Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
i
Abstract
A Descriptive Case Study:
Exploring Elementary Teachers’ Perceptions and Experiences
in a Collaborative Goal-Setting Culture
by
Shelly Dason
MA, The Ohio State University 1993
BS, The Ohio State University, 1985
Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
College of Graduate and Innovative Programs in School Leadership
Concordia University Chicago
July 2013
ii
ABSTRACT
Educational reform in the last 20 years has emphasized teacher collaboration with
goal-setting strategies versus the traditional teaching in isolation as a means for student
improvement; however, this does not appear to be the cultural norm in today’s American
schools. This case study was designed to identify teachers’ perceptions and experiences
of a collaborative goal-setting culture for improved student learning at the elementary
level.
The population for this study was a rural elementary school setting in north-
central Ohio. Convenience sampling of randomly selected, consenting teachers from each
grade level for interviews followed by intentional selection of consenting teachers to
represent varied grade levels for focus groups was utilized. Data gathered from
interviews and focus groups was analyzed using the categorical and thematic coding
process for this descriptive case study.
Findings revealed four collaborative goal-setting relationships with the teacher at
the core: Teacher/Administrator; Teacher/Teacher; Teacher/Student; and Teacher/Parent.
Five cross-categorical themes emerged: belonging; ownership; process; feedback; and
outcomes.
This study highlighted implications of findings for educational reforms at the
federal, state, local, and educator levels. Recommendations were made for future
research, including action research and a quantitative correlational study, both focused on
improving student learning.
iii
A Descriptive Case Study:
Exploring Elementary Teachers’ Perceptions and Experiences
in a Collaborative Goal-Setting Culture
by
Shelly Dason
MA, The Ohio State University 1993
BS, The Ohio State University, 1985
Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
College of Graduate and Innovative Programs in School Leadership
Concordia University Chicago
July 2013
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My heartfelt gratitude goes to many people who helped make my dream of
gaining a doctorate in education possible. Without their support, I would not have the
stamina to get this far in my professional life.
Growing up, my parents have always encouraged me to be whatever I wanted to
be. I know they are proud of me. My husband, who has never said “No” to furthering
education, even while two daughters were in college and the tuition bills were flooding
in. I am thankful for my daughters, with whom I worked alongside while doing
homework. They graduated before me and continued to support my educational journey.
I am very grateful for my doctoral chair, Dr. Elizabeth Brennan, who was very
helpful in getting me over the proposal hump. Additional thanks go to the rest of my
dissertation committee members: Dr. Pam Konkol, Dr. Jackie-Benchik-Osborne, Dr.
Debra Bockrath, and Dr. Julie Davis.
Above all, without God, my prayers would have gone unanswered.
v
Table of Contents
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... xii
List of Figures .................................................................................................................. xiii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................... 4
Historical Background and Research of the Goal-Setting Theory .............................. 4
Components of the Theory .......................................................................................... 5
Connections to this Study ............................................................................................ 6
Problem Statement ........................................................................................................... 7
Purpose Statement ........................................................................................................... 8
Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 9
Research Question One ............................................................................................... 9
Research Question Two ............................................................................................... 9
Research Question Three ............................................................................................. 9
Definition of Terms ....................................................................................................... 10
Building Level Teams (BLTs) ................................................................................... 10
Collaborative Goal Setting ........................................................................................ 10
Curriculum Based Measures (CBMs) ........................................................................ 10
Formative Instructional Practices (FIP) School ......................................................... 10
Individual Learning Goals (ILGs) ............................................................................. 11
Isolation ..................................................................................................................... 11
Non-Synergistic Culture ............................................................................................ 11
vi
Ohio Achievement Assessments (OAAs) .................................................................. 11
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) ............................................................. 11
School Culture ........................................................................................................... 12
SMART Goals ........................................................................................................... 12
Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................ 12
Generalizability ......................................................................................................... 12
Respondents’ Bias ..................................................................................................... 12
Researcher’s Bias ...................................................................................................... 13
Delimitations of the Study ............................................................................................. 13
Exclusionary Decisions ............................................................................................. 13
Inclusionary Decisions .............................................................................................. 13
Assumptions .................................................................................................................. 14
Respondents ............................................................................................................... 14
Principal Investigator ................................................................................................. 14
Significance of the Study ............................................................................................... 14
National Level Significance ...................................................................................... 14
State Level Significance ............................................................................................ 14
Local Level Significance ........................................................................................... 15
Educator Level Significance ...................................................................................... 15
Gaining Consents ........................................................................................................... 15
Internal Review Board (IRB) .................................................................................... 15
Cover Letter and Informed Consent .......................................................................... 16
vii
Gaining Entry in the Field ......................................................................................... 16
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 16
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 18
Research on Goal-Setting Theory ................................................................................. 18
A Summary of Goal-Setting Practices and Roles in Education .................................... 20
Teacher Roles and Focus ........................................................................................... 22
Student Roles and Focus ............................................................................................ 23
Mutual/Collaborative Process and Roles ................................................................... 24
Developing a Collaborative, Results-Oriented Culture ................................................. 25
Collaborative Goal-Setting Relationships ..................................................................... 27
Teacher and Peer Partnerships Collaborative Goal-Setting ...................................... 27
Teacher and Administrator Partnerships in Collaborative Goal-Setting ................... 28
Teacher and Student Partnerships in Collaborative Goal-Setting ............................. 29
Teacher and Parent Partnerships in Collaborative Goal-Setting ............................... 30
Collaborative Goal-Setting Case Studies at the District Level ..................................... 30
Collaborative Goal-Setting Case Studies at the Building Levels .................................. 34
Effective Goal-Setting, Feedback, and Student Motivation .......................................... 40
Next Steps ...................................................................................................................... 42
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 43
CHAPTER 3: METHODS ................................................................................................ 44
Design ............................................................................................................................ 45
Sample ........................................................................................................................... 46
viii
Setting ........................................................................................................................ 46
Population .................................................................................................................. 46
Samples and Sampling Techniques ........................................................................... 47
Procedure: Data Collection ............................................................................................ 48
Individual Interview Data .......................................................................................... 48
Focus Group Interview Data ...................................................................................... 49
Data Coding and Analysis ............................................................................................. 50
Categorical Analysis .................................................................................................. 50
Thematic Analysis ..................................................................................................... 51
Triangulated Analysis ................................................................................................ 52
Quality Assurances: Validity and Reliability ................................................................ 52
Reliability .................................................................................................................. 53
Validity ...................................................................................................................... 53
Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................... 54
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 55
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS ................................................................................................. 57
Highlighted Elementary School .................................................................................... 58
Collaborative Goal-Setting Background ................................................................... 58
Presentation of the Findings .......................................................................................... 61
Research Question Three ........................................................................................... 62
Summarized Findings of Collaborative Goal-Setting Relationships Related to
Research Question Three ........................................................................................... 79
ix
Summarized Findings of Cross-Categorical Themes Related to Research Question
Three .......................................................................................................................... 91
Research Question One ............................................................................................. 91
Summarized Findings Related to Research Question One. ....................................... 95
Research Question Two ............................................................................................. 96
Summarized Findings Related to Research Question Two. ...................................... 99
Key Findings Related To Research Questions ............................................................ 101
Research Question Three Key Findings .................................................................. 101
Research Question One Key Findings ..................................................................... 102
Research Question Two Key Findings .................................................................... 103
Summary of Chapter .................................................................................................... 104
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION .......................................................................................... 106
Key Findings ............................................................................................................... 106
Research Question Three ......................................................................................... 107
Research Question One ........................................................................................... 109
Research Question Two ........................................................................................... 110
Interpretations .............................................................................................................. 112
Strengths of the Findings ......................................................................................... 112
Weaknesses and Needs of the Findings ................................................................... 113
Personal Reflections in Relationship to the Theoretical Framework ...................... 113
Context ........................................................................................................................ 115
Findings Related to the T/A Collaborative Goal-Setting Relationship ................... 115
x
Findings Related to the T/T Collaborative Goal-Setting Relationship .................... 116
Findings Related to the T/S Collaborative Goal-Setting Relationship .................... 117
Findings Related to the T/P Collaborative Goal-Setting Relationship .................... 117
Findings Related to the Teachers’ Roles Within the Collaborative Relationships .. 119
Findings Related to the Aides/Barriers Within the Collaborative Relationships .... 120
Implications ................................................................................................................. 122
National Level Implications .................................................................................... 122
State Level Implications .......................................................................................... 122
Local Level Implications ......................................................................................... 122
Educator Level Implications .................................................................................... 123
Limitations of the Study .............................................................................................. 124
Generalizability ....................................................................................................... 124
Respondents’ Bias ................................................................................................... 124
Researcher’s Bias .................................................................................................... 124
Recommendations for Future Research ....................................................................... 125
Possible Action Research Study .............................................................................. 125
Possible Quantitative Correlational Research Study ............................................... 126
Closing Summary ........................................................................................................ 127
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 132
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 142
Appendix A – Cover Letter ......................................................................................... 142
Appendix B – Consent Form ....................................................................................... 144
xi
Appendix C – Gaining Entry Into the Field Consent .................................................. 145
Appendix D – Interview Guide ................................................................................... 146
Appendix E – Focus Group Guide .............................................................................. 149
xii
List of Tables
Table 1 Interview Participants ........................................................................................... 47
Table 2 Focus Group Participants ..................................................................................... 48
Table 3 Cross-Categorical Theme – Belonging ................................................................ 83
Table 4 Cross-Categorical Theme – Ownership ............................................................... 85
Table 5 Cross-Categorical Theme – Process ..................................................................... 87
Table 6 Cross-Categorical Theme – Feedback .................................................................. 89
Table 7 Cross-Categorical Theme – Outcomes ................................................................. 91
Table 8 Illustration of Collaborative Goal-Setting Relationship Categories and Themes-
Research Question 3 ................................................................................................ 102
Table 9 Collaborative Goal-Setting Culture – Research Question 1 ............................... 103
Table 10 Collaborative Goal-Setting Culture- Research Question 2 .............................. 103
xiii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Embedded single case design. (Source: COSMOS Corporation as cited in Yin
(2012)). ...................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 2. Example of excerpting and coding within the Dedoose (version 4.5.91) web-
based program. ........................................................................................................... 51
Figure 3. Code co-occurrence within the T/A collaborative goal-setting relationship. .... 66
Figure 4. Code applications per respondent within the T/A collaborative goal-setting
relationship. ............................................................................................................... 67
Figure 5. Code co-occurrence within the T/T collaborative goal-setting relationship. .... 70
Figure 6. Code applications per respondent within the T/T collaborative goal-setting
relationship ................................................................................................................ 71
Figure 7. Code co-occurrence within the T/S collaborative goal-setting relationship. ..... 75
Figure 8. Code applications per respondent within the T/S collaborative goal-setting
relationship. ............................................................................................................... 76
Figure 9. Code co-occurrence within the T/P collaborative goal-setting relationship. ..... 78
Figure 10. Code applications per respondent within the T/P collaborative goal-setting
relationship. ............................................................................................................... 79
Figure 11. Collaborative goal-setting relationships. ......................................................... 80
Figure 12. Sample of coded excerpts related to the theme of Belonging. ........................ 81
Figure 13. The Belonging code cloud. .............................................................................. 82
Figure 14. Sample of coded excerpts related to the theme of Ownership. ........................ 83
Figure 15. Ownership code cloud. .................................................................................... 84
xiv
Figure 16. Sample of coded excerpts related to the theme of Process. ............................. 85
Figure 17. Process code cloud. .......................................................................................... 86
Figure 18. Sample of coded excerpts related to the theme of Feedback. .......................... 87
Figure 19. Feedback code cloud. ...................................................................................... 88
Figure 20. Sample of coded excerpts related to the theme of Outcomes. ......................... 89
Figure 21. Outcomes code cloud. ...................................................................................... 90
Figure 22. Co-occurrence roles associated with collaborative goal-setting relationships.95
Figure 23. Collaborative goal-setting roles. ...................................................................... 96
Figure 24. Aids and barriers of a collaborative goal-setting culture. .............................. 100
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
For the last 50 years, goal setting has been a successful strategy in the business
world for raising individual and teamwork performance and outcomes (Locke & Latham,
2002; 2006). In the last 20 years, educational reform has started to emphasize teacher
collaboration with goal-setting strategies verses teaching in isolation as a means to
improve both teaching and student learning (Morse, 2000). However, Little (1993),
reiterated by Marzano (2003), argued that a collaborative goal-setting culture for
improved student learning outcomes does not seem to be the norm in today’s American
schools.
