key

component of how teachers make sense and give meaning.

In relation to the current study, teachers used their existing identities to process, sort, edit,

and adapt new information until it aligned with their worldviews, beliefs, and prior experiences.

For instance, Amanda’s participation in the CUTE program and her whatever-it-takes attitude

provided the foundation for her teaching identity. Amanda’s teaching identity encouraged her to

120

approach job-embedded learning with an open mind, seek out new resources, and take

instructional risks. Additionally, Leslie’s ability to identify and address her strengths and

weaknesses helped her filter and apply new information as she progressed in her career.

Essentially, the teachers’ identities influenced how they approached and processed job-

embedded learning experiences; specifically, which learning experiences they participated in,

what they found meaningful in the experiences, and what they took back to try in the classroom.

The notion of teaching identity is particularly important for administrators as they hire

new teachers and design professional development for their faculty. First, teacher identity is

often not considered during design or delivery of job-embedded learning experiences. However,

doing so could elevate the interest, acceptance, and implementation of new knowledge and skills

into practice, especially when the topic or concept might not initially resonate with a teacher.

Furthermore, maintaining attention to teacher identity may better personalize the learning

experience as well as increase the likelihood that the learning experience will be considered

valuable and meaningful to the teacher. Future research should focus on understanding teacher

identities within the context of professional learning and growth.

Policymakers may also find teacher identity important as they draft new legislation and

exert political expectations for teacher professional development. At present, teachers are

considered as learning units, rather than as individuals. Policymakers should consider the

benefits of endorsing professional development that aligns with the unique worldviews, beliefs,

and understandings of teachers. Moreover, policy should be revised to reflect the learning needs

of the individual teacher while continuing to consider the features of effective professional

development highlighted in the literature—content focus, active learning, coherence, duration,

and collective participation (e.g., Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Desimone, 2011; Garet et al.,

121

2001; Guskey & Yoon, 2009; Wayne et al., 2008; Wei, Darling-Hammond, & Adamson, 2010).

Overall, teachers need legislation and political expectations that aspire to enhance and build on

their existing teaching identities rather than policy that focuses on creating a common, unified

vision of professional development.

Motivation

One of the major findings of this research study focused on how teachers’ motivation

influenced their sensemaking of job-embedded learning experiences. First, teachers’ motivation

to learn new knowledge and skills coincided with their desire to improve. For example, Amanda

stated, “I do at lot of reading to help me improve my teaching. I’m always trying to keep it

fresh.” Similarly, Emily recalled, “I love using technology in the classroom, so I’m always

looking for new websites to pull resources from or finding apps and interactive links for my

students to use.” Amanda and Emily were motivated to make sense and give meaning to their

learning experiences as they expressed a passion for teaching, an inclination towards self-

improvement, and a desire for their students to learn and succeed. They initiated learning on their

own by seeking resources and support.

Additionally, teachers revealed motivations to construct understandings of their learning

experiences as they sought to respond to others’ perceptions of a need to improve their teaching

practice, avoid social stigma, or adhere to an obligation or requirement. For example, Sarah

sought support from the academic coach after receiving a lower evaluation score. She recalled, “I

asked the academic coach to find me some ideas for differentiation since I received the Level II

on my evaluation in that area. She gave me some strategies and information on how to

differentiate my instruction.” In another instance, Sarah recalled her prior learning experience

with Literacy Collaborative as one in which she had no motivation to participate, but did so out

122

of obligation. She shared that the learning experience did not align with her interests and

motivations, however the content and delivery of the experience allowed her to find meaning and

value. Sarah’s learning experiences underscored that while job-embedded learning experiences

may adhere to the features of effective professional development and adult learning, a teacher’s

interest in the content, regardless of its relevance and application, often drives her expectations

and sensemaking experience. Overall, teachers’ unique identities and their motivations

significantly influenced the job-embedded learning experiences teachers engaged in, how

teachers made sense and gave meaning to those learning experiences, and the overall

effectiveness of the learning experience.

No related research on sensemaking and teacher motivation was found; however,

numerous researchers have discussed motivation in adult learning within the context of job-

embedded learning. Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (2011), King and Newmann (2000),

Wood and McQuarrie (1999), and Zepeda (2011b) agreed that job-embedded learning is most

effective when it adheres to adult learning principles. These scholars noted that adults are unique,

self-directed learners who are motivated to learn when the content and focus of a learning

experience is related to tasks or problems that occur in their daily lives. This is a significant

finding for administrators since it underscores the importance of designing and implementing

job-embedded learning experiences that are coherent and relevant to the needs and interests of

teachers. Furthermore, learning experiences should mutually consider the identities and

motivations of teachers to help ensure teacher sensemaking and learning is most effective,

especially since the data revealed teachers tended to make sense and give meaning to experiences

aligned with their perspectives and expectations.

123

Reflection

Findings indicate that reflection was integral to the process of how teachers constructed

understandings of their job-embedded learning experiences. Most noteworthy, the process of

reflection assisted teachers in negotiating and melding old and new learning experiences. For

example, Leslie described how she made the decision to include and adapt a foldable in her

social studies classroom after visiting Sarah’s class. Leslie’s informal learning experience

chronicled how she visited another teacher’s classroom, learned of a new idea, and reflected to

figure out how to make the strategy work for her class.

Finally, Madison used reflection to help solve another teacher’s problem. In particular, a

teacher at Madison’s school was experiencing difficulties with instructing students how to edit

their writing. So, during a content area meeting, Madison shared the Go Green writing strategy

as a way to support and encourage the teacher as she worked to find a strategy for helping her

students. In fact, many of the job-embedded learning experiences described by the teachers in

this study detail how reflection is a major component of collaborative meetings.

In summary, teachers engaged in the process of reflection to make sense and give

meaning to their job-embedded learning experiences, such as negotiating how to implement a

new teaching strategy, recalling how one taught a topic or concept in the past and brainstorming

ways to improve it, or thinking of ways to solve a problem. The process of reflection not only

challenged the teachers to consider and share their current and past teaching practice, but also to

make plans for revising and improving what and how they teach individually and with others.

