Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Collaborative inquiry and distributed agencyin educational change: A case study of a multi-levelcommunity of inquiry
Deborah L. Butler • Leyton Schnellert •
Kimberley MacNeil
� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Abstract Teacher professional development has been identified as essential to edu-
cational reform. Moreover, research suggests the power of inquiry communities in
spurring teacher professional learning and shifts in classroom practice. However, not
enough is known about what conditions within a community of inquiry might be
necessary to inspire, support, sustain, and coordinate educators’ investment in systems-
level change. To fill this gap, this article reports findings from the last year of a
longitudinal case study of a school district seeking to advance adolescent literacy in
subject-area classrooms. We extended from prior findings to investigate whether and
how educators’ self-perceptions of efficacy and agency could be related to their
engagement in a district-level, inquiry-based initiative. Participants were 43 teachers
and school- and district-based leaders. Multiple forms of evidence (i.e., interviews,
artifacts, field-notes) were collected and coordinated within a case study design.
Findings suggested that the vast majority of participants experienced increases in
efficacy that could be associated with their engagement in collaborative inquiry, which
in turn had potential to fuel on-going change efforts. At the same time, leaders’ careful
attention to preserving teachers’ agency appeared to support their sustained investment
in continuous cycles of goal-directed practice improvement. Implications are discussed
for structuring professional development within systemic improvement initiatives.
D. L. Butler (&) � K. MacNeil
Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology and Special Education, Faculty of
Education, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Campus, 2125 Main Mall, Vancouver,
BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
e-mail: [email protected]
K. MacNeil
e-mail: [email protected]
L. Schnellert
Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus, EME 3157-3333
University Way, Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7, Canada
e-mail: [email protected]
123
J Educ Change
DOI 10.1007/s10833-014-9227-z
Keywords Agency � Efficacy � Collaborative inquiry � Professional
development � Educational change � Adolescent literacy
There is no denying that some attempts to lead educational improvement have
provoked heated disputes. Most contentious are approaches that assess students’
performance using large-scale, standardized tests and then mandate practices and
monitor improvement on that basis. Critiques of such top–down initiatives include
that they fail to recognize the knowledge and expertise of educators, underestimate
the importance of teachers’ adapting practices to meet local needs, and undermine
teachers’ morale and investment in innovation (Barnett 2004; Guskey 2002;
Robertson et al. 2004; Ryan and Brown 2005; Ryan and Weinstein 2009). This last
finding is particularly troubling, because across even the most heated debates, it is
now commonly accepted that change, improvement, and innovation all depend on
teachers’ taking up new practices at the classroom level (e.g., Hopkins and Levin
2000; Stein and Coburn 2008).
Alternative approaches position teachers’ professional development as central in
change efforts (e.g., Borko 2004; Horn and Little 2010; Loughran 2002; Luna et al.
2004; McLaughlin and Talbert 2006; Morrell 2004; Schnellert et al. 2008).
Promising are inquiry-based approaches, which have potential to impact not only
teachers’ learning but also their practice in classrooms (Schnellert 2011; Schnellert
et al. 2008). When engaged in a community of inquiry (Cochran-Smith and Lytle
2009; Horn and Little 2010; McLaughlin and Talbert 2006; Morrell 2004), teachers
identify student needs, pose a question, develop criteria for monitoring progress,
draw on resources to enhance their own learning and embed new powerful (e.g.,
evidence-based) ideas in practice (e.g., see Halbert and Kaser 2012). In contrast to
short-term, more fragmented approaches, such as one-shot workshops on the ‘‘hot
topic’’ of the day, inquiry-based professional development assists teachers in
sustaining attention to goals so as to make a meaningful difference in classrooms
(e.g., Loughran 2002; Luna et al. 2004; Morrell 2004; Schnellert 2011; Schnellert
et al. 2008). Research also suggests that teachers engaged in inquiry are more likely
to try new ideas, take risks, and persist through growing pains that inevitably
accompany innovation (e.g., Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999, 2009; Van Horn 2006).
Thus, emerging research suggests the value of engaging teachers in inquiry
within learning communities as a means of fostering educational change (Butler and
Schnellert 2012; Cochran-Smith and Lytle 2009; Horn and Little 2010; Lieberman
and Wood 2003, 2005; McLaughlin and Talbert 2006; Morrell 2004). However,
because research has often focused on small-scale initiatives, not enough is yet
known about how inquiry-oriented professional development might support
educational change at a systems-level (e.g., district-wide; across a province or
state). Also necessary is to identify conditions required for an inquiry-based
approach to successfully inspire and sustain engagement in improvement efforts. To
that end, this study examines whether and how the success of an inquiry-oriented
initiative might depend on participants’ self-perceptions of agency and efficacy (see
J Educ Change
123
also Campbell et al. 2004; Cochran-Smith and Lytle 2009; Shagoury Hubbard and
Power 2003).
Research associates self-perceptions of efficacy (Bandura 1993) with educators’
motivation, use of effective practices, and participation in innovations or reforms
(Collie et al. 2012; Irez 2007; Ross et al. 2001; Roth et al. 2007; Woolfolk-Hoy
et al. 2006). Thus, on one hand we sought to examine whether and how engagement
in inquiry processes might both depend on and support participants’ development of
self-perceptions of efficacy to make a difference (e.g., to support adolescent literacy
in classrooms). On the other hand, we also extended attention to how participants
perceived their own and others’ roles as change agents within an overall initiative.
Our goal was also to explore whether and how an inquiry-based change model
might avoid pitting top–down leadership against bottom–up innovation by
mobilizing expertise and distributing agency across stakeholders.
Collaborative inquiry and educational change
Teacher professional development is recognized as important in fostering educa-
tional change (e.g., Borko 2004; Darling-Hammond 1996, 2000; Timperley and
Phillips 2003; Zeichner and Noffke 2001). But key to consider is when and how
professional development might promote meaningful change at the classroom level.
For example, short-term approaches have been critiqued for failing to provide
sustained supports for teachers to take up ideas in practice (e.g., Butler et al. 2004).
Top–down approaches have been criticized (e.g., Ball and Cohen 1999; Borko and
Putnam 1998; Van Horn 2006), in part because they fail to recognize teachers’
pivotal role in adapting pedagogical principles for the complexity of classrooms
(Frost and Durrant 2002; Hopkins and Levin 2000). According to Frost and Durrant
(2002), ‘‘too often [teachers’] roles have been constructed as relatively passive ones
in which they are ‘trained’ to be able to implement a particular set of practices’’
(p. 144).
A promising alternative is to engage teachers in goal-directed inquiry into and
reflection on practice (e.g., Horn and Little 2010; Loughran 2002; Luna et al. 2004;
Morrell 2004). Through inquiry, teachers have opportunities to choose and pursue
valued goals over time, experiment with new teaching strategies (Joyce and
Showers 2002), and situate practices meaningfully in their contexts (Ball 2009;
Borko 2004; McIntyre 2005). Emerging evidence suggests the potential of inquiry-
based models to support practice development in classrooms (e.g., Butler and
Schnellert 2012; Schnellert 2011). But additional research is needed into conditions
necessary for an inquiry-based approach to successfully mobilize and sustain
coordinated action towards common goals, particularly at a systems-level.
To that end, in our past research we have drawn from theory and research (e.g.,
Butler 2005; Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999; Paris et al. 2001; Zimmerman 2008) to
construct a model for conceptualizing and studying collaborative inquiry within a
systems-level initiative. We built from that model to inform the present research
(see Fig. 1 for a high-level overview). Note that our description of inquiry in this
section is simplified for ease of discussion. In practice, inquiry processes are
J Educ Change
123
influenced by complex interactions between personal and contextual factors, and
they unfold in cycles that are both iterative and dynamic.
According to this model, teachers’ professional learning takes place within layers
of context that combine to create conditions that enable and/or constrain their
willingness to take risks and invest in change (see Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999,
2009; Van Horn 2006). These layers include the socio-political context in which
education is unfolding (e.g., government mandates), as well as policies, practices,
incentives, resources, and supports established at provincial/state, district/school
board, and/or school levels. Thus, in this research, we considered how conditions
created across levels were converging to inspire, fuel and/or undermine educators’
investment in inquiry processes and practice change within a district-level initiative.