This descriptive case study explored an implementation plan of collaborative
goal-setting strategies within a context of teachers’ roles, perceptions, and experiences as
they occurred in an elementary school setting. Qualitative data was collected and
analyzed to ascertain the strengths, weaknesses, and needs of a collaborative goal-setting
culture focused on improved student learning.
History
Dating back to the 1830s, from one-room schoolhouses to today’s 21st century
multi-building educational campuses, educators traditionally have taught students in
isolation (Spring, 2010). The norm of teacher isolation throughout history has led to a
non-collaborative, competitive culture in the present day school organization (Schmoker,
2006). Goodlad (2004) argued that planning and teaching in isolation impede new
learning and seldom lead to change in teaching practices, which negatively impact
student learning ultimately.
2
Educational reform in the last two decades has emphasized teacher collaboration
(Morse, 2000). Morse (2000) advocated that collaboration should not be an option, as it
allows for new forms of human communication in the educational setting as an
acceptable practice to improve teaching and learning. Little (1990), reiterated by
Schmoker (2006), warned educators not to confuse congenial collaboration with real
collaborative work focused on student data, if true school improvement is the expected
outcome. Fullan (2000) stated, “teachers in successful schools with professional learning
communities, work together on a continual basis…focused on student work…can change
their instructional practice accordingly to get better results” (p. 582). Schmoker (2006)
believed that when teachers collaborated regularly about authentic work characterized
with explicit, common learning goals, their efforts would be met with high quality
solutions to instructional problems, increased confidence, and trust levels among staff
members and gains in student achievement.
The works of Eaker et al. (2002) suggested ways in which schools could become
effective collaborative communities. Eaker et al. (2002) suggested that reculturing
schools should start with a conceptual framework that included building-level shared
vision, mission, and goals; collaborative teams focused on student data; measurable goal-
setting strategies; action plans to meet goals; and a cyclical improvement process to
inform classroom instruction. Much of Eaker et al.’s collaborative work was focused at
the building and teacher levels within the organization.
Marzano et al. (2004) suggested that collaborative communities at the teacher
level, focused on data, should also be emulated at the student level. Marzano et al.’s
3
(2004) research identified collaborative goal setting with students, backed up with timely
feedback for student motivation, as an effective research-based strategy to improve
student achievement. Conzemius and O’Neill (2006) focused on collaborative,
measurable goal setting at all levels of the school organization. Conzemius and O’Neill
(2006) stressed the SMART goal-setting format: specific; measurable; attainable;
realistic; and time-bound. Battelle for Kids (2012) emphasized the connectivity from
Eaker et al.’s (2002) suggestion of collaborative teams, tied in with Marzano et al.’s
(2004) teams focused on data, and combined with Conzemius and O’Neil’s (2006)
measurable SMART goal-setting format at all levels of the organization.
Even with the educational reforms of the last two decades placing emphasis on
teacher collaboration, as well as the professional works of Eaker et al. (2002), the
research-based practices of suggested by Marzano et al. (2004), the professional works of
Conzemius and O’Neill (2006), and best practices suggested by Battelle for Kids (2012),
there seems to be little evidence that schools are employing this best practice of
collaborative goal-setting at all levels of the school organization. Rosenholtz (1991)
noted that:
The existence of common goals in schools was…rare, and the lack of agreed-
upon goals, makes schools unique among organizations. She found that there was
very little goal consensus—a collective agreement about what to work toward—
even though her studies revealed that this element was the heart of what counted
for progress and success. (as cited in Marzano, 2003, p. 36)
4
Furthermore, based on a comprehensive review of the literature on mutual goal-
setting, teams at all levels of the school organization, including administration, teachers,
and students, indicated the need for identifying strengths, weaknesses, and needs of a
collaborative culture focused on student improvement.
Theoretical Framework
Historical Background and Research of the Goal-Setting Theory
This study was based on the underpinnings of the goal-setting theory of work
motivation. According to Redmond (2010), the goal-setting theory of work motivation
has been researched for 50 years primarily in the fields of Organizational and Industrial
Psychology. In the early 1940s, Lewin (1944) explored the concept of work on levels of
aspiration and this was later developed by Locke’s (1968), goal-setting research (as cited
in Redmond, 2010). Locke’s early research pinpointed an association between goal
setting and production performance (Locke & Latham, 2006). The goal terminology was
defined as a consciously desired task to achieve (Locke & Latham 2002; 2006). The early
research of Locke and Latham (2002; 2006) revealed that if teams or individuals were not
content with their present work performance based on desired goals set, they were
motivated to increase a collective or individual effort, or change the strategy to meet the
desired outcome.
Locke and Latham (2002; 2006) believed the premise of goal-setting theory was
based on purposeful human actions. Setting goals provides individuals or teams with
explicit actions and behaviors necessary to improve performance. Locke and Latham
(2002; 2006) pointed to a linear relationship between goal difficulty, level of
5
performance, and effort. Their research findings revealed that as long as the person or
team were committed to a goal, had a realistic action plan to attain the goal, and did not
have conflicting goals, the desired outcome was met.
Components of the Theory
According to Locke and Latham (2002; 2006), the goal-setting theory has several
components or conditions for success in desired outcomes: acceptance for goal
commitment; specific goals; goal difficulty; and feedback. According to Latham (2004),
these conditions are necessary to motivate individuals or groups to stay the course for
desired outcomes.
Acceptance for goal commitment. The first step in creating motivation is for an
individual or group to accept a goal and be committed to it. Locke and Latham (2002;
2006) described two important factors necessary for goal commitment: self-efficacy and
importance. When these two factors are included, the goal becomes personalized. Goal
personalization creates ownership, which in turn increases motivation to succeed in
reaching the desired outcomes (Conzemius & O’Neill, 2006).
Specific goals. The second step in maintaining motivation is to remove the
ambiguity of the goals by stating specifics with measurable outcomes. Locke and Latham
(2002; 2006) believed the specific, measurable approach to setting goals provided
individuals or groups with external referents, such as who, what, where, when, why, and
how to maintain motivation and pace in meeting goal outcomes. Locke and Latham
(2002; 2006) pointed out that goals without external referents remained vague, allowing
for a variety of interpretations on how to reach the goal.
6
Goal difficulty. The level of goal difficulty determines the next step in
maintaining motivation and commitment of an individual or group. Research from Locke
and Latham (2002; 2006) revealed that the highest level of motivation and commitment
occurred when the goal was moderately difficult; whereas a goal set too high or too low
maintained the lowest levels of motivation and commitment. Redmond (2010) pointed
out that goals perceived to be too easy were considered unnecessary, allowing motivation
to diminish, while goals perceived to be too hard became obstacles allowing motivation
to cease into discouragement. A goal that is both challenging and attainable encourages
motivation for task completion (Redmond, 2010).
Feedback. The final step in motivation for goal completion is timely, appropriate
feedback (Locke & Latham, 2002; 2006). Sorrentino (2006) pointed out that without
feedback, the individual or group members would be unaware of their progression
towards the goals set. Timely feedback allows for individuals or group members to
identify and address weakness in the current action plan, which in turn allows time for
modifications (Smith & Hitt, 2005). In providing timely feedback, an individual or group
will maintain motivation because the importance of their contributions towards goal
completion will be recognized (Redmond, 2010).