Mitchell (2014) highlighted the importance of retrospection, or reflection, to the

sensemaking process when she concluded, “Individuals reflect on their experiences to reconsider

their thoughts on and action towards [experiences]. This process allows individuals to evaluate

124

their views and (re)align their actions to be consistent with their beliefs” (p. 4). Reflection

bridges one’s identity and current learning experience to allow teachers to negotiate and

construct understandings of new knowledge and skills and transfer those understandings into

practice.

Similarly, in their case study of how one teacher, Liz, made sense of her professional

development, Rosebery and Puttick (1998) discovered that as the teacher became more

comfortable reflecting and asking herself clarifying questions about what she was learning, it

became easier for her to transfer her new knowledge and skills into practice. Reflection was

critical to helping the teacher negotiate and meld old and new understandings. Colestock and

Sherin (2009) identified strategies that teachers use as they negotiate and meld old and new

understandings, including comparison, generalization, perspective taking, reflective thinking,

and problem solving.

Teacher reflection aligned with the key features of job-embedded learning. First and

foremost, research has shown that job-embedded learning— regardless of whether it is formal,

informal, or incidental—enhances teacher reflection (Coggshall et al., 2012; Croft et al., 2010;

Lenski & Caskey, 2009; Wood & McQuarrie, 1999; Zepeda, 2011b) and subsequently improves

the ability of teachers to transfer and apply new knowledge and skills into their practice

(Coggshall et al., 2012; Sparks & Hirsh, 1997; Zepeda, 2000; Zepeda, 2006). In relation to the

current study, teachers’ use of reflection as a means of sensemaking is apparent as they recalled

prior knowledge and experiences to adapt and apply new knowledge and skills. Specifically,

Leslie, Amanda, and Madison recalled strategies and information learned from classroom visits

and workshops to plan and implement modified versions of what they learned.

125

Administrators need to account for reflection as a component of sensemaking when they

design and implement job-embedded learning activities. Specifically, ongoing and meaningful

opportunities for reflection should be built into the school day rather than reserved only for

formal learning activities. For instance, designating time for oral or written reflection as a normal

part of collaborative meetings, lesson plans, and evaluative conferences is a simple way to

initiate and challenge teachers to think about their past, current, and future teaching practice.

Additionally, reflection can provide ideas and support for teachers wanting or needing a new

instructional strategy.

Collaboration

The data indicated that teachers at North Willow Middle School were in a constant state

of learning, both informally and formally. Informally, teachers engaged in conversations and

interactions with colleagues as they checked in and discussed lessons and student progress

throughout the school day or developed new ideas and resources after an impromptu visit to a

colleague’s classroom. Findings also revealed that teachers informally collaborated with peers

from around the country and world via online learning communities for the purposes of

improvement and support. Formally, teachers collaborated during planned content and team

meetings, book studies, and academic coaching sessions.

Regardless of whether the collaboration was informal or formal, teachers agreed that

collaboration not only influenced how they made sense of what they learned during the school

day, but also improved their overall understanding. For instance, Emily described how she

informally collaborated with other teachers throughout the country via the website Edmodo. In a

learning log, she described how she used Edmodo and Skype to collaborate with other teachers

across the country. Using these websites, she was able to find several resources for teaching a

126

novel and given the opportunity to establish an interactive blog between her class and another

middle school classroom in North Carolina. Emily enjoyed the interactive and flexible format of

online learning communities. She was able to make sense and give meaning to new, relevant

information while collaborating, sharing, and refining her teaching practice with others.

In another example, Sarah elaborated on how she used formal collaboration to increase

her knowledge and skills of a new content area. She recalled, “I could not survive without other

teachers to work with and to plan with—especially this year since I’m teaching a new grade level

and subject.” She continued, “It’s just nice to have their support and experience as I try

something new and unfamiliar.” Sarah was able to negotiate and construct new knowledge

during content meetings as colleagues offered ideas, resources, and support. In other words,

collaboration helped teachers refine their teaching practice, provided them with the support

necessary for implementation, and offered them an outlet for discussing successes and failures.

In the related literature, collaboration has been found to be a significant factor in

determining how teachers make sense and give meaning to learning experiences that occur

during the school day. Collaboration not only exposed teachers to multiple perspectives, but

interactions with others encouraged teachers to challenge their identities and reflect on their

teaching practice as they implement new knowledge and skills (Mitchell, 2014; Quinn, 2009).

In her in-depth case study on reading policy, Coburn (2001) found that to whom teachers

talked, the depth of their conversations, and how leadership structured those collaborations

influenced how teachers made sense of reading policy. In a follow-up study, Coburn (2005)

concluded that the sensemaking of principals, or the person who delivers the reading policy

information, directly influenced how teachers made sense of the policy. Connecting with teacher

127

identity, the principal’s worldview, beliefs, and experiences determined the delivery of the

policy, including what was emphasized or omitted.

Collaboration and active participation are both key features of effective professional

development and job-embedded learning (Birman et al., 2000; Darling-Hammond et al., 2009;

Desimone, 2011; Garet et al., 2001; Islas, 2010; Wei et al., 2010; Zepeda, 2014). Teachers

should be provided ample time and consistent opportunities to collaborate with their colleagues

during the school day. Islas (2010) noted that collaboration should focus “on understanding what

and how students are learning and on how to address students’ learning needs, including

reviewing student work and achievement data and collaboratively planning, testing, and

adjusting instructional strategies, formative assessments, and materials based on such data” (p.

12). Finally, teachers who participate in collaborative job-embedded learning experiences, such

as collaborative planning, have reported improved classroom practice, a better understanding of

their content and instructional knowledge, more opportunities for feedback and support, and

increased teacher empowerment (Borko, 2004; Levine & Marcus, 2010; Mawhinney, 2009;

Strahan and Hedt, 2009).