Generally speaking, our model defines inquiry processes as unfolding when
teachers identify goals, plan and enact practices to achieve those goals in
classrooms, monitor how practices are working (e.g., based on students’ progress),
and then adjust goals or practices responsively and iteratively until their (potentially
evolving) goals are realized. As is foregrounded in Fig. 1, at any point in an inquiry
cycle, teachers can access resources to inform their thinking and practice (e.g., from
workshops, readings, coaches, colleagues).
This model of inquiry describes individuals acting with intentionality within
authentic activity (Bandura 2000, 2006; Schunk 2008). But understanding how a
community of inquiry might operate requires adding attention to how engagement in
inquiry might be influenced by other stakeholders and actors. Within learning
communities, inquiry is socially-mediated (Bandura 2006; Vygotsky 1978). For
example, when working collaboratively, teachers shape and scaffold each other’s
engagement in inquiry (e.g., see Butler and Schnellert 2012; Hadwin and Jarvela
Fig. 1 Cycles of inquiry (Butler and Schnellert 2012)
J Educ Change
123
2011; Meyer and Turner 2002; Volet et al. 2009). Further, in inquiry-based
professional development, key roles that leaders or coaches can play include
providing direct support to inquiry processes and/or enabling educators’ access to
resources that might inform practice development (Butler and Schnellert 2012;
Schnellert 2011).
In our prior research, we drew on this conceptual framework to investigate how
educators in this district context were working alone or in tandem to engage in
cycles of inquiry (see Butler et al. 2011; Butler and Schnellert 2012; Butler et al.
2013; Schnellert et al. 2008). Encouragingly, previous studies documented positive
links between the depth of participants’ engagement in collaborative inquiry and
gains for teachers and students. Earlier findings also hinted at how and why
conditions established within the initiative may have been inspiring teachers’
sustained investment in practice change. For example, while the vast majority of
teachers reported learning through collaborative inquiry, their commitment seemed
strongest when they focused, not directly on themselves as learners, but on
achieving improved outcomes for students. Further, teachers valued what they
perceived to be ‘‘meaningful’’ literacy assessments they could build from to identify
student needs, direct practice improvements, and monitor outcomes. In this last year
of the overall project, we built from these emerging findings to more systematically
investigate how conditions being established within the initiative, such as teachers
having a voice in constructing and using ‘‘meaningful’’ assessments, might be
fueling their efforts. In particular, our goal was to assess the potential role of self-
perceptions of efficacy and agency as influential in, and influenced by, educators’
engagement in an inquiry-based initiative.
Efficacy, agency and educational change
In 1989 Bandura defined agency as ‘‘the capacity to exercise control over one’s own
thought processes, motivation, and action’’ (p. 1175). Agency speaks to individuals’
perceptions of having control over their activities and lives. As such, Bandura
identified personal agency as foundational to engagement (e.g., Bandura 1989,
2000, 2006; Schunk 2008). Individuals who perceive themselves as having a
meaningful voice/role in an activity are more likely to participate.
Further, intimately connected with agency are self-perceptions of efficacy, which
Bandura defines as ‘‘people’s beliefs about their capabilities to exercise control over
events that effect their own lives’’ (Bandura 1989, p. 1175). Self-efficacy is context
dependent, and reflects individuals’ beliefs in their ability to achieve particular
outcomes in particular circumstances. Building from Bandura’s seminal work,
research has consistently found positive relationships between self-perceptions of
efficacy, motivation and perseverance in activity (e.g., Borkowski and Muth-
ukrishna 1992; Schunk 1994, 2008). For example, individuals who perceive
themselves as capable of achieving a goal are more likely to persist through
challenges. These consistent findings, coupled with literature on professional
development and systems change, suggested important ways in which agency and
J Educ Change
123
efficacy might be implicated in teachers’ engagement within inquiry-oriented
initiatives (see Fig. 2).
First, in Fig. 2 we suggest how individuals’ self-perceptions of efficacy can be
related to their engagement in cycles of collaborative inquiry. Research suggests
that self-efficacy and strategic action are reciprocally interactive. That is, strong
perceptions of personal efficacy fuel engagement; at the same time, associating
successful positive outcomes with one’s own actions develops positive self-efficacy
perceptions (Bandura 1993; Borkowski and Muthukrishna 1992; Bruce et al. 2010;
Butler 1998; Butler and Winne 1995; Schunk 1994, 2003; Walker 2003). Thus, in
the research reported here, we investigated how teachers’ self-perceptions of
efficacy might have been enhanced if, within cycles of inquiry, they recognized how
their learning and/or practice revisions were influential in achieving goals,
particularly positive outcomes for students.
Second, literature on agency, leadership and systems change suggests how
teachers’ perceptions of agency might depend on their having a voice in how inquiry
cycles unfold (bottom left in Fig. 2; see also Campbell et al. 2004; Cochran-Smith
and Lytle 2009; Shagoury Hubbard and Power 2003). While self-perceptions of
efficacy may be enhanced when teachers associate practices enacted with positive
outcomes, they may still feel disenfranchised (i.e., low self-perceptions of agency) if
they have little role in shaping goals, how practices might be contextualized, or
when and how important outcomes will be evaluated and tracked (Edwards 2005).
Thus, teachers’ investments in a change initiative might depend, not only in
perceptions of their capability to achieve goals (self-perceptions of efficacy), but
also on having a voice in determining what outcomes should be achieved and how
(self-perceptions of agency).
Fig. 2 Relationships between agency, efficacy and inquiry in professional development
J Educ Change
123
Consistent with this suggestion, Durrant (2009) argues for creating conditions for
‘‘conjoint agency,’’ where members of a school community determine ‘‘the
direction, nature and momentum of school change’’ (p. 6; see also Gronn 2003). She
links the emergence of agency to distributed leadership that ‘‘embraces each
person’s leadership capacity as a right as well as a responsibility of teaching
professionals’’ (p. 6). It has also been argued that all members of a system can
contribute to defining, sustaining, or revising the structures in which they work
(Watson and Scribner 2007). Through the exercise of leadership and professional
judgment teachers can play an important role in constructing contexts that support
innovation (Frost and Durrant 2002). Thus, in the research reported here, we
investigated how conditions within an inquiry-oriented initiative might create
opportunities for various stakeholders to build self-perceptions of efficacy, and
share ‘‘agency,’’ across a system.
Relative roles and responsibilities in systems change
It follows that understanding relationships among collaborative inquiry, efficacy and
agency within a change initiative depends on understanding the relative roles and
responsibilities established among stakeholders. Bandura and others have consis-
tently emphasized that, like inquiry, agency and efficacy are rooted in social
contexts (Bandura 2000, 2006). For example, Bandura (2000) associates collective
agency with ‘‘people’s shared beliefs in their collective power to produce desired
results’’ (p. 75). Watson and Scribner (2007) define conjoint agency as ‘‘the
concertive work of pluralities of interdependent members of the organization’’
(p. 431). Edwards (2005) identifies relational agency as ‘‘a capacity to align one’s
thoughts and actions with those of others in order to interpret problems of practice
and to respond to those interpretations’’ (pp. 169–170). While there are important
distinctions across these ‘‘social’’ forms of agency, a common emphasis is the way
engagement in practice, and in change efforts, often involves individuals coming
together in rich, goal-oriented collaborative relationships.
In a community of inquiry, relationships are often nurtured among teachers
working towards common goals (e.g., Loughran 2002; Luna et al. 2004; Morrell
2004; Schnellert 2011; Schnellert et al. 2008). However, when communities of
inquiry include multiple stakeholders invested in achieving systems-level change,
influential relationships also exist across intersecting ‘‘communities of practice’’
(Lave and Wenger 1991) that include not only teachers, but also school- and/or
district-level instructional coaches and administrators (see Stein and Coburn 2008).
Understanding the relative roles and responsibilities among stakeholders adds
attention to how ‘‘political’’ dimensions of systems change might undermine or
sustain collective action (Coburn and Woulfin 2012).