Connections to this Study
The theory of goal-setting practices was explored in this study through a
collaborative effort among administration, staff, and students for improved student
learning. The conditions of acceptance for goal commitment, specific goals, goal
7
difficulty, and feedback of work motivation (Locke & Latham, 2002; 2006) impacting
school culture were the foundation for the research questions.
Problem Statement
The elementary school in this case study initially had low Ohio Achievement
Assessment (OAA) scores in mathematics (Ohio Department of Education [ODE], 2006),
which led the administration and teachers in the elementary BLT to investigate possible
mitigating factors. The BLT members explored and listed aids and barriers to student
success. Issues, such as teacher isolation, competitiveness, lack of a team concept,
absence of joint goals, and low staff buy-in for collaboration emerged, and these may
have negatively impacted student achievement. (BLT Minutes, personal communication,
September, 2007). The BLT members believed the non-existence of a combined vision,
mission, and goals among the teaching staff, manifested itself in low achievement scores.
These findings prompted the BLT members to search for a solution to their school-based
problem of a non-synergistic culture, whereby non-collaborative, isolated planning and
teaching practices that were impeding student learning.
After a BLT review of best planning and teaching practices (BLT Minutes,
personal communication, September, 2007), it was decided that administration, teachers,
and students would benefit from the implementation of a systematic endeavor to employ
collaborative goal-setting strategies with timely feedback, as suggested from Marzano’s
(2003) research of what works in schools for expectations in academic improvement. The
team agreed that the use of the goal-setting model was well suited to their need for a
8
more synergistic school culture. The team predicted further that an improved culture
could affect student achievement directly and indirectly.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this descriptive case study was to identify teachers’ roles,
perceptions, and experiences of a collaborative goal-setting culture for improved student
learning at the elementary level.
With the inquiry for opinions, feelings, knowledge, and experiences of staff
members employing goal-settings strategies, a collaborative structure and belief system
was explored and qualitative data gathered. The BLT identified and expounded the
strengths, weaknesses, and the needs for a collaborative goal-setting culture for school
improvement.
The target group was teachers within one elementary school setting. The
elementary school building was located in a rural area of north-central Ohio, with an
average daily enrollment of 630 students (School A Website, 2013). Thirty percent of the
student body was economically disadvantaged, and students with disabilities accounted
for 10% of the total population. The majority of the student body was White, 93% of the
total population. Attendance trends were in the upper 90%. All teachers were considered
highly qualified by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) definition of levels of
experience coupled with appropriate degrees and varied years of experience.
I am the building administrator, and the principal investigator of the study, with
19 years of administrative experience. As the principal investigator of this study, I also
have the role as a participant observer, as I am an active member of the BLT
9
implementing the plan on collaborative goal setting for improved student learning. The
local school board originally shared and supported the school-based plan on collaborative
goal-setting strategies (School Board Minutes, personal communication, January 2007).
Research Questions
An extensive literature review on the theory of goal-setting practices of the
business world researched by Locke and Latham (2002; 2006) was applied to the
educational setting. The roles of administration, teachers, and students were reviewed in
the literature, as well as the research for further improvement upon teachers’ knowledge,
comfort, and skill levels in a collaborative goal-setting culture. The following research
questions guided the study:
Research Question One
What are elementary teachers’ perceptions of their roles while using collaborative
goal-setting strategies within the school organization?
Research Question Two
What do elementary teachers perceive to be the aids and barriers in the
collaborative goal-setting process?
Research Question Three
How has the goal-setting process impacted teachers’ experiences and perceptions
as professionals within the collaborative culture?
10
Definition of Terms
The following definitions are provided to ensure uniformity and understanding of
these terms throughout the study. A citation does not follow this researcher’s-developed
terms.
Building Level Teams (BLTs)
This term refers to a school group of teachers and administrators focused on
student data for improved student learning (Battelle for Kids, 2012; Eaker et al., 2002).
For this study, the BLT is comprised of administrators and teachers from each grade level
focused on measurable building level goals and student data from the OAAs.
Collaborative Goal Setting
This phrase refers to the teamwork of setting performance academic targets. Equal
participation between two or more team members is required. For this study, equal
participation between the Teacher/Administrator, Teacher/Teacher, and the
Teacher/Student was expected.
Curriculum Based Measures (CBMs)
This term refers to teacher made formative assessments, which measure student
performance growth over time (Battelle for Kids, 2012; Busch & Espin, 2003; Deno,
2003). For this study, CBMs are used for assessment probes as a local measure of
individual student growth.
Formative Instructional Practices (FIP) School
This term refers to a collective approach to setting clear and collaborative learning
targets, which is evidenced by gathering and analyzing student data with frequent
11
feedback from all stakeholders in a school organization for improved student learning
(Battelle for Kids 2012).
Individual Learning Goals (ILGs)
The definition of this term is the measurable individual student achievement
targets set in collaboration with the classroom teacher.
Isolation
For the purpose of this study, isolation refers to non-collaborative planning and
teaching practices of teachers with other staff members and students.
Non-Synergistic Culture
For the purpose of this study, a non-synergistic culture refers to non-collaborative
staff members; whereby the sum of their individual planning and teaching efforts are less
than the effects of teamwork as a whole through teaming within the PLCs and BLT
meetings.
Ohio Achievement Assessments (OAAs)
This term refers to standardized tests given annually in Ohio at the local
educational level to assess student performance (ODE, 2012b).
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs)
This phrase refers to teacher teams focused on student data for improved student
learning (Eaker et al., 2002). Recently, PLCs have been renamed Teacher Based Teams
(TBTs) in Ohio (Ohio Leadership Advisory Council [OLAC], 2013). For this study, the
teacher teams are known as PLCs comprised of grade level or subject level members
representing kindergarten through fifth grade.
12
School Culture
This term refers to the inner reality of environment within the school building
(Deal & Peterson, 2009).
SMART Goals
This term refers to performance academic targets, which are specific; measurable;
attainable; realistic; and time-bound (O’Neill, 2005). For this study, collaborative
SMART goal setting in core subjects was aligned from the building level, grade level,
classroom level, down to the student level.
Limitations of the Study
The limitations of the study may be characterized through the design or
methodology, which can impact the interpretations of the results. The following
limitations were beyond this researcher’s control.
Generalizability
The case study was a descriptive method of describing human interaction. The
exploratory design had limitations due to subjective data gathered through interviews and
focus groups. The case study was hard to generalize due to possible subjective data in the
particular context of the elementary setting under study.
Respondents’ Bias
The case study took place in my elementary school setting. As the respondents’
supervisor, a case could be made that the responses were either coerced or tailored to
meet expectations.
13
Researcher’s Bias
The case study took place in my elementary school setting. I am also an active
participant in the school-wide collaborative goal-setting study; therefore, it could be
argued that the analyzed data may contain researcher bias of subjective rather than
objective findings.
Delimitations of the Study
The delimitations of the study were defined by the conscious exclusionary and
inclusionary decisions made throughout the development of the study.
Exclusionary Decisions
The original school-based problem of stagnant achievement scores in the school
setting under study encompassed many subjects and many elementary grade levels.
However, there was an exclusionary decision not to focus on the association between a
pre and post-collaborative goal setting practices in relationship to academic outcomes
over the past six years of this case study. It would be difficult to attribute a relational
change to academic outcomes based on one variable of collaborative goal setting in this
study.
Inclusionary Decisions
With the original school-based problem of stagnant or low achievement scores in
the school setting under study, a conscious decision was made to focus the inquiry of
identifying strengths and weaknesses of a collaborative culture employing goal-setting
practices. This focused inquiry documented teacher dynamics of a collaborative goal-
14
setting culture, which should have significant findings for overall school improvement.
These findings should be useful to many stakeholders in education.
Assumptions
Assumptions address the limitations that I did not attempt to control.
Respondents
All participants answered the interviewer’s questions truthfully and to the best of
their ability.
Principal Investigator
The principal investigator was viewed as a facilitator and active participant in the
collaborative goal-setting culture.
Significance of the Study
The significance of this study in ascertaining factors for a synergistic school
culture employing collaborative goal-setting strategies for school improvement may add
to the knowledge in literature at the national, state, local, and educator levels.
National Level Significance
National level education reforms, such as the NCLB Act (2001) have academic
expectations that all children will learn. However, little educational guidance and
minimal funding are provided for local educators to fulfill the expectations.
State Level Significance
The state educational reforms have aligned with the National NCLB Act (2001)
requirements. The OAAs for students are a way to measure state and local academic
progress toward the NCLB guidelines (ODE, 2012b). In recent years, an emphasis on the
15
value-added growth of individual students over time has been a new indicator on building
report cards (ODE, 2012c). However, little educational guidance and minimal funding are
provided for local educators to fulfill the expectations.
Local Level Significance
At the local level, educational reform seems to have had little impact on
traditional, isolated teaching styles. Much of the district’s professional development
seems to be from a top-down approach, with little time or money for follow through
(Hirsh, n.d.).
Educator Level Significance
At the educator level, reform is expected through The Ohio Educator Standards
(ODE, 2004), which focuses on teacher performance levels in instruction, assessment,
collaboration, and communication of student learning. However, little educational
guidance and minimal funding are provided for local educators to fulfill the expectations.
Gaining Consents
To ensure success of this study, I implemented several steps. These steps
included legal and ethical requirements necessary to protect the participants of the study:
Internal Review Board (IRB) approval, cover letter, consent forms, and gaining entry in
the field of the study.
Internal Review Board (IRB)
This study involved adult, human subjects with data collection through interviews
involving a non-sensitive topic, and was not funded by an agency; therefore, IRB
approval was sought through the university.