Similarly, teachers used collaboration, formally and informally, to make sense and give

meaning to their job-embedded learning experiences. In fact, teachers used alternative avenues

for engaging in dialogue, such as digital learning communities, in addition to more traditional

forms of collaboration, such as collaborative planning. No matter the avenue, teacher

collaboration tended to focus on improving both teacher and student learning.

This study is important for administrators since the findings highlight the unique and

varied ways teachers use collaboration to make sense and give meaning to job-embedded

learning experiences. For instance, teachers collaborate informally—via online learning

128

communities and impromptu hallway chats— and formally—via content and grade level

meetings. Formally, administrators should provide structured time during the school day for

teacher collaboration. Teachers need face-to-face interaction with colleagues familiar with their

teaching context to receive the most specific feedback and support. Informally, administrators

should encourage teachers to take advantage of online learning communities since such

communities can provide a wealth of resources, ideas, and feedback in a timely and efficient

manner. Nonetheless, administrators should remain cautious about relying solely on digital forms

of professional development as teachers tend to make the most meaning out of learning

experiences that challenge them to negotiate and co-construct new knowledge and skills.

Application

Findings indicated the transferability of job-embedded learning experiences influenced

teacher sensemaking and their ability to apply new knowledge and skills into practice. For

example, Amanda transferred and applied knowledge from a book she read to her classroom. She

wrote in a learning log entry, “There was a lot of good information [in the book], especially on

how to motivate young writers, and keep them motivated, even when the task seems

overwhelming. I found a lot of ideas to use.” Amanda’s experience did not represent the group

norms as most study participants required practice and feedback to successfully make sense and

give meaning to a job-embedded learning experience.

In relation, Sarah explained, “I don’t like meetings where we sit and listen…seeing and

doing it myself is how I learn so I need chances to try things in my classroom with actual kids.”

Madison shared the sentiment, “If I have to learn something with technology and it was expected

that I implement it, I would need someone to work with me one-on-one in my classroom;

otherwise, it probably won’t happen.” These teachers did not like learning experiences in which

129

they were not given the opportunity to apply and practice new knowledge and skills. They

needed ongoing support and feedback throughout the learning process and application phase.

Overall, teachers preferred learning experiences that were self-initiated or directly related

to their current teaching situation or goals, such as content area planning and peer coaching.

Teachers expressed that they had fewer opportunities for classroom transfer and application

when learning experiences were required and/or only somewhat related to their professional

goals, expectations, and aspirations. Nonetheless, most teachers attempted to remain

opportunistic and find something of value to take back to their classrooms. Finally, teachers

asserted the importance of ongoing support and feedback as they implemented new ideas and

strategies into their classrooms.

In their study on how reading coaches mediate reading policy and teachers’ classroom

practice, Coburn and Woulfin (2012) found that teachers were more likely to alter their

classroom practice when coaches, rather than administrators, delivered policy messages. The

researchers attributed this to the coaches’ familiarity with the classroom context and ability to

persuade reluctant teachers. Furthermore, coaches were able to provide more ongoing support

and feedback to teachers. Ongoing support and feedback has been shown to enhance overall

sensemaking and gives teachers the confidence to take action (Mitchell, 2014).

Cohen and Hill (2001), Mizell (2010), and Penuel et al. (2007) also determined that

teachers were more successful in implementing new knowledge and skills when teachers were

given opportunities to practice through job-embedded learning experiences connected to their

daily work. Further, other scholars have found that job-embedded learning experiences should be

ongoing, focused, embedded in context, and connected to what teachers want and need

(Coggshall et al., 2012; Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Sparks & Hirsh, 1997; Zepeda, 2000;

130

Zepeda, 2005). Given the research on the transfer of new knowledge and skills into practice and

the findings of this study, administrators should consider ways to increase opportunities for

teachers to apply new knowledge and skills in practice. Teachers need time to learn and apply

new knowledge and skills to enable them to more seamlessly transfer their learning into practice.

Ongoing feedback and support over an extended period of time are required if teachers are to

reap the long-term benefits of their job-embedded learning experiences. Teachers make sense

and give meaning to experiences rather than isolated learning opportunities and without applying

newly acquired knowledge and skills in the context and culture of a classroom, the likelihood of

teacher learning and classroom success diminishes.

Implications

There are numerous implications for future research, administrators, and policymakers

given the findings of the current study. First, most research on effective professional

development and job-embedded learning has not critically examined the processes teachers use

to make sense and give meaning to their learning experiences while being engaged in the daily

work of a teacher. This study attempted to address this gap in the research and contribute to the

body of literature on job-embedded learning. Next, how teachers construct understandings of

their job-embedded learning experiences is significant to administrators and policymakers given

the importance of designing and implementing professional development activities that enhance

teacher and student learning. Further, teachers need and want job-embedded learning experiences

that are ongoing, relevant, coherent, collaborative, and active as they attempt to learn, navigate,

and apply new knowledge and skills into practice. Therefore, this discussion of implications will

include ideas for future research and suggestions for administrators and policymakers.

131

Since the context and conditions of North Willow Middle School were representative of a

high-performing middle school, future research should focus on replicating the study in a variety

of contexts, including schools with different demographics and student achievement records.

Implementing a similar study in a variety of contexts will help determine the influence of context

and culture on how teachers make sense and give meaning to their job-embedded learning

experiences and offer general patterns of strategies for and influences on teacher sensemaking.

Future research might also consider extending the duration of the study or designing a

multi-case study in which each school represents a case rather than each participant within a

single school representing one case. Changing the parameters of the study to multiple schools

would provide alternative perspectives on teacher sensemaking and account for different

professional development and administrator practices within each school. Future research might

consider the inclusion of additional shadowing hours since the perspectives gained from

shadowing proved to be valuable for understanding the varied forms job-embedded learning can

take in a school environment and how the interactions and relationships among teachers may

influence their sensemaking of new knowledge and skills.