Further, it is important to recognize how agency is exercised within boundaries,
in that historically-, culturally-, politically-, and socially-rooted structures (e.g.,
policies, curriculum documents, roles and responsibilities, routines) shape and
constrain action across all members of a system (Ervin and Schaughency 2008;
Lasky 2005; Sherer 2008). Teachers work within systems in which other
J Educ Change
123
stakeholders (policy makers, parents, students, instructional coaches, formal
leaders) also seek to exercise agency. Research has uncovered how relationships
between and interactions among individuals in formal (i.e., principals) and informal
(i.e., reading coaches) leadership roles influence how policy initiatives are taken up
by teachers in classrooms, and also how engaging stakeholders in meaningful
interaction may support two-way influences (e.g., teachers’ having an impact on
policy) (e.g., Coburn and Woulfin 2012; Stein and Coburn 2008; Woulfin and
Coburn 2012). It follows that accounting for how efficacy, and agency might be
distributed across a system is important in understanding how change might be
supported.
Investigating a multi-layered change initiative
The research reported here emerges from the third year of an extended case study of
a community of inquiry established within a school district working to improve
adolescent literacy across its secondary schools. In this last year, we extended from
previous findings to investigate how conditions established in the initiative might be
inspiring and sustaining systems-level innovation. Our specific research question
was: How could educators’ self-perceptions of efficacy and agency be related to
their engagement in a district-level, inquiry-based initiative? To address this
question, we investigated whether and how self-perceptions of efficacy and agency
might both have shaped individuals’ participation, and/or emerged through
collaborative inquiry, for individuals working from different roles and positions.
Research design
To study inquiry, efficacy and agency within an authentic learning community, we
employed a case study design. Case studies are particularly useful in investigating
complex, dynamic phenomena as situated in context (Butler 2011; Creswell 2007;
Merriam 1998; Yin 2003). This design was particularly useful in our investigation
of stakeholders’ perceptions about their engagement within the structure of a multi-
layered initiative.
Layers of context
In this section we describe the layers of context in which the adolescent literacy
initiative was situated. This description, built upon a review of relevant documents
and artifacts from ‘‘insider’’ and ‘‘outsider’’ perspectives (see below), identifies key
‘‘conditions’’ with potential to shape (i.e., delimit, support, constrain) participants’
experiences in the project.
This study was located in a multi-cultural, urban public school district in Western
Canada. In Canada, education is a provincial responsibility. Further, in the province
where this study was located, public schools are clustered into school districts
overseen by school boards. At the time of this study, the provincial Ministry of
Education had built from interest emerging across the province to launch a literacy
J Educ Change
123
initiative. The Ministry invited school districts to submit proposals that outlined
goals/objectives, action plans, and strategies for monitoring outcomes. Within the
structure of the initiative, the Ministry distributed leadership by enabling districts to
choose goals and outcomes to monitor, as well as the tools they wanted to use for
data collection purposes.
At the time of this work, the groundswell of interest in literacy had also led
teachers and eight of the district’s nine secondary schools to define adolescent
literacy as a goal. Thus, when the Ministry launched its initiative, district-level
leaders were poised to build from this interest and submit a proposal. Like the
Ministry, this school district prioritized distributing leadership. As a result, the
initiative was structured to complement school-level priorities and foster decision-
making at school- and classroom-levels.
Within the district’s adolescent literacy initiative, structures were established that
shaped stakeholders’ collective engagement in a systemic change effort. District-
level consultants (DLCs) facilitated the initiative. Literacy leaders (LLs) were
identified in each secondary school to coordinate efforts within sites and support
colleagues’ access to resources. Resources available to participants included
readings in school libraries, study groups, district-organized workshops, and time to
collaborate with LLs and colleagues. Another key structure shared across schools
were frameworks for constructing literacy assessments, including a performance
based assessment (PBA; see Brownlie et al. 2006) and a ‘‘learning through reading’’
questionnaire (LTRQ; see Butler and Cartier 2004; Cartier and Butler 2004).
Teachers were assisted in applying these frameworks in collaborative teams to
generate locally-meaningful data, identify student needs, guide practice change and
monitor outcomes. Ultimately educators set school-, grade-, and/or classroom-level
goals related to adolescents’ literacy development.
Within the district, schools could ‘‘sign on’’ to the initiative based on their self-
identified level of readiness. All schools in the district used a PBA assessment in the
Fall and Spring for goal-setting and monitoring outcomes, respectively. But within
the district were a smaller set of more ‘‘active’’ schools (self-identified) who chose
to use both the PBA and LTRQ. The community of inquiry studied here included
staff from these ‘‘most active’’ schools. Nonetheless, these schools were of different
sizes and at different stages in their development of a ‘‘community’’ of learners.
Thus, observing patterns within and across schools afforded uncovering how
efficacy and agency might be influential across differing conditions.
Participants
Figure 3 provides a visual map of the inquiry community by participants’ roles and
sites. To maintain confidentiality, we use pseudo-initials to identify our 43
participants, including district-level leaders from the board office (n = 5) as well as
school-based staff from five schools (n = 38). Three of the school-based teachers
(KN, EH, and ME; see italicized text) were part of the inquiry community, but, due
to technical difficulties, their interview data were lost. For these three, we drew on
field-notes (from meetings and interviews) to describe their perspectives. But they
are not included in our main analysis of interview data (see Table 1). All research
J Educ Change
123
protocols received approval following institutional (i.e., school board, university)
guidelines for the ethical conduct of research. All participants provided informed
consent for inclusion in the study.
From the board office, participants included all leaders associated with the
adolescent literacy initiative. Participants at the school-level included administrators
(e.g., principals and/or vice principals), LLs, teachers in supporting roles (e.g.,
librarians, resource teachers), and classroom teachers. As is common in schools,
some participants played more than one role. For example, two vice-principals were
also acting as classroom (NU in school 2) or resource teachers (ET in school 3). All
LLs were also either resource teachers, classroom teachers, or librarians. Note that,
while the district’s initiative was focused at the secondary level, our community of
inquiry also included staff from one elementary school working in grades 5–7
(school 5). The informal LL in this school (OX) had served as a secondary-level LL
in previous years. She brought the project with her to the elementary level when she
transferred schools. Overall our 40 participants’ experience varied from one to
34 years.
As is also common given the ‘‘messiness’’ of intact communities of inquiry (i.e.,
not constructed for research purposes), the history, level and forms of participants’
involvement varied within and across school sites (see Butler and Schnellert 2012).
Thus, to give an overall sense of the structure of this inquiry community, Fig. 3
Fig. 3 Overview of the community of inquiry by participant and site. Letters in brackets following rolesare pseudo-initials for each participant; Our 40 main participants are identified using bold text; Threecommunity members whose data were lost (KN, EH, and ME) are identified using italics; LL literacyleader, RT resource teacher, CT classroom teacher, LB librarian, P school principal, VP school vice-principal, Sec secondary school, Elem elementary school, Pop approximate population of the school at thetime of this study; Lines (width and color) are used to represent connections across different roles: thicklines represent the richest interactions in the enactment of the initiative
J Educ Change
123
represents connections between stakeholders in different roles at two broad levels
(considering both initiative structures and how they were enacted): (1) rich
collaborations in the enactment of the initiative (e.g., working with data, setting
goals, co-planning, etc.) (thick lines); and (2) open communication and supportive
interactions, but not as deep co-engagement in initiative processes (thin lines).
At the top-right of the figure, the display highlights how strong working
relationships were established between board-level DLCs (KQ and OK) and school-
based LLs. DLCs met with secondary-level LLs several times through the year,
supported LLs in data collection, scoring, and interpretation meetings, and generally
acted as a resource to LLs (e.g., providing materials, co-planning). DLCs worked to
a lesser extent with school-based teams to collect, interpret and build from
assessment data (see thin line between the board office and school-based teacher
teams). In the structure of this initiative, LLs were primarily responsible for
supporting school-based teacher teams in collaborative inquiry processes (see thick
lines between LL and school-based teams at schools 1, 2, 3, and 5). Secondary LLs
interacted in both formalized (e.g., DLC-hosted sessions) and informal (e.g., study
group) structures (see thick line among secondary LLs). Our elementary level,
informal LL (OX) was not included in the formalized district meetings but still
connected with her secondary LL peers through an informal book club and e-mail
interactions. Members of school-based teacher teams also had opportunities to
interact (e.g., in two DLC organized meetings; see thin line between teacher teams).