16
Cover Letter and Informed Consent
The next step in the IRB application process was to develop an informed consent
form that solicited voluntary participation. For this case study, teachers who participated
voluntarily in the interviews and focus groups were given a cover letter and consent form
containing the following information: name of organization; sponsorship; purpose of
research; confidentiality of respondents; voluntary cooperation; and assurances that
answers can be skipped or the participants can opt out with no retribution (Fowler, 2009).
A cover letter (see Appendix A) and consent form (see Appendix B) for this case study,
included the suggestions from Fowler (2009), as well the IRB informed consent check list
provided by the university.
Gaining Entry in the Field
It was important that the district superintendent granted approval for this study.
Several important areas were listed in a written format when gaining superintendent
approval: proposed study description; reasons why the participants were selected;
measures to collect data; assurances of professional ethics of research in public schools;
and sharing of findings (see Appendix C).
Summary
Chapter 1 was an introduction to familiarize the readers with the purpose of the
study. A brief history of the lack of goal-setting strategies in the educational setting was
introduced. The theoretical framework of the goal-setting theory was presented. The
problem statement was identified. The purpose of the inquiry was developed. Research
questions were listed to guide the study. Definition of terms was listed. Limitations,
17
delimitations, and assumptions were identified. The significance of the study was
highlighted. Gaining consent to move forward with the study was discussed.
Chapter 2 contains a review of literature and research related to the goal-setting
culture observed and the theoretical framework being studied. Chapter 3 covers the
methodology used to gather data for this study. The results and findings of this study are
contained in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 contains a summary of the study and findings.
Conclusions were drawn from the findings. A discussion and recommendations was
presented made for other studies.
18
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Many researchers over the last couple of decades have pointed out the importance
of effective teachers in relation to student achievement (Knoeppel, Verstgen, & Rinehart,
2007; Lipson, Mosenthal, Mekkelsen, & Russ, 2004; Sanders, 2000; Taylor, Pearson,
Clark, & Walpole, 2000). Sanders and Rivers (1996) confirmed that students’
achievements are significantly higher in classrooms with effective teachers over a course
of one school year than students taught by ineffective teachers over the same period of
time (as cited in Sanders, 2000).
Marzano’s (1998) meta-analysis of instructional research revealed that an
effective teacher utilizes an assortment of research-based instructional strategies (as cited
in Marzano, 2003; 2007; 2009; Marzano, Pickering, & Heflebower, 2010; Marzano et al.,
2004). One of these identified instructional strategies included the goal-setting process
with students for increased student accountability (Marzano, 2007). This literature review
focuses on the theory of goal-setting practices in the business world (Locke & Latham,
2002; 2006) as they apply to the educational setting. Collaborative roles, knowledge,
experiences, and practices of teachers in a goal-setting culture for school improvement
are reviewed in literature.
Research on Goal-Setting Theory
Goal-setting theory can be applied to different settings (Redmond, 2010). The
early research of Locke’s goal-setting practices dates back to the 1960s (as cited in
Redmond, 2010). Locke and Latham’s (2002) work revealed a relationship between
specific, attainable tasks in correlation to task motivation and completion. The early
19
meta-analysis of Tubbs (1986), reiterated by Redmond (2010), supported Locke’s (1968)
original goal-setting theory that the use of specific, attainable goals showed a positive
correlation to improved performance. DeWalt et al.’s (2009) research showed a linear
correlation to the motivation affect of goal setting when timely feedback was given.
Parker, Jimmieson, and Amiot (2009) showed that autonomy of the goals improved self-
efficacy, which enhanced motivation to goal completion.
Goal-setting theory has many strengths and benefits. The theory is widely used
among industrial and organizational psychologists due to the simplicity of the framework
(Redmond, 2010). Latham (2004) reported that goal setting is a factor in self-
management and that goal setting creates purposeful work and attainable challenges to
motivate individuals or groups to complete tasks.
Goal-setting theory also has limitations and weaknesses. Setting too many goals at
one time makes it difficult to achieve all of the goals with the same level of motivation or
skill to complete the tasks (Latham, 2004). Setting limits on the number of goals, finding
a balance with similar goals, or prioritizing goals helps individuals or groups to maintain
attention to task completion (Gergen & Vanourek, 2009). Another limitation of goal
setting deals with the risks associated with goal-setting, such as setting a goal with no
meaningful outcome, or setting a goal that can not be measured for success (Locke,
2004). Another weakness may be the tunnel vision of the participants to meet the goal,
while ignoring other important areas of the workplace (Locke, 2004). Critics of goal-
setting theory argue that negative side effects of unethical behavior, such as cheating,
20
lying, or inequitable monetary measures in motivating members to complete the task,
may develop among participants (Gergen & Vanourek, 2009).
Goal-setting theory can be applied in the workplace. Goal-setting practices are
widely used in the business world as a way to improve work performance (Redmond,
2010). Fried and Slowik (2004) showed that successful managers use collaborative,
aligned goal-setting strategies, which are specific and measurable, backed up with timely
feedback. The feedback was multifaceted and included social recognition, time off,
promotions, or monetary gains (Fried & Slowik, 2004).
A Summary of Goal-Setting Practices and Roles in Education
Fuchs and Fuchs (1995) identified four attributes of goal-setting in special
education that could apply to goal-setting with all students: (i) setting goals that address a
specific educational need; (ii) designing and implementing instruction around the
individual goals; (iii) monitoring and evaluating individual progress towards goals; and
(iv) adjusting instruction as part of the action plan (as cited in Fuchs, Mock, Morgan &
Young, 2003). Deno’s (1985) early curriculum-based method (CBM) research laid the
groundwork for meaningful progress in monitoring of student academic goals in special
education (as cited in Deno, Fuchs, Marston, & Shin, 2001). Deno’s (1985) goal for the
CBM was to provide teachers with a research-based tool of measuring, graphing,
instructing, and evaluating performance of special education students; in turn, the student
performance informed the instruction in the classroom. With the passage of NCLB
(United States Department of Education, 2001), a sense of urgency was placed on schools
for higher academic standards and achievement of all students, including but not limited
21
to limited English proficient students, identified at-risk students, students with
disabilities, minorities, and the economically disadvantaged students. One of the results
of this legislation was the Response to Intervention (RTI) models. A primary element of
the RTI models is a universal system of screening, goal setting, and tracking academic
progress of all students (Busch & Espin, 2003; Fuchs et al., 2003).
In the business world during the 1990s, Locke and Latham’s (2002; 2006)
research provided a theory of goal setting and task performance, which was measurable
and specific. This specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time bound (SMART)
theory made an appearance into the educational realm during the past decade (Conzemius
& O’Neill, 2006):
• Specific. The objective is concrete, focused, emphasizes action, and requires
an outcome.
• Measurable. The measurement source is identified and results are trackable.
• Attainable. Is it possible to achieve this goal and how can it be achieved?
• Realistic. Are the resources available (skill, money, equipment) to achieve the
goal?
• Time Bound. A deadline is set to achieve the goal (Locke and Latham, 2002;
2006).
Through using a household plant metaphor, Conzemius and O’Neill (2006)
described the goal-setting process in terms of commitment:
For most of us, providing regular food, water, and sunlight to keep a plant alive is
no big deal. But here is where the distinction becomes evident: For the average
22
person, success is defined as plants that survive; for our green thumbs, success is
defined as plants that thrive. Thriving takes commitment. (p. 34)
Conzemius and O’Neill (2006) likened the goals to plants that need attention and
care by experienced people committed to nourishing their individual growth and
potential. If the goals and action plans are put on a shelf, like a plant, they will be
forgotten and die. For goals to be living, breathing documents the SMART goal-setting
process for improved student learning that should keep the goals alive and thriving due to
collaborative commitments of all, not just a few people (Conzemius & O’Neill, 2006).
Teacher Roles and Focus
Chappuis (2005) described a student-involvement assessment process model,
where students were engaged actively in setting their own learning goals for academic
improvement. The teacher took the role of facilitator or coach and asked the students
three important questions: (i) What do I want to learn? (ii) What do I already know about
it? and (iii) How do I learn it? The study’s results showed that student involvement in the
assessment model of goal setting did have a direct positive effect on students’
motivations to learn, while outcomes, such as student achievement, needed to be
collected and analyzed over time (Chappuis, 2005).
Teachers could use CBM as an instrument to help students understand their
academic goals and progress. CBM is a systematic, reliable, short cycle assessment
procedure for documenting students’ academic progress (Deno, 2003; Shapiro, 2004;
Stecker & Fuchs, 2000). Deno’s (1998) research revealed a direct relationship in teachers
utilizing CBM to track student academic growth over time for predicting student
23
performance; enhancing instructional planning; communicating needs or progress to a
intervention assistance team; identifying academically at-risk students; and
recommending further testing or placement needs (as cited in Deno, 2003). However, this
best practice of daily and weekly progress monitoring of goals seems to overwhelm many
educators (Hintze, Christ, & Methe, 2006). When teachers choose not to monitor the
progress of every student through the RTI process, they omit inadvertently one of the
essential elements of special education, which could make education special for all
students (Hintze et al., 2006). Jenkins, Graff, and Miglioretti’s (2009) research outcomes
suggested that the frequency of progress monitoring could be reduced significantly
without impacting the growth estimates negatively. This may help to reduce the teacher’s
reluctance to implement this best practice for all students.
Conzemius and O’Neill (2006) described common roadblocks for teachers in
regards to student goal-setting and monitoring: lack of a goal-setting mindset; lack of a
common CBM assessment tool; lack of experience in using CBM to examine student data
collaboratively; lack of necessary collaborative student feedback on progress monitoring;
lack of time; and lack of comfort in the collaborative goal-setting process.
