teacher change. Teachers were asked to describe factors influencing how they engaged in reconstructing their teaching practices.
Part IV. Implementation supports. These questions were designed to elicit information about the types of supports teachers deemed necessary to be able to implement educational reform specifically, in the context of English Language Arts Common Core State Standards. Participants were asked to describe the challenges and/or barriers associated with implementing the ELA-CCSS, and the types of supports
received. Teachers were also asked to identify a support gap (if any), which if addressed, could help them do a more effective job in implementing educational reform.
Information gathered from the interviews was designed to (a) support or refute the data collected from the survey and (b) deepen the researcher’s understanding of the ways, if any, in which teacher perceptions on preparedness to implement the ELA-CCSS
influenced how teachers engaged in changing their instructional practices; and (c) to learn about ways to support teachers during educational reform implementation at the school- site level.
Data Collection Procedures
Data collection procedures for the study are described in this section. All data collected was used to answer the research questions in the most valid, ethical and succinct manner possible (Creswell, 2013; Stake, 1995). All kindergarten through sixth grade teachers, at three school sites undergoing implementation of the ELA-CCSS, employed by Alianza Union School District (pseudonym), were invited to participate in Phase 1 (survey) of the study. Principals at all three school sites in AUSD, on behalf of the researcher, informed teachers of the study and invited teachers to participate in the study by providing a link to the online survey (see Appendix A). The survey began with a Letter of Consent. Only those participants who indicated that they “agreed” to the
conditions outlined in the Letter of Consent, advanced to the survey. Those who indicated that they would like to “opt out,” automatically exited the survey.
At the end of the survey, participants were asked to provide their email addresses if they wished to be contacted for a follow-up interview, or they could contact researcher
via email or phone (Phase 2). No other individually identifying information was collected. Of the survey participants (n=59) whose responses indicate that they were willing to continue to Phase 2, seven participated in 1:1 interviews. The interviews were semi-structured using an initial protocol, but also relied on the researcher to prompt, probe, and clarify as needed (Creswell, 2013). There was an opportunity for the participants to ask questions of the researcher and learn more about the purposes and background of the study beyond what was initially shared. This reciprocity was a means of building trust and rapport (Stake, 1995). Interview respondents included two novice teachers, two mid-career teachers and two veteran teachers (n=7). Interviews each took no more than one hour. Interviewees had the option of conducting the interview over the phone, in-person, on-line, or via email. The interviews were recorded on a password protected audio recorder, then transcribed and stored in an on-line data storage, coding and analysis program. Interviewees were assigned codes based on the number of years of teaching and referred to simply as ‘teachers’ in the findings sections to protect their anonymity.
The survey and interview data provided a more balanced and holistic, description of teachers’ perceptions for this study. Information collected from the interviews helped to answer the study’s research questions by providing a narrative for how teachers described their preparedness perceptions to implement the ELA-CCSS, and how teachers’
perceptions on implementation affected teacher change in reconstructing instructional practices. Further, interview responses were used to determine ways to support teachers during implementation of educational reform at the school site level.
Organization of the Data Analysis
The data analysis for both quantitative and qualitative data was organized and aligned with the research questions (see Appendix E). The data analysis included a comparison of responses and addressed the perceptions of teachers regarding their preparedness to implement the ELA-CCSS and implementation supports.
In Chapter IV the quantitative data for each research question from the survey are presented first. They are followed by the qualitative data for each research question, which includes summary data from both the questions on the survey and the responses from the interview schedule.
The qualitative and quantitative data are then examined for similarities and
differences. Triangulation with the literature was also used to support similarities and differences between the quantitative and qualitative data in this study, and to the extent possible, with previous studies found in research literature. Isaac and Michael (1995) note: “the triangulation of measurement process is far more powerful evidence supporting the proposition than any single criterion approach.” They further state “there are serious risks in making recommendations based on a single criterion” (p.45).
Data Analysis Process
Quantitative data analysis. The demographic data from the survey, which included
participants’ gender, age, grade level being taught, number of years in teaching, degrees earned, and number of years implementing the ELA-CCSS, was analyzed and presented first. The frequency of responses for each demographic variable served to profile the teachers who participated in this study. Frequencies of responses were also used to
examine the remaining responses on the survey. All of the quantitative data was summarized and displayed in frequency tables, as applicable.
Qualitative data analysis. Qualitative analysis for this study included: organizing the
data, coding and identifying themes, representing the data and interpreting findings (Creswell, 2013). The process was based on a framework of initial themes from the literature review and was allowed to evolve throughout the process.
To organize the data, the researcher relied on the transcriptions and a matrix board to align data collected to research questions and initial themes. Once the matrix was
completed, data coding and theming initiated (Creswell, 2013). The transcription files were uploaded to an on-line program for storing, coding, theming and analyzing the data. The researcher also used charts and color-coding to support analysis and organizations.
Limitations
While this study illuminated understandings on teachers’ preparedness perceptions on implementing the ELA-CCSS and how these influenced teacher change on reconstructing instructional practices, the interpretations and transferability of the findings are limited to contexts with similar defining characteristics; the study was confined to the faculty of three school sites within a single district. Further, one significant limitation of this study was related to the sample size, which was comprised of a relatively small number of teachers (n=59). Hence, this limitation of the study must be considered when analyzing the findings.
An ultimate limitation in this study; however, was the role of the researcher as both researcher and administrator within the same district under, which the three study school
sites operated. Research was conducted at a site where the researcher was in her fourth year as an assistant principal at the time of the research implementation. The potential power dynamic involved posed a central limitation to this study, as this situation could have represented a potential bias to teachers’ perceptions about their preparedness to implement the ELA-CCSS and how such perceptions, influenced teacher change. In order to address this limitation, the researcher incorporated three components to the research: (1) triangulation of the data; (2) repeated interactions with the participants; and (3) involvement of participants in all phases of the study.
Summary
Chapter III described the methodology and provided a rationale for the study. The population and sample were described. Developments of the survey and interview guide, along with procedures for data analysis were also described. Finally, limitations of the study were discussed.
Chapter IV presents an analysis of the data and discussion of findings of the study. Chapter V presents key findings, conclusions, recommendations for action, and
Chapter IV: Data Analysis and Findings of the Study