District- and school-level administrators worked together to support the
initiative. The District Superintendent (CC), Director of Instruction (LD), and
District Principal (LE) liaised with school-based administrators in district-level
meetings (see thin line between the board office and school-level admin teams). The
District Principal supported school-based leaders and teams to collect data that
could be used formatively to guide practice and monitor progress at school- and
district-levels. DLCs were available to school-based administrators as resources.
School-level administrators were actively engaged in school-based initiative
processes at four sites. In three, administrators worked actively with both LLs and
school-based teacher teams. One of these was the school with the largest, best
established and most cohesive ‘‘culture of collaboration’’ (school 2). Another was at
the elementary school where the informal LL worked closely with administrators to
nurture the initiative (school 5). The last was in a smaller team where the
relationships between the LL, school administrator and teachers were strongly
developed (school 3). At school 4, the school-based administrator worked primarily
with the school’s LL to shape inquiry processes. While teachers worked cohesively
with one another (e.g., LF, KN, and EH), they did not work as closely with either the
LL or the school principal. Finally, the school-based administrator in school 1 was
supportive of the school’s LL and inquiry team, but was less actively involved in
inquiry processes.
Two university researchers were part of the overall community. This article’s
first author had been engaged in collaborative research with the district for many
years. Her role in the inquiry community was to support the gathering, interpreting
and building from PBA and LTRQ assessments. This article’s second author had
previously worked in the district as a DLC and had been instrumental in developing
J Educ Change
123
the adolescent literacy initiative. He built from long-standing relationships with
DLCs, LLs and teachers to serve as a resource to participants’ engagement in
inquiry. These two researchers interacted most richly with board-level leaders and
LLs. But they also met with school-based teacher and administrative teams,
particularly around the collection and interpretation of assessments. Our third author
had experience as a teacher but was neither connected to this district nor involved in
the community of inquiry. Her primary roles were to transcribe all interviews and
provide an ‘‘outsider’’ perspective during our interpretive processes.
Data collection
We collected multiple forms of evidence to trace participants’ engagement in
collaborative inquiry in relation to context. For this report, we reviewed program
documents and field notes to develop contextual descriptions, construct our visual
map of the inquiry community (Fig. 3), and describe interactions (e.g., in team
meetings). We interpreted interview data to ascertain participants’ views about how
efficacy and agency were implicated in their experiences.
Semi-structured interviews, each lasting roughly 1 h, were conducted at both the
start and end of the year (Fall and Spring, respectively). Because many participants
had been part of the literacy initiative over time, both Fall and Spring interviews
provided insights into conditions participants perceived to be supportive of their
engagement. All interviews were framed by orienting questions, adapted to
participants’ respective roles. In the Fall, questions focused on: (1) participants’
goals, how they were working towards goals, how they would judge if goals had
been met, and outcomes observed in relation to goals (for themselves; for
colleagues; for students); (2) how they had been working with others; (3) how
working with others was shaping their thinking and practice; (4) who they worked
with and why; (5) aspects of collaborative activities most and least helpful; (6) what
they were learning; (7) resources that supported learning and practice; and (8) where
and why they felt they were making a difference. Spring questions were parallel but
extended attention to: (1) how engagement in cycles of inquiry was shaping practice
and professional learning, (2) the role of data and assessments in shaping inquiry
and practice, and (3) how agency and accountability were implicated in the
initiative.
Data analysis
Our analytic process was abductive (Agar 1996), in that we engaged iteratively in
cycles of inductive (building from data) and deductive (informed by theory)
analysis. Throughout our analytic process, we deliberately created opportunities to
juxtapose our varying ‘‘insider’’ and ‘‘outsider’’ perspectives to both enrich
understanding of patterns and ensure we were fairly representing initiative processes
and participants’ perspectives. For example, prior to analysis, we each read a sample
of interviews (from school 1) to identify themes. As we read, we separately
generated memos to capture our impressions of what participants were saying
(Lincoln and Guba 1985; Merriam 1998). We referred back to the commonalities
J Educ Change
123
and differences in our memos, as well our theoretical frameworks, as we proceeded
through data analytic cycles.
Further, to launch our more detailed analysis, we took advantage of our third
author’s distance from the project to engage her in a fresh, inductive analysis of
interview data. Specifically, our third author had transcribed all interviews. Next, to
support a systematic, open coding of interview data, she collected all evidence
relevant to our research foci (e.g., on agency and efficacy) into what we called ‘‘first
level’’ displays (Miles and Huberman 1994). To do this, she pasted all relevant
interview ‘‘segments’’ (i.e., meaningful chunks of meaning) into a spreadsheet file,
associating each with identifying information (e.g., participant, school, role,
interview time, line numbers). Next, she applied a constant comparative method
(Lincoln and Guba 1985; Merriam 1998) to cluster ideas and assign low inference
labels to clusters (e.g., described gains in confidence). Finally, as a test of emerging
codes, she brought interview excerpts to the team for discussion, including segments
that were both easy and challenging to code. Across multiple meetings, we built
from our different positions and perspectives to refine codes and ensure that links
we were making between evidence and codes were warranted.
To further refine codes, and start identifying patterns, across multiple meetings
the three authors looked afresh at the evolving set of low inference codes and
separately created concept maps relating the codes to one another. A comparison
across independently-constructed maps revealed commonalities and differences in
interpretation (i.e., of codes; of relationships among codes). Then, once low-
inference codes were finalized and applied against the full set of data, we created a
series of progressively higher-level tabular displays to uncover patterns and test for
conceptual coherence (Miles and Huberman 1994). By collecting all relevant
evidence systematically in these representations, displays enabled us to both
identify common themes and uncover important variations or discrepancies. Finally,
we re-tested the meaning of patterns suggested by displays against a careful review
of every associated piece of evidence. We include two displays (Fig. 3; Table 1)
and a sample of associated interview excerpts in this report to support readers in
tracing links between our analytic processes and associated interpretations.
Results and discussion
Table 1 presents a display we constructed to identify patterns in self-perceptions of
efficacy and agency for individuals working from different roles and positions. The
display presents initials of participants whose interviews reflected each theme (e.g.,
BQ, a teacher from school 1, described gains in self-efficacy as reflected in reported
increases in competence, confidence or control). It also summarizes the number of
participants who emphasized each theme by role and overall (e.g., as evidence of
‘‘distributing agency,’’ 19 participants discussed their roles as agents in systemic
change). To support discerning patterns, the display clusters responses by role (e.g.,
teachers, LLs, or school- or district-based leaders) and by school (colors signal
school membership; ‘‘//’’ separates responses from different schools).
J Educ Change
123
Self-perceptions of efficacy in collaborative inquiry
Building from our model of agency and efficacy in systems change (see Fig. 2,
bottom right), we had anticipated that self-perceptions of efficacy would be
strengthened as participants monitored links between goal-directed strategic action
and desired outcomes within cycles of inquiry. Consistent with this expectation, our
findings were that 90 % of participants for whom we had interview data (36/40)
described gains in efficacy. This overall finding appeared to be robust across roles
and for participants at different levels and sites (see Table 1).
More specifically, over half of participants (24/40) described increases in self-
perceptions of competence, confidence, or control in general terms. For example, SS
described how by the end of the year she was far more confident in her ability to
achieve valued goals:
I feel fantastic, and that’s why when I came to pick my courses for next year I
said, ‘No, I want to do the English 8 again,’ because Hum[anities] 8, I feel
really confident about it. It’s the English 8 I’m really starting to feel good
about and I did two really phenomenal units in grade 8 and I want to build one
more phenomenal unit (S403–418).