Finally, future research should closely examine how teacher identities and motivation

influence how teachers make sense and give meaning to their job-embedded learning

experiences. The current study identified teacher identity and motivation as influential factors in

the sensemaking process, but more study is needed to determine how consideration of teacher

identities and motivations might impact the design and delivery of job-embedded learning so that

teacher sensemaking is enhanced.

Next, administrators may find value in the findings regarding how teachers construct

understandings of their job-embedded learning experiences since the role of administrators has

132

shifted to one of an instructional leader (Zepeda, 2011b). Administrators need to consider teacher

identity and motivation when designing and implementing job-embedded learning experiences.

Furthermore, administrators should think about how their own identities and motivations

influence the delivery and implementation of job-embedded learning experiences as several

teachers in the study commented on presenter influence. Overall, attending to teacher identity

and motivation may increase the likelihood that a given teacher will find a learning experience

meaningful and valuable, even if that experience challenged the teacher to reconsider her or his

prior notions.

Administrators might consider the use of personality, learning style, or motivational

surveys to learn more about the worldviews, beliefs, understandings, and interests of their faculty

prior to developing and implementing professional development. Learning more about the

background and experiences that have shaped teachers can lead to more personalized, and

differentiated, learning experiences. The current study found that teachers want and need job-

embedded learning experiences that reflect their wants and needs while adhering to the key

features of effective professional development.

The findings of this study also highlighted the importance of reflection, collaboration,

and application to the sensemaking process. Administrators should designate time for oral and

written reflection and feedback, provide ongoing and purposeful opportunities for collaboration

in a variety of formats, and strive to design learning experiences focused on applying new

knowledge and skills in practice rather than isolation. The findings of reflection, collaboration,

and application support the key features of effective professional development—content focus,

active learning, coherence, duration, and collective participation—and serve as reminders of how

the features of job-embedded learning—grounded in practice, daily reflection, promotes

133

collegiality, facilitates application and adaptation, and adheres to adult learning principles—help

teachers construct new knowledge and skills.

Policymakers can equally benefit from the findings related to how teachers construct

understanding of their job-embedded learning experiences. In particular, policymakers need to

consider teacher identity and motivation when drafting professional development expectations

and requirements. Teachers are individuals who bring a variety of experiences and backgrounds

to their school contexts; therefore, they should experience professional development specific to

their unique needs and wants. Specifically, policymakers should consider ways to include

descriptions and requirements of personalized and differentiated teacher learning into legislation.

Teacher learning needs to consider teachers’ identities, motivations, experiences, and needs

rather than collapsing them into a single, undefined unit.

Additionally, policymakers should specify the need for reflection, collaboration, and

application in legislation as well as establish criteria for ensuring its inclusion in professional

development. At present, the bulk of professional development legislation focuses on teacher and

school accountability rather than specifically addressing criteria for enhancing teacher quality

through job-embedded learning. For instance, the reauthorization of the Elementary and

Secondary Schools Act of 1965 (ESEA) as No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ([NCLB] U.S.

Congress, 2001) provided schools with a definition of professional development that underscored

the importance of providing ongoing, sustained, and intensive learning experiences for all school

personnel. However, the complexity of NCLB made it difficult to monitor professional

development activities with fidelity and emphasized student accountability over teacher quality

(Islas, 2010).

134

Similarly, A Blueprint for Reform (USDE, 2010) retained the focus on increasing student

achievement and ensuring quality teachers by advocating for professional development that is

ongoing, job-embedded, and aligned with student, teacher, and district needs within a high-stakes

environment. However, more attention needs to be devoted to establishing professional

development criteria that enhances teacher quality rather than relying on student achievement as

the only indicator of how well teachers are able to filter, adapt, and transfer new knowledge and

skills into practice. For instance, the Georgia Department of Education’s Teacher Assessment on

Performance Standards (TAPS, 2013) rubric devotes only one of 10 standards to addressing

professional learning and growth, professional ethics, and support for the school’s mission.

Redefining this standard into two standards, professionalism and professional learning, would be

more appropriate.

Concluding Thoughts

The purpose of this study was to examine how teachers constructed understandings of

their job-embedded learning experiences. Specifically, the primary goal was to explore how

middle school teachers made sense and gave meaning to their learning experiences that occurred

during the school day as they engaged in the work of being a teacher. After nine weeks of data

collection at a middle school in rural Northeast Georgia, the researcher found five influences that

impact teacher sensemaking, including identity, motivation, reflection, collaboration, and

application.

While each influence impacted teacher sensemaking independently, each influence also

often intertwined with and complemented another. Nonetheless, a teacher’s identity initiated

sensemaking as each teacher’s worldview, beliefs, and understandings encouraged self-

awareness and shaped the actions and interpretations of each learning experience. Teacher

135

motivation proved to be a significant finding as previous research had not identified it as a factor

in sensemaking. Teacher reflection focused on bridging old and new learning experiences using

teacher identity and motivation as a starting point. Collaboration was found to provide support

for new learning experiences and challenged teachers to examine how their conversations and

interactions influence their teaching practices and those of their colleagues. Finally, application

encouraged teachers to establish a purpose for learning and identify a course of action for

acquiring and applying new knowledge and skills in practice.

These findings, while limited, revealed how teachers constructed understandings of their

job-embedded learning experiences. In this study job-embedded learning was defined as any

informal or formal learning opportunity teachers engaged in during the school day. However

future research might consider a broader view of job-embedded learning as described by Zepeda

(2015) since it was difficult for research participants to limit their sensemaking to only

experiences that occurred during the work day. Considering this broader definition of job-

embedded learning could help address any gaps in the current study and offer additional

suggestions to administrators and policymakers beyond those given. Despite the potential for

future research and suggestions, the intentions of this study were achieved and contribute to the

body of literature on middle school professional development, job-embedded learning, and

sensemaking. In particular, this study supports the characteristics of effective middle schools, as

outlined by This We Believe: Keys to Educating Young Adolescents (NMSA, 2010) and Turning

Points 2000: Educating Adolescents in the 21st Century (Jackson & Davis, 2000), and the key

features and conditions of job-embedded learning (Zepeda, 2011b; 2015). Further, the findings

of this research pave the way for additional study of sensemaking as middle schools continue to

engage teachers in job-embedded learning through teaming and collaborative discourse.