Student Roles and Focus
Self-regulated learners (SRL) are students involved actively in the learning
process (DeCorte, Verschaffel, & Op’t Eynde, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000). SRL exhibit
goal-setting strategies; monitor progress towards goals; persist in their learning efforts;
and change their strategies when needed to meet the goal (Zimmerman, 2000). McDevitt,
Sheehan, Sinco, Cochran, Lauer, and Starr’s (2008) exploratory research revealed that
24
middle school students had positive experiences in setting and tracking personalized
learning goals. Some benefits recognized by the students included a focused way of
meeting a learning goal; efficient use of time; and matching learning strategies to
learning needs. A predominate challenge was with students choosing their own activities
to meet their end goals as SRL (McDevitt et al., 2008).
Mutual/Collaborative Process and Roles
Students benefit from the process of setting academic and personal goals, but
when the teacher does not facilitate or teach them, the students often have difficulty
setting realistic goals (Morisano, Hirsh, Peterson, Pihl, & Shore, 2010) and in tracking
and evaluating their own progress accurately (Stone & May, 2002). Involving students in
the assessment process can result in improved student learning (Conzemius & O’Neill,
2006).
Swain’s (2005) research utilized CBMs as a tool to set student goals and track
academic growth. Swain’s (2005) study showed that without teacher monitoring and
student training on the goal-setting process, students set unrealistic, unobtainable goals
for themselves. However, if the goals were strictly teacher imposed, student self-
regulation in tracking of academic progress was less likely to keep the students motivated
in the goal-setting process (Keller-Marqulis, Shapiro, & Hintze, 2008; Morisano et al.,
2010). Schloemer and Brenan’s (2006) research revealed that the college-level SRL
needed to be taught a collaborative goal-setting process, which included frequent and
extensive teacher monitoring, coupled with student feedback.
25
Developing a Collaborative, Results-Oriented Culture
In a traditional school culture, the focus is on teacher performance; whereas in a
collaborative, results-oriented school culture, the focus is on student learning at all levels
of the organization (Eaker et al., 2002). Eaker et al. (2002) identified a conceptual
framework of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), which focused on a combined
educational structure with a fundamental shift in the belief systems of the staff. These
fundamental shifts can be viewed in many elements of successful PLCs: collaboration;
mission, vision, values and goals; focus on learning, leadership; and school improvement
plans.
A successful PLC culture will shift from the traditional teacher isolation in many
present day school organizations to a culture with meaningful collaboration (Eaker et al.,
2002). Eaker et al. (2002) made an analogy that depicted a visual definition of teacher
isolation, “…the traditional school functions as a collection of independent contractors
united by a common parking lot” (p. 11). The school organization with meaningful
collaboration would function as interdependent teams with common goal-setting
practices focused on improved student learning.
A successful PLC culture would shift from the traditional focus on the teaching
practices to one that emphasizes student learning (Eaker et al., 2002). Eaker et al. (2002)
described a school’s mission statement going beyond a traditional generic affirmation
that students will become lifelong learners to a one that depicts how the students will
become lifelong learners. A cultural shift would be seen in the vision statement of a
school organization going from a wish list of a few staff members to one developed based
26
on staff collaboration and research and used as a framework for school improvement.
Eaker et al. (2002) emphasized that staff values must shift from belief to behaviors and a
collaborative commitment. A cultural shift must be made in terms of goal-setting
practices. Traditional school organizations may list many random goals that are not
measurable or monitored. Eaker et al. (2002) stated clearly that successful collaborative
teams have an aligned plan with the mission and vision through shared goals, which are
measurable and monitored for student growth.
In traditional school settings, the focus is primarily on teaching rather than student
learning (Eaker et al., 2002). Eaker et al. (2002) stated that a successful PLC would make
a concerted effort to reduce content while utilizing research-based programming and best
practices with a collective inquiry on student results; thus shaping the culture to be more
results-oriented.
In traditional school settings, Eaker et al. (2002), described leadership in terms of
authority given to administration with teachers as subordinates. A true cultural shift takes
place when administration is viewed as a “leader of leaders” and teachers are
“transformational leaders” (Eaker et al., 2002, p. 22). A true collaborative approach for
facilitating student growth is observed.
A traditional school’s improvement plan is often a list of unrelated wishes written
on paper, turned in to satisfy a local deadline, and often ignored (Eaker et al., 2002). The
collaborative inquiry of a PLC would develop a written plan with interrelated,
measurable goals focused on student learning, which would be the road map for school
improvement.
27
Collaborative Goal-Setting Relationships
Educators are often the ones most resistant to change, which seems ironic in the
educational setting (Deal & Peterson, 2009; Hall & Simeral, 2008). Hall and Simeral
(2008) suggested that by forming significant relationships between the teachers and
administrators, change is more likely to occur. The relationship should center around the
teacher, with clear sets of connections through (i) teacher/peer relationships within the
PLC framework of TBTs; (iii) the teacher/administrator relationships within the BLT
framework; (iii) teacher/student relationships through collaborative goal-setting (Hall &
Simeral, 2008); and, (iv) teacher/parent relationships where parents are partners in the
collaborative goal-setting relationship of understanding what their child(ren) are learning
(Battelle for Kids, 2012).
Teacher and Peer Partnerships Collaborative Goal-Setting
Hall and Simeral (2008) suggested school improvement could be strengthened
when viable collaboration exists between the teachers and peers. Eaker et al. (2002)
explained a framework, which promotes teacher collaboration, known as PLCs. Through
PLCs, educators work, grow, and learn together to improve upon their teaching practices
for improved student learning.
Hall and Simeral (2008) likened the work of teacher PLCs to that of baseball
teams. Schools that operate like the New York Yankees, which rewards star players with
huge paychecks, are not guaranteed success; whereas schools that operate like the St.
Louis Cardinals, who won the World Series of 2006, will succeed by focusing more on
teamwork rather than all stars and paychecks. The PLC framework offers an umbrella of
28
teamwork, while allowing each teacher to hone in on their own special skills for
improved student learning, while benefiting from other members’ strengths on the team
(Eaker et al., 2002). The OLAC (2013) renamed PLCs as TBTs; whereby, problem-
solving data teams analyze formative data to inform classroom instruction for positive
outcomes on summative student data. This process is also known as FIP (Battelle for
Kids, 2012). In a FIP school, teachers foster a collaborative culture of working in teams
with shared expectations of analyzing student data to inform classroom instruction.
Hall and Simeral (2008) were quick to point out that the triangulation of
collaborative relationships, which included student and administration, were equally
important for academic success in the school organization. A true FIP school or district
integrates a collaborative relationship with parents who understand learning targets,
action plans, ownership of learning, and effective two-way communication (Battelle for
Kids, 2012).
Teacher and Administrator Partnerships in Collaborative Goal-Setting
Hall and Simeral (2008) suggested that school improvement could be enhanced
when viable collaboration exists between the teacher and the administrator. The two
positions have clear roles and boundaries in the school setting; however, similarities need
to be noticed and put into play. The teachers and administrators should be partners not
adversaries in school improvement plans with the ultimate goal of school improvement
(Hall & Simeral, 2008).
The role of the administrator on the BLT with teachers is multifaceted: visible and
servant leadership by facilitation of the team; make known the vision and mission of the
29
school for aligned goal-setting to occur; coordinate professional development and
resources; inspire, mentor, and challenge other teachers to lead; and provide effective
feedback (Battelle for Kids, 2012; Hall & Simeral, 2008). Hall and Simeral (2008) found
that relationships of trust, respect, and understanding characterize a strong
teacher/administrator BLT team. Schmoker (2009) noted that setting academic school-
wide goals has a powerful effect on teachers and administrators by building a cohesive
team foundation. Schmoker (2009) affirmed Little (1990) and Marzano’s (2003) ideas on
team goal-setting. Little (1990) found that shared common goals among staff members
were more important than forming interpersonal friendships in relationship to effective
schooling.
Teacher and Student Partnerships in Collaborative Goal-Setting
When a collaborative goal-setting partnership is formed between the student and
teacher, student ownership and accountability flourishes (Conzemius & O’Neill, 2006;
O’Neill, 2000). The educator’s role is multifaceted: teaching measurable goal-setting
strategies; helping the students to develop action plans; teaching students ways to track
progress; celebrating successes with students; and facilitating the goal-setting process as
a cyclical cycle with new collaborative goals (Battelle for Kids, 2012; Conzemius &
O’Neill, 2006). Conzemius and O’Neill (2006) found that collaborative goal setting
allows the student to take an active role in the learning process, allowing the student to
bring goal-setting skills into their personal life as lifelong learners. In a FIP school,
students will be able to self-assess and will know what to do to be successful through the
collaborative goal-setting process (Battelle for Kids, 2012).
30
Covington (2000) argued that teachers should not only set measureable classroom
goals for students to reach, but that establishing individual student goals is more powerful
in raising student achievement. Covington (2000) contended that individual goals have
been the foundation of special education for decades in the form of Individualized
Educational Plans (IEPs). Carrying this same concept to all students should be the next
logical step. Covington (2009) argued that while building and classroom goals have their
place in the schoolhouse for the overall performance goals of the 90% of proficient
students, he questioned the 10% of students who did not reach the overall performance
goal. Covington (2009) suggested that by setting individual performance goals for all
students, rather than just classroom goals, no child would truly be left behind.
Teacher and Parent Partnerships in Collaborative Goal-Setting
The fourth relationship dimension is the collaborative partnership between the
teachers and parents (Battelle for Kids, 2012; Epstein, Sheldon, Jansorn, Thomas, &
Williams, 2009). The two-way understanding and feedback should include clear learning
targets; understanding of performance expectations; and measurable action plans on ways
to support learning at home (Battelle for Kids, 2012). Epstein et al. (2009) suggested six
types of involvement to foster a collaborative teacher/parent partnership: parenting; two-
way communication; volunteering; learning at home; collaborative decision-making; and
building a sense of community between home and school.