Table 1 Agency and efficacy as described by participants in different roles. (Color figure online)
Agency and Efficacy Teachers(n = 21)
Literacy Leaders(n =6)
Leaders (n =14)ALL1
School-based (n = 9)
District-based (n = 5)
Overall Totals 20/21 (95%) 6/6 (100%) 7/9 (67%) 5/5 (100%) 38/40 (95%)
Gains in Efficacy 20/21 (95%) 6/6 (100%) 6/9 (67%) 5/5 (100%) 36/40 (90%)
Increased competence, confidence or control BQ EN HP HG LX XQ // ED+ EG
SS** TN CU BM // NC // LFDN // NE** // NC //OX**
CS // BD // ETCC** LD LE KQ**
24/40 (60%)
Linked to monitoring student outcomes
NH MX BQ** EN HP** LX** FNXQ // ED** EG+ SS** TN** CU** NP** BM KI // TU** // LF
DN** // NE** // NC //HQ** // OX
ST ET LE OK 27/40 (68%)
Linked to monitoring teacher outcomes
FN MX // SS TN CU // LFDN // NE** // NC //HQ // OX
CC LD KQ OK 15/40 (38%)
Poised to achievefuture outcomes BQ EN MX XQ // ED SS TN CU
NP BM // NC // LFDN // NE // NC // OX**
BD NU // ST LD KQ OK21/40 (53%)
Linked to theory, principles, knowledge or values
HP NH LX MX+ BQ EN FN XQ //ED+ EG+ SS** TN CU** NP KI //TU** // LF
DN** // NE** // BH //OX**
ET // XECC** LD LE KQ OK**
28/40 (70%)
Distributing Agency 4/21 (19%) 4/6 (67%) 6/9 (67%) 5/5 (100%) 19/40 (48%)
Related to having a “voice”
EN HP HG LF DN // NE // HQ // OXCS** // BD** NU// ET** ST // LM
CC** LD LE** KQ OK
19/40 (48%)
Table entries include initials of participants who made comments on themes. Numbers are the number of
participants out of the possible total whose comments reflected a theme. Colors represent schools as
follows (see Fig. 3): Red = 1, blue = 2, green = 3, orange = 4, purple = 5; Comments from different
schools are divided with //; ? = significant emphasis on a point, and ** = heaviest emphasis for a given
person, in the quantity and/or quality of responses; NC made comments as a teacher in the Fall, and as a
LL in the spring. Her comments are included in each section, but only once in the overall total
J Educ Change
123
Further, consistent with our theoretical framework, participants also often identified
specifically how efficacy gains emerged through collaborative inquiry. For example,
27 participants, including SS, linked efficacy to improved student outcomes
achieved by enacting practices developed in collaboration with colleagues. Fifteen
(primarily LL and other leaders) explicitly linked efficacy gains to improved
outcomes for teachers. In both cases, efficacy seemed to be enhanced when
participants monitored positive outcomes associated with practices they were
developing (e.g., teachers were more confident when evidence showed that, because
of their actions, students were doing better).
But we were surprised to find that increases in efficacy did not depend on having
been completely successful. For example, because assessment data provided
guidance on what to try next, even when results were not as hoped, teachers reported
feeling confident in their ability to make adjustments to practice to redress
remaining needs. Similarly, 21 participants described feeling poised to achieve
better outcomes in the future, either because they had identified more effective
practices or because they understood what to do differently. Here it seemed that
participants’ growing sense of control over outcomes was reflected in their
perceptions that, if they continued engaging in collaborative cycles of inquiry (e.g.,
trying practices, reviewing evidence to define next steps, making improvements),
positive outcomes would be achieved.
Finally, 28/40 participants linked efficacy gains to their ability to better ground
practice in theory, principles, knowledge, or values. For example, in her inquiry, ED
explored the role of formative assessment in advancing adolescent literacy. With
support from colleagues, she read about, observed and then tried a range of
strategies in her classroom. Even though some of those strategies initially ‘‘failed,’’
she adjusted her efforts over time and, as she did so, observed increased student
engagement and success (reflected in varying kinds of assessments, including the
Spring PBA and LTRQ). In her final interview, ED described how her shifts in
practice were grounded in a better understanding of student learning: ‘‘I see, like if
kids have a purpose in what they’re doing they’re going to learn better’’ (S428-441).
Similarly, other participants appeared to ‘‘connect the dots’’ among a sound
rationale for action (i.e., rooted in theory, principles, knowledge or values),
practices enacted, and positive outcomes. For example, 17 teachers, including ED,
associated efficacy gains with both having a sound basis for decision-making (e.g., a
better sense of learning or literacy processes) and observed gains for students.
While efficacy gains were reported by participants working across roles and sites,
we also identified an important pattern related to participants’ respective respon-
sibilities. Specifically, efficacy for most LLs (5/6) and district-level leaders (4/5)
was linked to their capacity to support others in their practice and learning. For
example, DN considered how she had successfully supported the literacy team in
her school: ‘‘That’s where I think I’ve had a lot of impact, in terms of just kind of
getting people excited about those things. So, I’m doing that just through, I guess
through networking’’ (S297–309). Similarly, NE described ways in which she
monitored impacts on her team members’ practice and learning in relation to
support she was providing.
J Educ Change
123
Agency, leadership and systems change
Our model of agency and efficacy in systems-change suggests that educators’
investment in change will depend on their having a meaningful role as ‘‘agents’’ in
an initiative. Thus, we anticipated that teachers in this initiative would describe the
importance of their having a voice in determining goals, choosing practices to meet
the needs of learners in their contexts, and driving how evidence would be collected
to guide practice and monitor outcomes. But, counter to expectations, we found that
only 4 out of 21 teachers alluded directly to their roles in the systems-level change
initiative. Instead, teachers were much more likely to focus on their development of
efficacy through engaging in collaborative inquiry (i.e., 20/21 teachers), particularly
when they perceived themselves as better meeting students’ needs. Thus, consistent
with our findings from previous years, teachers focused attention primarily on how
their engagement in practice-level inquiry was advancing student learning.
Attending to teachers’ agency
In contrast, most LLs (4/6) and school- and district-level administrators (11/14)
discussed at length their roles in maintaining teachers’ sense of leadership,
ownership and agency (see Table 1). Indeed, in spite of the more or less formalized
power vested in their roles (see Coburn and Woulfin 2012), it appeared that
instructional coaches and administrative leaders exercised agency indirectly, by
inspiring and maintaining teachers’ voice and investment.
For example, at the district-level, the superintendent (CC) described the
challenges he perceived in leading change:
If you want to help something to improve, what do you do about it?… I’ve
learned that you can’t run over there and do it. You can’t just throw people
time, money, attention, or encouragement … If you’re going to get something
real happening, you can’t be completely organic about it, just wait and hope.
But you can’t be mechanistic about it. You can’t inject cause, because
ultimately I don’t think you can cause anything. But you can invite, stimulate
(S900–915).
From his perspective, he could neither just ‘‘throw money’’ at a challenge, nor
‘‘inject’’ his priorities. Instead, he viewed his role as inviting, stimulating, and
supporting colleagues’ engagement in continuous, inquiry-oriented practice
improvement. He did so by: involving his district-level leadership team in co-
constructing the application for Ministry funding; encouraging the team to build
from the groundswell of interest in adolescent literacy apparent across schools;
creating excitement around the initiative (by visibly supporting it and celebrating
successes); and investing in tools, resources and infrastructures designed to support
and inform collaborative inquiry processes (e.g., LLs; time for collaboration;
district-wide workshops; resources integrated into school libraries). Note that most
funding proposals put forward to the Ministry by districts focused on early literacy.
In contrast, by building from educators’ interest in adolescent literacy, CC hoped to
distribute pride in and ownership of the initiative.
J Educ Change
123
Goals to support teachers’ sense of agency and distribute leadership were also
evident among school-based administrative leaders in four of our five schools. In
these schools, principals and/or vice-principals described how they worked actively
behind the scenes to ensure teachers felt ownership over their work on the initiative.
For example, when describing why the initiative was working in her context, CS
(school 1) alluded to the importance of LLs and colleagues actively playing support
and/or leadership roles:
I think having our lit leader is important, I think having the co-teaching,
having the literacy team. Although, I don’t know, the literacy team - part of it
is support and part of it is – I mean, it’s support that’s happening because
they’ve wanted it to, not because it’s necessarily a crutch and maybe that’s
why [the literacy initiative is] working, it’s self-supporting or peer-supporting
(S601–609).