136

REFERENCES

Akiba, M. (2012). Professional learning activities in context: A statewide survey of middle school mathematics teachers. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(14), 1-37. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/838.

Angelle, P. S. (2008). Communities of practice promote shared learning for organizational success. Middle School Journal, 39(5), 52-58.

Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in "Teaching and Teacher Education" over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 27(1), 10-20. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.007

Banilower, E. R., Heck, D. J., & Weiss, I. R. (2007). Can professional development make the vision of the standards a reality? The impact of the national science foundation's local systemic change through teacher enhancement initiative. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 375-395. doi:10.1002/tea.20145

Bernard, H. R., & Ryan, G. W. (2010). Analyzing qualitative data: Systematic approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Biancarosa, G., Bryk, A.S., & Dexter, E.R. (2010). Assessing the value-added effects of literacy collaborative professional development on student learning. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 7-34. doi:10.1086/653468

Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28.

Blignaut, S. (2008). Teachers’ sense-making and enactment of curriculum policy. Journal of Education, 43(1), 101-125.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15. doi:10.3102/0013189X033008003

Bush, G. H. W. (1991). America 2000: An education strategy: sourcebook. Washington, DC: Supt. Of Docs, U.S. G.P.O.

137

Butler, D. L., Lauscher, H. N., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B. (2004). Collaboration and self-regulation in teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(5), 435-455. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.04.003

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Caskey, M. M., & Carpenter, J. (2012). Organizational models for teacher learning. Middle School Journal, 43(5), 52-62.

Choo, C. W. (2006). The knowing organization: How organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers make sense of reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145-170. doi:10.3102/01623737023002145

Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476-509. doi:10.1177/0895904805276143

Coburn, C. E., & Woulfin, S. L. (2012). Reading coaches and the relationship between policy and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 5-30. doi:10.1002/RRQ.008

Coggshall, J. G., Rasmussen, C., Colton, A., Milton, J., & Jacques, C. (2012). Generating teaching effectiveness: The role of job-embedded professional learning in teacher evaluation. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.tqsource.org/publications/GeneratingTeachingEffectiveness.pdf.

Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Colestock, A., & Sherin, M. G. (2009). Teachers’ sense-making strategies while watching video of mathematics instruction. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(1), 7-29.

Corbin, J. M., Strauss, A. L., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Croft, A., Coggshall, J. G., Dolan, M., & Powers, E. (2010). Job-embedded professional development: What it is, who is responsible, and how to get it done well. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.tqsource.org/publications/JEPD%20Issue%20Brief.pdf.

138

Dalellew, T., & Martinez, Y. (1988). Andragogy and development: A search for the meaning of staff development. Journal of Staff Development, 9(3), 28-31.

Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (2011). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 81-92. (Reprinted from Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-604.)

Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learning: What matters? Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46-53.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the united states and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council. Retrieved from http://www.srnleads.org/resources/publications/pdf/nsdc_profdev_tech_report.pdf.

Denzin, N. K. (2002). The interpretative process. In A. M. Huberman and M. B. Miles (Eds), The qualitative researcher’s companion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199. doi:10.3102/0013189X08331140

Desimone, L. M. (2011). A primer on effective professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 68-71.

Dickinson, T. S., Butler, D. A., & Pittard, W. M. (2003). Professional development and the middle level school: Tangled threads. In P.G. Andrews & V. A. Anfara (Eds.), Leaders for a movement: Professional preparation and development of middle level teachers and administrators (pp. 99-122). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Pub.

DuFour, R. (2004). Leading edge: The best staff development is in the workplace, not in a workshop. Journal of Staff Development, 25(2).

Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Building theories from case study research. In A. M. Huberman and M. B. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative researcher’s companion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.

Fenwick, T. J. (2004). Teacher learning and professional growth plans: Implementation of a provincial policy. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 19(3), 259-282.

Fountas, I. and Pinnell, G. S. (2014). Literacy collaborative: Research and outcomes. Retrieved from www.literacycollaboartive.org/research.

139

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Kwang, S. Y. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945. doi:10.3102/00028312038004915

Georgia Department of Education. (2014). TAPS performance standards and rubrics. Retrieved from http://www.gadoe.org/School-Improvement/Teacher-and-Leader-Effectiveness/Documents/FY15%20TKES%20and%20LKES%20Documents/A_TAPS%20Standard%20Rubrics%20C2.pdf.

Ginsberg, M. B., & Wlodkowski, R. J. (2010). Access and participation. In C. E. Kasworm, A. D. Rose, & J. M. Ross Gordon (Eds), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 25-34). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Piscataway, NJ: AldineTransaction.

Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2009). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Glynn, M. S. (1997, August). Research methods to support sensemaking in information systems development: A conceptual method for bridging thought and action. Paper presented at The Americas Conference on Information Systems, Indianapolis, IN.

Graham, P. (2007). Improving teacher effectiveness through structured collaboration: A case study of a professional learning community. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 31(1), 1-17.

Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 748-50.

Guskey, T. R. (2009). Closing the knowledge gap on effective professional development. Educational Horizons, 87(4), 224-233.

Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development? Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 495-500.

Hansman, C. A., & Mott, V. W. (2010). Adult learners. In C. E. Kasworm, A. D. Rose, & J. M. Ross Gordon (Eds), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 13-23). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127-150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

140

Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371-406.

Hirsh, S. (2004). A new vision for professional learning. In S. C. Thompson (Ed.), Middle level

education: Considerations for policymakers (pp. 205-229). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Hirsh, S. (2009). A new definition. Journal of Staff Development, 30(4), 10-14.