Collaborative Goal-Setting Case Studies at the District Level
Eaker et al. (2002) highlighted two collaborative goal-setting cases from a district
perspective: Federick County Public Schools in Virginia and Twin Falls School District
31
in Idaho. Eaker et al.’s (2002) goal was to provide samples of how different school
district organizations approached some of the cultural shifts needed in reculturing schools
through collaborative goal-setting relationship triangles.
Eaker et al. (2002) highlighted the Federick County Public School system in the
northern Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. The school district’s leadership was the catalyst
in moving the district schools through an improvement plan, which focused on results-
oriented PLCs. The process incorporated cultural shifts in ways of conducting school
business through collaborative changes at the district, building, and classroom levels
(Eaker et al., 2002).
At the district level, the superintendent was the catalyst in modeling collaborative
leadership by redesigning structures, processes, and access to resources (Eaker et al.,
2002). The district level action plan for academic improvement started with shared
vision, mission, and goals. Equally important was the duplication of building level
collaborative teams during non-contractual times to focus on student data for improved
instructional gains. The building level collaborative teams were supported with district
resources to focus on professional development; monthly meetings, which shifted from
nuts and bolts to a collaborative focus on student data; sharing of best instructional
practices, while avoiding “bandwagon” approaches; and celebrating successes (Eaker et
al., 2002).
As district level teams became support groups for principals, likewise, the BLTs
became support groups for teachers. At the classroom level, teachers were given the
resources of professional development and shared collaborative time beyond the
32
contractual day to discuss and share best practices and analyzing student data for
improved student learning (Eaker et al., 2002). Classroom successes were shared at the
building and district levels.
Federick County Public district has transformed from a traditional culture of
isolated successful teaching practices with average student performance levels to one
with collaborative decision-making and purposeful, collaborative team meetings for
improved student learning at the building, grade, and subject levels, all of which were
focused on improved student learning (Eaker et al., 2002). Eaker et al. (2002) noted two
important points that surfaced from this case study: change occurs over time, and school
leaders must model collaborative leadership and provide resources of professional
development and time. However, the development of individual student goals to ensure
that all students were achieving was absent in this case study.
Eaker et al. (2002) highlighted the Twin Falls School system in Idaho. The district
has a large English as Second Language population with 27 languages represented and a
40% economically disadvantaged student population. During the 1980s, the district
leadership described the district as in good academic standing; however, there was a
growing dissatisfaction among all stakeholders of simply maintaining the status quo.
With the hiring of a new superintendent, a new collaborative vision was set to ensure that
every individual student grew from point A to point B each year. The process
incorporated cultural shifts in ways of conducting school business through collaborative
changes at all levels (Eaker et al., 2002).
33
At the district level, the superintendent was the catalyst in modeling collaborative
leadership by redesigning systems, practices, and access to resources (Eaker et al., 2002).
A collaborative Quality School Committee (QSC) was formed at the district level to
provide leadership guidance in designing action plans for improved student learning.
Collaborative BLTs focused on K–12 aligning curriculum, research-based
instructional strategies, and outcome based assessments, as well as communicating
student progress (Eaker et al., 2002). The BLTs analyzed grade-level achievement data,
identifying weaknesses and defining building level improvement goals with action plans
for improved student learning. At the classroom level, collaborative teacher teams
compiled student data, identified weakness, and defined improvement goals with action
plans for improved student learning (Eaker et al., 2002).
According to Eaker et al. (2002), the QSC reviewed the results of the focused
collaborative work on improved student learning from the district level down to the
classroom level. The committee members reported the data proved positive. Looking at a
four-year time span from 1995–1999, significant student achievement was reported: (i)
one elementary building reported ITBS/TAP standardized testing composite scores in the
92th percentile in grades three, four, and five, with the sixth grade at the 84th percentile;
(ii) in another elementary building, a 40% gain was noted in overall written expression
areas; (iii) in tracking this same group of students from 1996 to 1999, their mathematics
scores rose from the 56th percentile to the 86th percentile, with the number of qualifying
students doubling for advanced mathematics classes; and (iv) in the primary grades,
reading achievement scores in 1999 were the highest in comparison with nine other large
34
districts in the same area of the state (Eaker et al., 2002). Despite the large limited
English proficient and economically disadvantaged student populations, the district
continued to make academic improvement through purposeful, collaborative teams at all
levels of the organization. Noticeably absent from this case study were individual,
collaborative student goals for improved student learning.
Collaborative Goal-Setting Case Studies at the Building Levels
Conzemius and O’Neill (2006) highlighted collaborative goal-setting case studies
at various grade level settings, including high school, middle school, and elementary.
Conzemius and O’Neill’s (2006) goal was to provide samples of how different school
organizations approached the SMART goal-setting process. All of the organizations
studied adhered to some basic principles of strong leadership capacity; data-driven
decision-making; collaborative processes and cultures; goals aligned to a shared vision;
and the school-wide focus on improving student learning (Conzemius & O’Neill, 2006).
Conzemius and O’Neill (2006) highlighted a high school in southeastern Ohio’s
Appalachian area rated by the ODE in the continuous improvement category on the
building report card to become an identified School of Promise within a two-year period.
A building level SMART team was formed to examine at their data and identify their
greatest areas of need. Conzemius and O’Neill (2006) stated that the high school team
identified reading and vocabulary development as weak areas, as well as the need to
incorporate all staff members in the SMART goal-setting process.
35
Conzemius and O’Neill (2006) described the SMART team planning process
utilized by the high school BLT, which had seven steps of a Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA)
improvement cycle:
• Step One. Identifying and defining the student achievement problem
• Step Two. Analyzing the problem for aids and barriers to success
• Step Three. Establishing a building level goal for improvement, which is
measurable in terms of the SMART process
• Steps Four and Five. Study and decide on research-based strategies for the
action plan of improvement
• Step Six. Implementation of the measurable action plan
• Step Seven. Report results, analyze results, and draw conclusions for next
steps (p.180)
The high school building level and subject level SMART teams identified in
Conzemius and O’Neill’s (2006) case study represented collaborative goal setting at the
building team and teacher team levels, while yielding promising academic achievement
results in a short time span. From 2003–2004, reading proficiency increased 15% and
mathematics proficiency increased 22%. Noticeably absent from this case study are any
collaborative goal-setting strategies utilized at the student level for improved student
learning.
In this present descriptive case study on the collaborative goal-setting culture for
improved student learning, a BLT was formed utilizing a similar PDSA improvement
cycle utilized by the above high school. The R.I.S.E.R (Research, Implement, Study,
36
Evaluate, and Revise) model developed by Dr. S. Ebbrecht (personal communication,
December 4, 2007) was implemented:
• Research. The BLT pinpointed present levels of performance, identified aids
and barriers to student success, and identified collaborative goal setting as a
best practice for improved student learning.
• Implement. The BLT established aligned building, grade level, classroom,
and individual student collaborative SMART goals as their plan of action for
improved student learning.
• Study. The BLT collected data over time on the collaborative goal-setting
strategies in relationship to student achievement.
• Evaluate. The BLT evaluated results yearly.
• Revise. The BLT revised their plan on collaborative goal setting based on
results of the yearly evaluation.
Conzemius and O’Neill (2006) highlighted a middle school in west-central
Wisconsin, along the banks of the Mississippi River. The urban middle school served
students in grades six through eight, with a 25% economically disadvantaged student
population.
Conzemius and O’Neill (2006) described the middle school’s previous
improvement attempts with little to no central focus for improvement. The building
administrator led an action research project, which was guided by cyclical, measurable
plan for improvement. According to Conzemius and O’Neill (2009), a BLT was formed
to look at their data and identify their greatest areas of need. Mathematical fact
37
development and writing skills were identified, as well as the need to incorporate all staff
members in the SMART goal-setting process.
Conzemius and O’Neill (2006) described the SMART team planning process
utilized by the middle school BLT, which included multiple steps of an improvement
cycle:
• Step One. Examining data
• Step Two. Analyzing outcomes of data for aids and barriers to success
• Step Three. Establishing building level goals for improvement, which are
measurable in terms of the SMART process
• Step Four. Implementing aligned grade level SMART goals and action plans
• Step Five. Evaluating outcomes for a continuous measurable plan for
improvement
The middle school building level and subject level SMART teams identified in
Conzemius and O’Neill’s (2006) case study represent collaborative goal setting at the
building team and teacher team levels. Best practices of collaborative goal setting with
measurable action plans transformed the teaching culture into data driven, goal-oriented
continuous improvement SMART teams long after the retirement of their middle school
administrator. Noticeably absent from this case study were the collaborative goal-setting
strategies utilized at the student level for improved student learning.
The elementary school identified in this current phenomenological case study
found similar weaknesses at the elementary level in mathematical fact development and
writing extended responses in kindergarten through fifth grade. However, there was a
38
conscious exclusionary decision to focus on the underlying factors of the school culture
impeding academic progress for the purpose of the phenomenological case study.
Conzemius and O’Neill (2006) highlighted an elementary school in east-central
Wisconsin, close to Lake Michigan. The affluent suburban school served students in
grades kindergarten through fifth. This particular elementary building was identified as
one of the lowest performing elementary schools in the district. A building level
collaborative team was formed to look at their data and identify their greatest areas of
need. Behavior and discipline were identified, as well as the need to incorporate all staff
members in the collaborative goal-setting process (Conzemius & O’Neill, 2006).
Conzemius and O’Neill (2006) identified the use of this school-based model of
goal setting at the teacher/student level as the framework utilized for academic
improvement. Conzemius and O’Neill (2006) described the case study in terms of the
SMART teams developed to carry out the action plans of the building. These teams were
comprised of grade level teachers, community, parent, and student membership. The
following teams were developed to carry out the work for improved academics, behavior,
and discipline, which incorporated collaborative goal setting at the student levels:
• The School Improvement Leadership Team. This team supported
professional development and teacher/student resources.