In school 2, BD (principal) described how he supported distributed leadership across
his team:
Well, I like to be able to facilitate these things, as opposed to sort of driving
the agenda. I think that they’re intelligent enough to figure out, you know,
where they need to go. Whatever I can do as sort of a cheerleader on the side,
or a coach, or a mentor, or a facilitator, it’s umm – I’d just like to see where
we have everybody sort of feeling as if they have a leadership role as well
(F257–274).
Like the district superintendent, in his approach to school planning, BD tried to
build from teachers’ commitments. At the same time, like teachers within this
overall project, his attention was squarely focused on coordinating action so as to
best meet students’ needs:
We’ve designed it backwards, we see where there’s investment in the school.
Where are the teachers motivated? … We’ve got to come up with a plan that’s
good for the kids, good for teachers, and the teachers are going to want to
implement it (F452–490).
School 4 was the only context in which the school-based administrator did not
specifically speak in interviews about fostering agency or distributing leadership
across colleagues within his school. Aligned with this omission, in this context it
was the school-based administrator (QI) and LL (HQ) who worked together most
closely. It was also the LL who assumed responsibility for setting directions, instead
of co-constructing approaches with the school’s teacher team (see relationships
depicted in Fig. 3). It was only in this context where teachers (LF, KN and EH)
described tensions in how their team was functioning and/or raised concerns about
the roles of their leaders (in LF’s interview; in field-notes for all three). Also,
interesting was that it was one of these teachers, LF, who, like the formalized
leaders in other settings, spoke to the challenges in leading change while at the same
time fostering agency among colleagues:
J Educ Change
123
I would really love for us to become a department that worked and planned
more together. So that’s always kind of been a goal, but how to get there is a
little bit difficult, because it has to – I see a skill that most effectively it has to
come from other people. It’s so much more – it’s going to be so much more
fruitful a discussion if someone comes to you and says, ‘‘I’d really like to plan
my unit around backwards design, can you give me a hand?’’ As opposed to,
you can’t go to someone and say, ‘‘Let’s learn backwards design,’’ or, ‘‘You
need to,’’ anything like that doesn’t work (S576–591).
We noted that, in school 4, the teachers seemed comfortable openly discussing
problems with building a community of inquiry in their context, as well as their
concerns with the leadership in their school. We also observed that they created
among themselves the kinds of supports they perceived as missing from leaders.
Overall, our conclusion was that attention to teachers’ agency was present in
every school. Most commonly it was district- or school-level leaders who were
working to ensure teachers perceived themselves as having a voice in how the
initiative was unfolding. The only exception was in school 4, in which it was the
teachers themselves who seemed to create opportunities for ownership and
distributed agency by enacting the initiative’s inquiry-based processes within their
small team when they were not satisfied with the approaches of leaders.
Locating the impetus for the initiative
Consistent with these findings, many leaders also described how easily teachers’
engagement could be threatened if they were to perceive the initiative as dictated
from on high. For example, two administrative leaders provided cautionary tales of
initiatives that had imploded when teachers felt agendas had been imposed.
Similarly, in her interactions with schools, LE (district principal) described how she
had to actively and continuously work against perceptions that the initiative was
being imposed by the district (vs. having emerged from common concerns across
schools):
For me one of the big frustrations is [that] a lot of schools see … our literacy
project and the data that we’re collecting around the PBAs to be a district
down a top–down initiative instead of a school driven initiative. And that’s
been a big focus for me, too, to continually bring it back to the school. What
are the school goals? Not what are the district goals? Why is this data
important to the school? Why is it important, what difference is it going to
make … in your situation? (F346–365).
More encouraging was that, even as she continually worried about how her
colleagues were locating the impetus for the initiative, LE perceived teachers to be
taking ownership over the project in ways that were inspiring others across the
district:
I see now people are actually buying into the whole continuous improvement
cycle. The setting goals, the planning, the assessment for learning, the
reflection, the, you know, they’re planning what they’re doing based on that.
J Educ Change
123
That’s happening. Those conversations are permeating across grades. They’re
going through grades as people change in a teaching assignment. And I see
desire for it to happen in other areas (F610–630).
Navigating data collection
Consistent with leadership approaches described by school- and district-level
leaders, other initiative processes and structures also seemed to both: (1) create
opportunities for teachers to have a voice in how inquiry processes unfolded, and (2)
sustain attention to adolescent literacy development as the impetus for coordinated
action (see Fig. 2).
Key here was that participants across levels shared responsibility for defining
indicators and methods for tracking literacy development. The Ministry enabled
district-level leaders to choose tools they would use to account for outcomes. The
district chose the PBA to be used across schools. While they all used the PBA,
schools could choose whether to add the LTRQ to guide instruction and monitor
outcomes. Further, teams in each school could draw from a common template to
create unique PBA versions most meaningful in their contexts (e.g., by selecting
content for grade-wide assessments; choosing texts; specifying questions). While all
PBAs were co-scored against common, provincial-wide standards (for reading
informational text), school teams were actively engaged in co-scoring assessments,
interpreting data, and, on that basis, setting goals for students. School-based teams
set some common goals for all students at particular grade levels. This collaborative
structure created opportunities for the development of ‘‘conjoint’’ agency, that is, a
shared sense of the ability to set and achieve key goals (Durrant 2009; Gronn 2003;
Watson and Scribner 2007). At the same time, in support of personal agency,
teachers were also encouraged, and supported, to set unique goals in their
classrooms based on the particular needs of their students.
Given that data collection was such a central feature in the initiative, district- and
school-level leaders (particularly DLCs and LLs) appeared to be highly sensitive to
how quickly the project could be derailed if teachers felt that data were being used
to monitor their performance. Thus, team meetings consistently focused on using
data formatively to set goals, choose practices, and monitor student progress as part
of collaborative inquiry cycles. Further, at each school, how data summaries were
shared during meetings was carefully considered. For example, while all teachers
within a given school were able to view grade-level patterns, only individual
teachers and literacy leaders had access to class-level literacy ‘‘profiles’’ derived
from PBA and LTRQ data. Notable, given the sensitivity applied in data sharing
processes, was that during team meetings teachers often shared both successes and
challenges they experienced, suggesting they were comfortable revealing weak-
nesses with colleagues. Similarly, at end-of-year meetings, they often identified
areas for future growth, for themselves and for their students.
The impact of this combination of structures and processes seemed to be that,
even though the Ministry had required data collection as part of their funding
application and common data collection frameworks were included as part of the
literacy initiative, teachers seemed to highly value and feel ownership over the data.
J Educ Change
123
Consistent with this interpretation, ET (VP/RT, school 3) explained why teachers in
her school bought into collecting and using data:
A lot of teachers would like to protest the accountability or the monitoring,
and certainly protest anything that is directed to them from above. So, this has
been perfect for us, because they’ve all – they were involved with this before
we started using this data for the school planning council. So, how do you all
of a sudden protest it? You can’t, right?
ET also considered why a district-level goal was ‘‘accepted’’ at her school:
We’re not just doing this because it’s a school goal. We’re doing this because
we did this assessment, this is what we know the students need – not because
someone either at the admin level or the district level is telling us this is what
the students need. We know this is what they need. So, I think it’s been great
that way and it just gives everybody focus, right from the beginning of the
year to move forward from (F751–766).
Defining how to achieve goals
In our discussion so far, we have described how participants in the adolescent
initiative had opportunities to choose assessments, interpret data, and set goals they
perceived as meaningful in their classrooms. In addition, teachers were also actively
engaged in making decisions about practices they might take up on their own or
together in order to achieve goals. That said, rather than being left to their own
devices, supports were made available to assist teachers in identifying and taking up
practices with potential to be most productive. In this respect, leaders worked hard
to create a balance between affording choice and guiding colleagues towards
powerful practice. For example, NE (LL, school 2) described how she tried to
provide mentoring and support while affording choice:
I’m not trying to make everybody do the same thing, you know. I have model
units, which they can see the strategies play out in. They can use those units or
they cannot use those units or they can use part of those units or they can do
something completely different. I don’t care. That’s not the point. … My
intention was to – what are we doing in common? Well, we’re all working
with strategies (F890–916).