Horn, I. S. (2005). Learning on the job: A situated account of teacher learning in high school mathematics departments. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 207-236. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2302_2

Islas, M. R. (2010). The federal policy landscape: A look at how legislation affects professional development. Journal of Staff Development, 31(6), 10-12.

Jaafar, S. B., & Earl, L. (2008). Comparing performance-based accountability models: A Canadian example. Canadian Journal of Education, 31(3), 697-726.

Jackson, A., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st Century. New York: Teachers College Press.

Jaquith, A., Mindich, D., & Wei, R. C. (2010). Pockets of excellence: Study explores how policy affects professional learning in 4 high-performing states. Journal of Staff Development, 31(5), 52-57.

Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2000). Examining the institutional transformation process: The importance of sensemaking and inter-related strategies (Reports-Evaluative No. EDD446 720). Washington DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.

King, B. M., & Newmann, F. M. (2000). Will teacher learning advance school goals? Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 576-80.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Le Clus, M. (2011). Informal learning in the workplace: A review of the literature. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 51(2), 355-373.

Learning Forward (2011). Standards for professional learning. Oxford, OH: Author.

Lee, G. V. (1991). Instructional leadership as collaborative sense-making. Theory into Practice, 30(2), 83-90. doi:10.1080/00405849109543482

141

Leithwood K., & Earl, L. (2000). Educational accountability effects: An international perspective. Peabody Journal of Education, 75(4), 1-18. doi:10.1207/S15327930PJE7504_1

Lenski, S. J., & Caskey, M. M. (2009). Using the lesson study approach to plan for student learning. Middle School Journal, 40(3), 50-57.

Levine, T. H., & Marcus, A. S. (2010). How the structure and focus of teachers' collaborative activities facilitate and constrain teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 26(3), 389-398. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.001

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2001). Informal and incidental learning. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, (89), 25. doi:10.1002/ace.5

Marsick, V. J., Watkins, K. E., Callahan, M. W., & Volpe, M. (2006). Reviewing theory and research on informal and incidental learning. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/PDFS/ED492754.pdf.

Marsick, V. J., and Volpe, M. (1999). The nature of and need for informal learning. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 1(3), 1-9. doi:10.1177/152342239900100302

Marz, V., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Sense-making and structure in teachers’ reception of

educational reform: A case study on statistics in the math curriculum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 13-24. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.004

Mawhinney, L. (2010). Let's lunch and learn: Professional knowledge sharing in teachers' lounges and other congregational spaces. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 26(4), 972-978. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.039

Maxwell, J. A. (2009). Designing a qualitative study. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of applied social research methods (2nd ed., pp. 214-253). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

McDonald, S. (2005). Studying actions in context: a qualitative shadowing method for organization research. Qualitative Research, 5(4), 455-473. doi: 10.1177/1468794105056923

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B., & Brockett R. G. (2007). The profession and practice of adult education: An introduction. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

142

Mindich, D., & Lieberman, A. (2012). Building a learning community: A tale of two schools. Standford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Retrieved from http://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/building-learning-community-tale-two-schools.pdf.

Mitchell, T. D. (2014). How service-learning enacts social justice sensemaking. Journal of Critical Thought and Praxis, 2(2), 4.

Mizell, H. (2010). Why professional development matters. Oxford, OH: Learning Forward. Retrieved from http://learningforward.org/docs/pdf/why_pd_matters_web.pdf?sfvrsn=0.

Mizell, H., Hord, S., Killion, J., & Hirsh, S. (2011). New standards put the spotlight on professional learning. Journal of Staff Development, 32(4), 10-12.

Murphy, C. U., & Lick, D. W. (2005). Whole-faculty study groups: Creating professional learning communities that target student learning (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1985). A call for change in teacher education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Institute for Excellence in Teaching. (2012). Beyond "job-embedded": Ensuring that good professional development gets results. Santa Monica, CA: National Institute for Excellence in Teaching. Retrieved from http://www.niet.org/assets/PDFs/beyond_job_embedded_professional_development.pdf.

National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, Ohio: National Middle School Association.

National Professional Development Center on Inclusion. (2008). What do we mean by professional development in the early childhood field? Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute: Author.

National Staff Development Council. (1995). NSDC’s standards for professional development.

National Staff Development Council. (2001). NSDC’s standards for professional development.

National Staff Development Council. (2009). NSDC’s definition of professional development. Retrieved from http://www.aypf.org/documents/62609NSDCDefinitionofProfessionalDevelopment908.pdf.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/asst.html

143

O. C. G. A. 20-2-290 (2010). Retrieved from http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-20/chapter-2/article-6/part-13/20-2-290/.

Pate, P. E., & Thompson, K. F. (2003). Effective professional development: What is it? In P.G. Andrews & V. A. Anfara (Eds.), Leaders for a movement: Professional preparation and development of middle level teachers and administrators (pp. 123-143). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Pub.

Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958. doi:10.3102/0002831207308221

Quinlan, E. (2008). Conspicuous invisibility: Shadowing as a data collection strategy. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(3), 1480-1499. doi: 10.1177/1077800408318318

Quinn, J. R. (2009). Teacher sense-making and policy implementation: A qualitative case study of a school district’s reading initiative in science. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park.

Redding, J. C., & Kamm, R. M. (1999). Just-in-time staff development: One step to the learning organization. NASSP Bulletin, 83(604), 28-31. doi:10.1177/019263659908360405

Richardson, J. T. (Ed.). (1996). Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and the social sciences. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.