• The Student Support Team. This team focused on student behaviors.
• The Instructional Resource Team. This team focused on classroom
instruction.
39
• The Building Action Team. This team focused on collaborative policies and
guidelines to support academic success.
The elementary school SMART teams identified in Conzemius and O’Neill’s
(2006) case study represented collaborative goal setting with students, while yielding
promising academic results. Present proficiency scores in reading and mathematics
hovered around the 90–96% range, which was a 16% growth in student performance
from the inception of using the SMART goal planning as a student-based model
(Conzemius & O’Neill, 2006). Noticeably absent from this case study was a formal
cyclical process for continuous improvement at the building level, rather the teams
worked in tandem for the common identified areas of concern.
In the present descriptive case study on collaborative goal setting for improved
student learning, the grade-level teams utilized a similar student-based collaborative
model. Grade-level teacher teams received year-end data and baseline testing data with
the new school year’s group of students. The grade-level teams set one goal in reading
and one goal in mathematics. The classroom teachers looked at the testing data at the
beginning of the school year with their particular group of students and set one classroom
goal in reading and one goal in mathematics. At the student level, internal accountability
came in the form of ownership of individual academic progress.
At the beginning of each school year, the students and the teacher wrote a class
mission statement. This mission statement was recited and referred to daily. The teachers
helped individual students set one goal in each subject based on their own level of
performance. The students then tracked their own progress with charts and graphs
40
through data folders known as Individual Learning Plans (ILPs). Data folders were then
shared with parents during curriculum night/open house in the fall, as well as the student-
led conferences in the fall and spring of each school year. If goals were set too high or
not been met, the teacher, student, and parents together set new goals during the
conferences. This helped with accountability as the parents were working towards the
same goals as the students. A discussion of how the parents could help at home was held
and the results written in a student/parent contract in the data notebook. Through
classroom data centers known as dashboards, teachers should have tracked progress with
data. Grade-level teachers shared progress in grade-level meetings for discussions on
interventions and strategies. The grade-level chairs meet quarterly with the BLT
regarding tracked building goals.
Effective Goal-Setting, Feedback, and Student Motivation
Marzano’s (1998) meta-analysis of instructional research revealed that an
effective teacher utilizes an assortment of research-based instructional strategies (as cited
in Marzano, 2007). One of these identified instructional strategies was the goal-setting
process with students for increased student accountability. Marzano (2007) defined the
art and science of teaching further in terms of setting measurable goals, tracking student
progress, and celebrating student successes. Clear goals established an initial target.
Feedback provided students with information regarding their progress toward that target.
Goal setting, student motivation, and feedback used in unison are more powerful than
either one in isolation. Marzano (2007) noted that without clear collaborative goals for
students, it might be difficult to provide effective feedback.
41
Marzano (2007) compiled multiple, research studies that established clear,
measurable goals as an effective instructional strategy. Synthesis studies on the
importance of goal- setting were gathered from: Lipsey and Wilson (1993); Walberg
(1999); and, Wise and Oakey (1983) (as cited in Marzano, 2007). The mixture of
research on goal setting gathered and analyzed by Marzano (2007) presented compelling
evidence for the importance of goal setting in relationship to student achievement. This
ranged from 18 percentile points up to 41 percentile points higher in classrooms that used
goal-setting strategies over classes that did not use goal-setting strategies.
Marzano (2007) synthesized research studies on the importance of timely
feedback from numerous studies: Bloom (1976); Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, Kulik, and
Morgan (1991); Haller, Child, and Walberg (1998); Haas (2005); Kumar (1991);
Lysadkowski and Walberg (1981); Lysakowski and Walberg (1982); Scheerens and
Bosker (1997); Tennenbaum and Goldring (1989); and Walberg (1999) (as cited in
Marzano, 2007). The mixture of research gathered and analyzed by Marzano (2007)
presented compelling evidence for the importance of providing timely feedback in
relationship to student achievement, which ranged from 10 percentile points up to 41
percentile points higher in classrooms that used timely feedback strategies over classes
that did not give timely feedback.
Marzano (2007) noted student motivation and student achievement go hand in
hand. The validity of the research can be backed through multiple synthesized studies
compiled by Marzano (2007). Synthesis studies on the link between student motivation
and achievement were gathered from Bloom (1976); Geisler-Brenstein and Schmeck
42
(1996); Schiefele, Krapp, and Winteler (1992); Schiefele and Krapp (1996); Steinkamp
and Maehr (1993); Tobias (1994); and Willingham, Pollack, and Lewis (2002).
The mixture of research on gathered and analyzed by Marzano (2007) presented
compelling evidence for the importance of student motivation in relationship to student
achievement, which ranged from 15 percentile points up to 45 percentile points higher in
classrooms that effectively motivated students over classes that did not engage and
motivate students effectively. Marzano (2007) cautioned that the research did not
pinpoint the dynamics of motivation: student drive, attribution, and self worth. However,
Marzano (2007) suggested action steps to ensure the dynamics of motivation:
collaborative, engaging goal-setting, timely feedback, and celebration of successes.
Next Steps
O’Neill (2005) suggested the introduction of SMART goals in the educational
realm as one of the most promising strategies for school improvement, yet it is still an
underused strategy. Schmoker (2009) summed it up by noting measurable goals are often
the mystery of a school’s success, failure, and even mediocrity. The present case study
was an inquiry on the organizational structure and belief system necessary for a
collaborative culture for improved student learning at the elementary level, which should
reveal the mystery of success, mediocrity, or even failure. The case study should add to
the body of research at various organizational levels on a mutual approach of
administrators, teachers, and students collaboratively in setting and tracking measurable
learning goals as part of their everyday learning environment for improved student
learning.
43
Summary
Chapter 2 described the goal-setting theory through the related literature. Teacher
roles, student roles and mutual collaborative roles were identified through strengths and
weaknesses of each. A results oriented culture was described through collaborative goal-
setting relationships at the administrative, teacher, student and parental levels.
Collaborative goal-setting case studies were reviewed at the district and building
levels. These examples included effective goal-setting strategies, feedback, and student
motivation. However, many of the examples did not show collaboration at the student
level. The literature review also highlighted the effects of goal-setting, feedback and
student motivation in relationship to student achievement.
Chapter 3 covers the methodology used to gather data for this study, and the
findings are described in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 contains a summary of the study and
findings. Conclusions are drawn from the findings, with a discussion and
recommendations made for other studies.
44
CHAPTER 3: METHODS
The purpose of this inquiry was to describe the collaborative culture in an
elementary school setting where teachers employed goal-setting strategies for improved
student learning. An extensive literature review was conducted on the collaborative roles
of teachers in a goal-setting culture, as well as the research of this collaborative theory
and instructional strategy for school improvement. With the exclusionary decision not to
focus on the association between pre and post-collaborative goal setting practices in
relationship to academic outcomes, the inquiry maintained a focus on teachers’
perceptions of their experiences within the collaborative goal-setting culture. The
following research questions guided this descriptive inquiry:
Research Question One
What are the elementary teachers’ perceptions of their roles while using
collaborative goal-setting strategies within the school organization?
Research Question Two
What do elementary teachers perceive to be the aids and barriers in the
collaborative goal-setting process?
Research Question Three
How has the goal-setting process impacted teachers’ experiences and perceptions
as professionals within the collaborative culture?
This chapter describes the inquiry: design and demographics of the single case;
sampling techniques for each data source; data collection tools of interviews and focus
45
groups; data analysis; quality assurance; validity and reliability; and ethical
considerations.
Design
This inquiry was an embedded, single-case design (see Figure 1). In defining the
case, the main unit of analysis was the elementary school faculty employing goal-setting
strategies. The holistic context of the synergistic school culture was described utilizing
data collected from interviews and focus groups of the teachers, thus giving an embedded
level of data. The work of Locke and Latham (2006) on the goal-setting theory of work
motivation in the business world framed the execution and analysis of this inquiry.
Figure 1. Embedded single case design. (Source: COSMOS Corporation as cited in Yin
(2012)).
46
A descriptive case study method is appropriate when the research questions seek
to answer the “whats” of a study (Yin, 2012). The research questions that guided this
inquiry were descriptive in nature and were answered through two sources: teacher
interviews and teacher focus groups. The data were developed into themes of related
categories, displayed in a visual figure, table, and explained through narratives on the
findings. Based on Yin’s (2012) description of a descriptive case study design, this type
of inquiry structure developed explanations through predictive statements about the
collaborative culture in the elementary school setting focused on school improvement.
Sample
Setting
The elementary school building was located in a rural area of north central Ohio,
with an average daily enrollment of 630 students (School Website, 2012). Thirty percent
of the student body was economically disadvantaged, and students with disabilities
accounted for 10% of the total population. The majority of the student body was white,
and attendance trends were in the upper 90 percent.
Population
The teachers were considered highly qualified by the NCLB Act’s (2001)
definition of levels of experience coupled with appropriate degrees and varied years of
experience. All of the elementary teaching staff was white with an average 20 years
teaching experience. The gender makeup of this elementary teaching staff was 3 males
and 29 females. I am the building administrator with 19 years of experience. As the
principal investigator of this study, I had the role as a participant observer and an active
47
member of the BLT implementing the plan on collaborative goal-setting for improved
student learning.
Samples and Sampling Techniques
The inquiry design required a sequential collection of data sources, including
individual interviews and focus group interviews, from the elementary teacher population
within my school. Each data source required a different sampling technique.
Sampling technique for individual interviews. Participants were purposefully
selected from the convenient sample of the overall school population. Table 1 shows the
teachers selected for interview and their number of years of education experience.