LLs and DLCs were also careful about how they offered help to colleagues. As KQ
(DLC) cautioned, ‘‘you have to be very delicate. You can’t just go in and say, ‘I
have something that’ll work with you, because you guys need help with x’’’
(F723–747).
Summary
Thus, taken together, our findings suggested that leaders within this initiative were
for the most part successfully distributing leadership and agency across district,
school, and classroom levels. As a result, it appeared that most teachers were
J Educ Change
123
liberated from structural agency barriers in ways that enabled their engagement in
collaborative inquiry and fostered school-level ownership of the purpose and
activities related to the initiative. Consistent with the cautionary tales described by
leaders, we suspected that we would have heard many more agency-related concerns
from teachers had barriers to their roles as change agents been introduced into the
initiative. Instead, for the most part teachers seemed comfortable with how they
were positioned in the project. For example, while EN (school 1) agreed that
district-level goals were consonant with her school’s priorities, she had not invested
time or energy in thinking about the initiative at that level. She explained:
We as a school really do believe in, you know, the literacy goals that are
happening here, but I really feel like they’re ours … I know they’re district,
but I really do feel like they are ours, and that we are doing really good things
and that we are looking at individuals and we are propelling it forward and we
are making some headway, but I don’t feel like someone up above is directing
that. I feel like, really, we are (S530–552).
An informative counter-example was provided by school 4, in which agency
challenges were experienced by a small team of teachers. Consistent with our
theoretical framework, this was the one school where agency concerns became a
focus of attention for teachers. In response, the teachers deliberately took up the
initiative’s inquiry-based processes in their own work together. For example, during
planning meetings, they exercised agency by collecting, co-scoring and interpreting
data, setting goals as a team, co-planning practices, and reflecting on student
progress. Notable was that these participants also proactively took action to address
their concerns with the leadership in their school. For example, they worked
together to invite their LL to engage in more collaborative practices. This example
suggests that, in the context of an initiative that distributes leadership and agency
across levels, teachers working in less-than-ideal settings may still be able to create
opportunities to experience agency within the initiative structures, and/or exert a
‘‘two-way’’ influence on policies and practices in their context (Coburn and Woulfin
2012; Stein and Coburn 2008; Woulfin and Coburn 2012).
Conclusions
In this last year of our longitudinal, district-level case study, our goal was to
investigate whether and how educators’ self-perceptions of efficacy and agency
could be related to their engagement in a district-level, inquiry-based initiative. Our
first key finding was that the vast majority of participants (90 % of interviewees),
from across roles and levels, made gains in self-perceptions of efficacy.
Significantly, and consistent with our expectations, these efficacy gains could be
linked to participants’ engagement in deliberate, reflective cycles of collaborative
inquiry (Bandura 1993; Bruce et al. 2010; Schunk 2003; Walker 2003). Thus, our
first conclusion is that, by encouraging and supporting educators’ engagement in
inquiry, initiatives can nurture self-efficacy across stakeholders. In turn, these
positive self-perceptions may be influential in sustaining a systems-level initiative.
J Educ Change
123
As noted previously, prior research has consistently linked positive self-perceptions
of efficacy to motivation, engagement, persistence, use of effective practices, and
participation in innovation or reform efforts (Collie et al. 2012; Irez 2007; Ross
et al. 2001; Roth et al. 2007; Schunk 2008; Woolfolk-Hoy et al. 2006).
Our second key finding was that the vast majority of teachers seemed
comfortable with their positions as agents within this district-level initiative. They
described ways in which they were taking action, on their own and together, to have
an impact in their schools (i.e., agency), and perceived themselves as capable of
achieving valued goals for students’ and/or colleagues’ development (i.e., efficacy)
(Bandura 1993, 2000, 2006). But teachers’ liberation from agency concerns seemed
to depend on the considerable efforts of informal and formal leaders to distribute
leadership and agency across the system (see Cochran-Smith and Lytle 2009;
Durrant 2009; Edwards 2005; Fullan 1993; Gronn 2003; Scribner et al. 2002). The
result seemed to be that, in this context, the majority of teachers focused attention,
not on resisting aspects of the initiative (e.g., data collection frameworks), or even
on what leaders were doing, but rather on working together to advance their
understanding, improve practice and achieve better outcomes for students. Our
school 4 counter-example is consistent with this interpretation. It was only in this
one context, where leaders were not as sensitively nurturing teachers’ agency, that
the teachers described working to establish collaborative roles in the project, and
developed for themselves ways to exercise agency within the frameworks
established by the initiative.
Our findings combine to suggest conditions with potential to support an inquiry-
based initiative to achieve valued goals at a systems level. In this context, leaders
seemed to effectively mobilize stakeholders’ concerted action by: (a) creating
opportunities and supports for collaborative inquiry; and (b) ensuring that
participants at district, school, and classroom levels had a voice in how inquiry
processes were constructed (e.g., goals to be pursued; practices to achieve goals;
tools for monitoring outcomes). That said, future research might extend from or
address some of the limitations in the present study. For example, further research
might use a refined interview protocol with more direct questions about teachers’
perceptions of efficacy and agency, building from the findings reported here.
Further, while a strength of this project was that we studied an intact community of
inquiry not constructed for research purposes, it would be valuable to continue
exploring the complexities of collaborative relationships developed within intact
communities of practice (e.g., see Butler and Schnellert 2012), as well as the impact
of having participant researchers working as part of a community. Finally, a follow-
up study could consider what happens over time to communities of inquiry
developed through a time-limited initiative, and/or how practices developed within
that context sustain, or even continue developing, once funding is no longer
available.
In closing, we suggest that the greatest enabling condition for teachers’
investment in this particular district-level change initiative was that it unfolded
within a socio-political context wherein government-, district-, and most school-
based leaders were committed to listening to teachers (e.g., building from teachers’
investments to set goals), and, more generally, distributing leadership and agency
J Educ Change
123
across layers. We recognize this is not always the case across jurisdictions (e.g., see
Fitz 2003). Nonetheless, this research suggests how it might be possible to structure
change efforts to enable all stakeholders to have, and perceive themselves as having,
a meaningful role in efforts to achieve educational change, improvement or
innovation.
Acknowledgments Portions of this paper were presented at the 2012 meetings of the American
Educational Research Association (AERA). This project was supported by a standard research grant to
the first author from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. We are grateful to
Stephanie Higginson for her assistance with data collection. We also extend our heartfelt thanks to the
participants in this research for their willingness to share their perspectives with the project team.
References
Agar, M. (1996). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Ball, A. (2009). Toward a theory of generative change in culturally and linguistically complex
classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 45–72.
Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Towards a practice-based
theory of professional education. In G. Sykes & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the
learning profession: Handbook on policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175–1184.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational
Psychologist, 28, 117–148.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2),
164–180.
Barnett, E. (2004). Characteristics and perceived effectiveness of staff development practices in selected
high schools in South Dakota. Educational Research Quarterly, 28(2), 3–18.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational
Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1998). Professional development and reform-based teaching: Introduction to
the theme issue. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 1–3.
Borkowski, J. G., & Muthukrishna, N. (1992). Moving metacognition into the classroom: ‘‘Working
models’’ and effective strategy teaching. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.),
Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 477–501). Toronto: Academic Press.
Brownlie, F., Feniak, C., & Schnellert, L. (2006). Student diversity (2nd ed.). Markham, ON: Pembroke.
Bruce, C. D., Esmond, I., Ross, J., Dookie, L., & Beatty, R. (2010). The effectiveness of sustained
classroom-embedded teacher professional learning on teacher efficacy and related student
achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1598–1608.
Butler, D. L. (1998). A strategic content learning approach to promoting self-regulated learning. In B.
J. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Developing self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-
reflective practice (pp. 160–183). New York: Guildford.
Butler, D. L. (2005). L’autoregulation de l’apprentissage et la collaboration dans le developpement
professional des enseignants (Self-regulated learning and collaboration in the professional
development of teachers). Revue des Sciences de l’Education, 31, 55–78.
Butler, D. L. (2011). Investigating self-regulated learning using in-depth case studies. In B.
J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance
(pp. 346–360). NY: Routledge.