Rosebery, A. S., & Puttick, G. M. (1998). Teacher professional development as situated sense-making: A case study in science education. Science Education, 82(6), 649-677. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199811)82:6<649::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-H

Saunders, W.M., Goldenberg, C.N., & Gallimore, R. (2009). Increasing achievement by focusing grade-level teams on improving classroom learning: A prospective, quasi-experimental study of Title I schools. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 1006–1033. doi:10.3102/0002831209333185

Schmidt, M., & Datnow, A. (2005). Teachers’ sense-making about comprehensive school

reform: The influence of emotions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 949-965. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.006

Schwandt, T. A. (2007). The SAGE dictionary of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Simons, H. (2009). Case study research in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Sleegers, P., Wassink, H., van Veen, K., & Imants, J. (2009). School leaders’ problem framing: A sense-making approach to problem-solving processes of beginning school leaders. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8, 152-172. doi:10.1080/15700760902737162

144

Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (1997). A new vision for staff development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research: Perspectives on practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Strahan, D., & Hedt, M. (2009). Teaching and teaming more responsively: Case studies in professional growth at the middle level. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 32(8), 1-14.

Supovitz, J., & Turner, H. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963–980. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<963::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-0

The Teaching Commission. (2004). Teaching at risk: A call to Action. New York: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ctl.vcu.edu/images/documents/TeachingAtRisk.pdf.

U.S. Congress. (1994a). Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Pub L. No. 103-227. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/intro.html.

U.S. Congress. (1994b). Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994. Pub. L. No. 103-382. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA/toc.html.

U.S. Congress. (1998). 1998 Amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 105-244. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea98/index.html.

U.S. Congress. (2001). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf.

U.S. Congress. (2009). American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/recovery-plans-2010.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education (2008). A nation accountable: Twenty-five years after a nation at risk. Washington, DC: Education Publications Center. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/accountable/accountable.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education (2010). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf.

145

Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 24(1), 80-91. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004

Wayne, A. J., Yoon, K. S., Zhu, P., Cronen, S., & Garet, M. S. (2008). Experimenting with teacher professional development: Motives and methods. Educational Researcher, 37(8), 469-479. doi:10.3102/0013189X08327154

Webb, Norman L. (2009). Depth of Knowledge Guide: Career and Technical Education Definitions. http://www.mde.k12.ms.us

Weber, K., & Glynn, M. A. (2006). Making sense with institutions: Context, thought and action in Karl Weick’s theory. Organization Studies, 27(11), 1639-1660. doi: 10.1177/0170840606068343

Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., & Adamson, F. (2010). Professional development in the United States: Trends and challenges. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Weick, K. E. (2012). Organized sensemaking: A commentary on processes of interpretive work. Human Relations, 65(1), 141-154. doi:10.1177/0018726711424235

Weick, K. E., Sutcliff, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organizational Science, 16(4), 409-421. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0133

Willis, J. S. & Sandholtz, J. H. (2009). Constrained professionalism: Dilemmas of teaching in the face of test-based accountability. Teachers College Record, 111(4), 1065-1114.

Wynne, S. C. (2010). Job-embedded learning: How teachers learn from one another during the

workday. (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

Wood, F. H., & Killion, J. E. (1998). Job-embedded learning makes he difference in school improvement. Journal of Staff Development, 19(2), 52-54.

Wood, F. H., & McQuarrie, F., Jr. (1999). On-the-job learning. Journal of Staff Development, 20(3), 10-13.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

146

Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007-No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.

Zepeda, S. J. (1999). Staff development: Practices that promote leadership in learning communities. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. 165 pp. (Eighth Printing: January, 2006).

Zepeda, S. J. (2000). Supervisory practices: Building a constructivist learning community for

adults. In J. Glanz & L. Horenstein (Eds.), Paradigm debates in curriculum and supervision: Modern and postmodern perspectives (pp. 93-107). New York, NY: Greenwood.

Zepeda, S. J. (2006). High stakes supervision: We must do more. The International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9(1), 61-73. doi:10.1080/13603120500448154

Zepeda, S. J. (2011a). Job-embedded learning: A powerful, practical, and cost-effective form of professional development. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Retrieved from http://eyeoneducation.com/bookstore/client/client_pages/pdfs/Zepeda_Job_Embedded_Learning.pdf.

Zepeda, S. J. (2011b). Professional development: What works (2nd ed.). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Zepeda, S. J. (2011c). Instructional supervision, coherence, and job-embedded learning. In T. Townsend & J. MacBeath (Eds.), International Handbook on Leadership for Learning. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.

Zepeda, S. J. (2012). Instructional supervision: Applying tools and concepts (3rd ed.).

Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Zepeda, S. J, (2015). Job-embedded professional development: Support, collaboration, and

learning in schools. New York: Routledge.

147

APPENDIX A

RECRUITMENT FOLLOW-UP EMAIL

148

Dear XXXXX Teacher: Hello! I am a doctoral student at the University of Georgia seeking 4-10 middle school teachers to participate in a research study beginning this fall on teacher learning during the school day. Specifically, I am interested in learning how you make sense and give meaning to your job-embedded learning experiences as you engage in the work of being a teacher. For this study, I’m defining job-embedded learning experiences as any formal or informal learning opportunity that is grounded within the context of the school day such as faculty meetings, team meetings, book studies, workshops, hallway chats, etc. As a participant, you would be shadowed for one school day or the equivalent of eight hours, participate in an initial interview, keep a brief teacher-learning log for one nine-week period, and dedicate 15-30 minutes each week to communicate with me via email or phone about your teacher-learning log. The total duration of this study is expected to be one nine-week period or approximately 23 hours of commitment per participant beginning in August. Participation is voluntary and participants will be compensated with a gift card. Specifically, you may earn up to $65 for your participation. Should you withdraw from the study early, you will receive compensation based on the research activities you have completed. If you have any questions or would like to participate in this study, please let me know by responding to this email or calling 706-XXX-XXXX. Thank you for your consideration! Sincerely, Brandi Worsham University of Georgia Doctoral Candidate, Middle Grades Education

149

APPENDIX B

PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM

150

UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA CONSENT FORM

How Middle School Teachers Construct Understandings of Their Job-Embedded Learning Experiences

Researchers’ Statement: We are asking you to take part in a research study. Before you decide to participate in this study, it is important that you understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. This form is designed to give you the information about the study so you can decide whether to be in the study or not. Please take the time to read the following information carefully. Please ask the researcher if there is anything that is not clear or if you need more information. When all your questions have been answered, you can decide if you want to be in the study or not. This process is called “informed consent.” A copy of this form will be given to you. Principal Investigator: Dr. Gayle Andrews

Department of Educational Theory and Practice Co-Principal Investigator: Brandi Worsham Graduate Student Purpose of the Study: The purpose of this qualitative study is to examine how middle school teachers construct understandings of their job-embedded learning experiences. In particular, the aim of this study will be to explore how middle school teachers make sense and give meaning to their learning experiences that occur during the school day as they engage in the work of being a teacher. The guiding research question for this study is how do middle school teachers construct understandings of their job-embedded learning experiences? For the purpose of this study, job-embedded learning experiences refer to any formal or informal learning opportunity that is grounded in the context of the school day. You are being asked to participate in this study because you are a middle school teacher who engages in job-embedded learning experiences. Study Procedures: If you agree to participate, you will • Allow the researcher to shadow you for one school day or the equivalent of eight hours. • Engage in an initial one-hour interview focused on your educational background,

teaching/learning experiences and approaches, and prior professional learning experiences. The interview will be recorded using an audio digital recorder.

• Record your job-embedded learning experiences in a teacher-learning log for one nine-week period. The amount of time you dedicate to writing in your learning log may vary from one participant to another, but the researcher anticipates you will need approximately 30 minutes to one hour weekly to write about your job-embedded learning experiences.

• Dedicate approximately 15-30 minutes per week during the same nine-week period responding to the researcher’s follow-up emails or informal phone interviews regarding what you wrote about in your teacher-learning log.

Given the study design, the researcher anticipates you will spend approximately 23 hours engaged in the research project.

151

Risks and discomforts: There are no associated risks with this research project as teachers are engaged in activities that represent a normal part of their school day. To minimize psychological and social discomfort, participants will be given pseudonyms and any identifying school information removed. Benefits: There are no direct benefits to the participant if he/she chooses to participate in the study. However, the participant may gain more awareness of how he/she learns on the job. This study will entail benefits to society and humankind including, for example, (1) understanding teachers’ sensemaking processes may help policymakers and administrators overcome challenges related to teacher learning during the school day and (2) understanding how teachers construct knowledge will extend the current literature in the field as scholars need to know more about how alternative, job-embedded forms of professional learning influence teachers and students. Incentives for participation: Participants will be compensated for their participation in the research study. Participants can earn up to $65. If a participant withdraws from the study early, he/she will receive prorated compensation; specifically: • $10 after allowing the researcher to shadow them for one school day or the equivalent of

eight hours, • $10 after completing the initial one-hour interview, and • $5 for each week the participant submits a teacher-learning log and follows up with the

researcher via phone or email. Audio/Video Recording: Interviews will be digitally audio recorded. Only the researcher will have access to identifying information and all digitally recorded interviews will be erased at the conclusion of the research. Transcriptions of interviews will be archived for future reference, but will contain no identifying information. Privacy/Confidentiality: No individually identifiable information about you, or provided by you during the research, will be shared with others without your permission. In fact, all identifiers will be converted to pseudonyms to protect confidentially and for use in future publications. To further protect your privacy, the researcher will not release identifiable results of the study to anyone other than individuals working on the project without your written consent unless required by law. Taking part is voluntary: Your involvement in the study is voluntary, and you may choose not to participate or to stop at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. If you decide to withdraw from the study, the information that can be identified as yours will be kept as part of the study and may continue to be analyzed unless you make a written request to remove, return, or destroy the information. If you have questions, the main researcher conducting this study is Brandi Worsham, a graduate student at the University of Georgia. Please ask any questions you have now. If you have

152

questions later, you may contact Brandi Worsham at XXX-XXX-XXXX You may also contact Dr. Gayle Andrews, principal investigator, at XXX-XXX-XXXX. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a research participant in this study, you may contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) Chairperson at XXX-XXX-XXXX. Research Subject’s Consent to Participate in Research: To voluntarily agree to take part in this study, you must sign on the line below. Your signature below indicates that you have read or had read to you this entire consent form, and have had all of your questions answered. _________________________ _______________________ _________ Name of Researcher Signature Date _________________________ _______________________ __________ Name of Participant Signature Date

Please sign both copies, keep one and return one to the researcher.

153

APPENDIX C

JOB-EMBEDDED LEARNING INITIAL INTERVIEW GUIDE

154

Job-Embedded Learning Initial Interview Guide

Background Questions

1. Tell me about your educational background.

2. Tell me about your professional background.

3. Tell me about your school.

4. Tell me about your personal learning style and preferences.

5. Describe your teaching philosophy.

Research Questions

1. How do you define job-embedded learning?

2. Tell me what job-embedded learning looks like at your school.

2a. In which of these experiences do you participate? How often? Why?

3. Tell me about your best job-embedded learning experience.

3a. Why was this experience the best?

3b. Would you change anything about this experience?

4. Tell me what an ideal job-embedded learning experience looks like.

5. Tell me about your worst job-embedded learning experience.

5a. Why was this experience the worst?

5b. What would you change about this experience?

6. Tell me what a worse case scenario job-embedded learning experience looks like.

7. Is there anything else you want to share about how you learn during the school day?

155

APPENDIX D

TEACHER LEARNING LOG

156

Teacher Learning Log

158

APPENDIX E

SAMPLE FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW GUIDE / EMAIL EXCHANGE

159

Sample Follow-up Interview Guide / Email Exchange

1. You mentioned _________ in your teacher job-embedded learning log. Tell me more

about __________.

2. While observing you in ______________, I noticed ___________. Tell me more about

why you responded/acted in that way.

HOW MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHERS CONSTRUCT …

Documents

Transcript of HOW MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHERS CONSTRUCT …