Butler, D. L., & Cartier, S. C. (2004, May). Learning in varying activities: An explanatory framework and
a new evaluation tool founded on a model of self-regulated learning. Paper presented at the annual
meetings of the Canadian society for studies in education, Winnipeg, MB.
J Educ Change
123
Butler, D. L., Cartier, S. C., Schnellert, L., Gagnon, F., & Giammarino, M. (2011). Secondary students’
self-regulated engagement in reading: Researching self-regulation as situated in context. Psycho-
logical Test and Assessment Modeling, 11(1), 73–105.
Butler, D. L., Novak Lauscher, H. J., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B. (2004). Collaboration and
self-regulation in teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20,
435–455.
Butler, D. L., & Schnellert, L. (2012). Collaborative inquiry in teacher professional development.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 1206–1220.
Butler, D. L., Schnellert, L., & Cartier, S. C. (2013). Layers of self- and co-regulation: Teachers’ co-
regulating learning and practice to foster students’ self-regulated learning through reading.
Education Research International, 2013, Article ID 845694. doi:10.1155/2013/845694. http://www.
hindawi.com/journals/edu/2013/845694/.
Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis.
Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.
Campbell, A., McNamara, O., & Gilroy, P. (2004). Practitioner research and professional development
in education. London, ON: Paul Chapman.
Cartier, S. C., & Butler, D. L. (2004, May). Elaboration and validation of the questionnaires and plan for
analysis. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Canadian society for studies in education,
Winnipeg, MB.
Coburn, C. E., & Woulfin, S. L. (2012). Reading coaches and the relationship between policy and
practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 5–30.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational
Researcher, 28(7), 15–25.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research in the next generation.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Collie, R., Shapka, J., & Perry, N. E. (2012). School climate and social-emotional learning: Predicting
teacher stress, job satisfaction, and efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1189–1204.
Creswell, J. (2007). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The quiet revolution: Rethinking teacher development. Educational
Leadership, 53(6), 4–10.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy
evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved April 13, 2004, from http://epaa.
asu.edu/epaa/v8n1.
Durrant, J. (2009, January). Teacher leadership: Agency, enquiry and inclusion in school improvement.
Paper presented at the 22nd international congress for school effectiveness and improvement,
Vancouver, BC.
Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of
Educational Research, 43, 168–182.
Ervin, R. A., & Schaughency, E. (2008). Best practices in accessing the systems change literature. In A.
Thomas & J. P. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 853–873). Bethesda, MD:
National Association of School Psychologists.
Fitz, J. (2003). The politics of accountability: A perspective from England and Wales. Peadbody Journal
of Education, 78(4), 230–241.
Frost, D., & Durrant, J. (2002). Teachers as leaders: Exploring the impact of teacher-led development
work. School Leadership & Management, 22(2), 143–161.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer.
Gronn, P. (2003). Leadership: Who needs it? School Leadership & Management, 23(3), 267–290.
Guskey, T. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and
Practice, 8(3/4), 380–391.
Hadwin, A. F., & Jarvela, S. (2011). Introduction to a special issue on social aspects of self-regulated
learning: Where social and self meet in the strategic regulation of learning. Teachers College
Record, 113(2), 235–239.
Halbert, J., & Kaser, L. (2012). Inquiring learning environments: New mindsets required. East
Melbourne, Victoria: Centre for Strategic Education.
Hopkins, D., & Levin, B. (2000). Government policy and school improvement. School Leadership &
Management, 20(1), 15–30.
J Educ Change
123
Horn, I. S., & Little, J. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for
professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational Research Journal,
47(1), 181–217.
Irez, S. (2007). Reflection-oriented qualitative approach in beliefs research. Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3(1), 17–27.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency and professional
vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8),
899–916.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lieberman, A., & Wood, D. R. (2003). Inside the National Writing Project: Connecting network learning
and classroom teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lieberman, A., & Wood, D. R. (2005). The work of the National Writing Project: Social practices in a
network context. In F. Hernandez & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), Social geographies of educational change
(pp. 47–63). New York: Kluwer.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Loughran, J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning about teaching.
Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33–43.
Luna, C., Botelho, J., Fontaine, D., French, K., Iverson, K., & Matos, N. (2004). Making the road by
walking and talking: Critical literacy and/as professional development in a teacher inquiry group.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(1), 67–80.
McIntyre, D. (2005). Bridging the gap between research and practice. Cambridge Journal of Education,
35(3), 357–382.
McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities. New York:
Teacher College Press.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2002). Using instructional discourse analysis to study the scaffolding of
student self-regulation. Educational Psychologist, 37, 5–13.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morrell, E. (2004). Legitimate peripheral participation as professional development: Lessons from a
summer research seminar. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(1), 89–99.
Paris, S., Byrnes, J., & Paris, A. (2001). Constructing theories, identities and actions of self-regulated
learners. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic
achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 253–288). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Robertson, J., Hill, M., & Earl, L. (2004). Conceptual frameworks in school–university action research
communities. Paper presented at the New Zealand research in education conference, Wellington,
NZ.
Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Hannay, L. (2001). Effects of teacher efficacy on computer kills and
computer cognitions of Canadian students in grades K-3. The Elementary School Journal, 102(2),
141–156.
Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Kaplan, H. (2007). Autonomous motivation for teaching: How
self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,
99(4), 744–761.
Ryan, R. M., & Brown, K. W. (2005). Legislating competence: High-stakes testing policies and their
relations with psychological theories and research. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook
of competence and motivation (pp. 354–372). NY: The Guilford Press.
Ryan, R., & Weinstein, N. (2009). Undermining quality teaching and learning: A self-determination
theory perspective on high-stakes testing. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 224–233.
Schnellert, L. (2011). Collaborative inquiry: Teacher professional development as situated, responsive
co-construction of practice and learning. Dissertation, University of British Columbia. Retrieved
from https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/38245.
Schnellert, L., Butler, D. L., & Higginson, S. (2008). Co-constructors of data, co-constructors of meaning:
Teacher professional development in an age of accountability. Teaching and Teacher Education,
24(3), 725–750.
J Educ Change
123
Schunk, D. H. (1994). Self-regulation of self-efficacy and attributions in academic settings. In D.
H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and
educational applications (pp. 75–99). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and self-
evaluation. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 159–172.
Schunk, D. H. (2008). Metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: Research recommen-
dations. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 463–467.
Scribner, J. P., Hager, D. R., & Warne, T. R. (2002). The paradox of professional community: Tales from
two high schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 45–76.
Shagoury Hubbard, R., & Power, B. (2003). The art of classroom inquiry. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Sherer, J. Z. (2008, March). Power in distributed leadership: How teacher agency influences instructional
leadership practice. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American educational research
association, Washington, DC.
Stein, M. K., & Coburn, C. E. (2008). Architectures for learning: A comparative analysis of two urban
school districts. American Journal of Education, 114, 583–626.
Timperley, H., & Phillips, G. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning and professional learning to
improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6),
643–658.
Van Horn, L. (2006). Re-imagining professional development. Voices in the Middle, 13(4), 58–63.
Volet, S., Summers, M., & Thurman, J. (2009). High level co-regulation in collaborative learning: How
does it emerge and how is it sustained? Learning and Instruction, 19, 128–143.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Walker, B. J. (2003). The cultivation of student self-efficacy in reading and writing. Reading & Writing
Quarterly, 19, 173–187.
Watson, T. W., & Scribner, J. P. (2007). Beyond distributed leadership: Collaboration, interaction, and
emergent reciprocal influence. Journal of School Leadership, 17, 443–468.
Woolfolk-Hoy, A., Davis, H., & Pape, S. J. (2006). Teacher knowledge and beliefs. In P. A. Alexander &
P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 715–737). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Woulfin, S. L., & Coburn, C. E. (2012). Policy implementation: The path from reading policy to
classroom practice. In R. M. Bean & A. S. Dagen (Eds.), Best practices of literacy leaders: Keys to
school improvement (pp. 337–354). New York: The Guilford Press.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zeichner, K. M., & Noffke, S. E. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 298–330). Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background,
methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal,
45(1), 166–183.
J Educ Change
123