Table 1
Interview Participants
Teacher Gender Years of Experience A F 5 B F 13 C F 24 D F 7 E F 24 F F 16
Table 1 Interview Participants Sampling technique for focus group interviews. The focus group participants
were drawn from the same elementary school population as the interview participants.
Based on the data collected from the interviews, focus groups were chosen intentionally
to represent varied grade levels within the building. Table 2 shows the make-up of the
four focus groups with regard to the gender, the grades the teachers teach, and the
average years of experience.
Table 2
Focus Group Participants
48
Focus Groups
Grade Levels Represented
Genders Average Years of Experience
1 K, Two, Four F 21 2 K, Three, Five F 12 3 One, Three, Four 2 F, 1 M 20 4 One, Two, Five F 23
Table 2 Focus Group Participants Procedure: Data Collection
Individual Interview Data
As the principal investigator of this study and the building principal, I interviewed
the study participants regarding collaborative goal-setting strategies and school culture.
The face-to-face interviewing strategy allowed for probing questions on collaborative
goal-setting strategies and culture that were extrapolated from the literature review. (see
Appendix D).
Written consents to participate in interviews and focus groups for the study were
gained during a staff meeting prior to the start of a school day from individual potential
candidates. I extended a verbal invitation to each randomly selected teacher for the one-
on-one interview portion of the study. I felt it was important that the interview took place
in a comfortable setting. Therefore, the teacher was given the option to meet in the
classroom or some other place in the school building outside of the contractual workday.
I provided bottled water and cookies as a thank you for the time during the interviewing
phase.
At the start of the meeting, I reviewed the points of the informed consent form
and the purpose of the study briefly. At the conclusion of the interview, the teacher was
asked if there were any questions or other information to be added to the interview. I
tracked responses through hand-written anecdotal notes, which were later transcribed into
49
a Microsoft Word document and shared with the teachers to confirm accuracy. The
interview process took about 30 minutes per participant.
The open-ended interviewing process was a mixed-structured format. I started the
opening of the interview with an unstructured, informal approach to build a comfort level
with the teacher. The next step of the interviewing process led to a guided approach,
where my questioning strategy helped facilitate the conversation, allowing the teacher to
elaborate on his or her own knowledge, experiences, and feelings. I closed the
interviewing process in a structured manner to ensure that each participant was given the
same open-ended questions. I used the interview guide in Appendix D.
Focus Group Interview Data
Focus groups, facilitated by me, were comprised of teams of three teachers
representing varied grade levels. The face-to-face facilitated group interviews were used
to collect shared understandings from several individuals and to gain views from specific
members of the group.
I extended a personal invitation to each teacher for the focus groups portion of the
study. This intentional selection of participants was to ensure that varied grade levels
teachers were represented. Again, I felt it was important that the interview took place in a
comfortable setting. Therefore, each group of teachers was given the option to meet in the
classroom or some other place in the school building, outside of the contractual workday.
I provided bottled water and cookies as a thank you for the time during the facilitated
interview phase.
50
At the start of the meeting, I felt it was important to review the points of the
informed consent form and the purpose of the study briefly. At the conclusion of the
group interview, the teachers were asked if any questions remained unanswered or other
information needed to be added to the focused interview. I tracked responses through
hand-written anecdotal notes on chart paper for the group members to view. The process
took about one hour per group. The notes were later transcribed in Microsoft Word and
the document was shared with the groups of participants for accuracy.
The open-ended facilitated process was a mixed-structured format. Similar to the
one-on-one interview process, I opened the facilitated interview with an unstructured,
informal approach to build a comfort level with the group of teachers. The next step of
the process led to a guided approach, where the questioning strategy helped me to
facilitate the conversation, which allowed the teachers to elaborate on his or her
knowledge, experiences, and feelings. I closed the focus group facilitated process with a
structured format that emerged from the individual interviews to ensure that each focus
group was given the same open-ended questions. A sample of the focus group interview
guide is located in Appendix E.
Data Coding and Analysis
The next step was coding the data in ways that would best assist me in addressing
the research questions posed in this inquiry.
Categorical Analysis
The narrative data gathered through the semi-structured interviews was recorded
in written form for a categorical analysis. I took several steps to ensure a thorough
51
process: (i) collected the narrative data through written notes; (ii) converted the raw
narrative data into lists; (iii) grouped data into themes, categories, or patterns known as
thematic coding; (iv) combined related patterns into sub themes; and (v) built a valid
argument for choosing the themes based on the literature review for the findings.
Coding process. I utilized the web-based program Dedoose, version 4.5.91. For
the coding process, I uploaded the transcripts from the individual teacher interviews with
an ID label for each. Excerpts were blocked and coded with the emerging categories,
patterns, and groups. Figure 2 is an example of data transcribed from an individual
teacher interview with the teacher’s ID letter, excerpt, and codes.
Figure 2. Example of excerpting and coding within the Dedoose (version 4.5.91) web-
based program.
Thematic Analysis
The narrative data gathered on core categories or themes collected from the
interviews in phase one of the data collection process was analyzed on a deeper level
52
through focused group questions. Interconnection among categories and frequency of
identification for clear implications of the findings developed within the collaborative
goal-setting culture were studied.
The thematic coding process was similar for the category analysis, in which I
uploaded the focus group transcripts in Dedoose. Excerpts were blocked and coded
themes were identified. Analysis of comparing and linking the data was used as a way to
uncover and categorize the teachers’ perceptions, roles, and experiences within the
identified relationship categories for an aligned kindergarten through grade-five
perspective.
Triangulated Analysis
To increase the validity of this inquiry, I utilized data triangulation analysis.
Gaining multiple perspectives from individual teachers and focus groups allowed for
deeper descriptions and meanings to emerge on the collaborative goal-setting practices
within the elementary school organization. The analysis of the interviews was combined
and interwoven with the analysis of the focus groups to determine areas of agreement or
areas of divergence within the collaborative culture. The triangulated analysis was
explained through descriptions of coded figures and tables coupled with a narrative form
as it related to each of the research questions of this study.
Quality Assurances: Validity and Reliability
It is important that valid and reliable data findings are collected, analyzed, and
presented in an ethical manner. Assurances of validity and reliability are provided
53
through various strategies to ensure trustworthiness and credibility of this qualitative
research.
Reliability
This qualitative study has a transparent audit trail, including a clear description of
how the teacher sample was selected, an explanation of methods utilized to collect data,
and an explicit manner in which the data was analyzed in Chapter 4.
Validity
In this qualitative research, it was important to understand the perspectives of
teachers employing collaborative goal setting strategies, thus uncovering the complexity
of their human interactions and inner realities of the collaborative culture. Thus providing
internal validity within this inquiry.
A number of strategies were utilized to promote the reliability and validity of this
study: adequate engagement in data collection; data verification-member checks;
triangulation; audit trail; and rich, thick descriptions.
Adequate engagement. For this study, the interview data collected helped form
the questions for the focus groups. From the interview data, themes and categories
developed. The focus group data saturated the themes and categories, with no new
information yielded.
Member check. For this study, time was provided to participating teachers to
read the notes gathered and coded data from interviews and focus groups. This member
check strategy afforded each participant the opportunity to verify the data generated from
54
interviews and focus groups. All participants were satisfied that the notes, transcripts, and
coded data reflected their responses adequately.
Triangulation. The data triangulation phase included analysis of data from
interviews and focus groups. The credibility of the research findings was strengthened by
utilizing sequential data collection phases for analyses in order to provide a holistic
picture of the collaborative goal-setting culture.
Audit trail. I provided a transparent audit trail with a clear description of how the
teacher sample was selected, an explanation of methods utilized to collect data, and an
explicit manner in which the data was analyzed. Chapters 3 and 4 of this study provide
the readers with this clear information.
Rich description. For this research, Chapter 5 contains a rich, descriptive
summary of the study’s findings. Descriptive conclusions are drawn from the findings for
readers to determine the extent of their situation to which the phenomena context can be
transferred.
Ethical Considerations
For this case study, the goal-setting strategies were part of a school improvement
plan, with teams of teachers implementing, tracking, and evaluating student progress in
an elementary school setting. Ethical questions presented themselves in this research,
such as (i) Where was the line drawn between teaching and researching? (ii) Where was
the accountability of the research? And (iii) How were participants’ rights protected?
Participants’ rights were protected through the following steps: obtaining IRB
approval of the proposed research through the university; obtaining written permission
55
from the district superintendent to conduct the research (Appendix C); holding a
voluntary staff meeting outside of the normal school hours to explain the proposed
research; giving participants an informed cover letter and voluntary consent forms;
conducting interviews of randomly selected staff members from each grade level and
purposefully selected focus groups; analyzing triangulated data outcomes; sharing the
findings with staff, the school board of education, and community members.
Summary
Chapter 3 defined the research design as an embedded, single-case design. The
main unit of analysis was the elementary school faculty employing goal-setting strategies.
The holistic context of the synergistic school culture was described utilizing data
collected from interviews and focus groups of the teachers, thus giving an embedded
level of data.
The data sources were through individual interviews and focus groups. Based on
the data collected from the interviews, focus groups were intentionally chosen to
represent varied grade levels within the elementary building. The data collected gave an
aligned perspective from Kindergarten through Grade 5 on the collaborative structure and
belief system of elementary teachers employing collaborative goal-setting strategies.
The narrative data gathered was recorded in written form for a thematic analysis.
A free web-based program Dedoose, version 4.5.91 was utilized for the coding process.
Excerpts were blocked and coded with the emerging categories, patterns, and groups. The
analysis of the interviews was combined and interwoven with the analysis of the focus
56
groups. The triangulated analyses was explained through descriptions of coded figures
coupled with a narrative form as it related to each of the research questions of this study.
Assurances of validity and reliability were provided through various strategies to
ensure trustworthiness and credibility of this qualitative research. This inquiry had a
transparent audit trail which included a clear description of how the teacher sample was
selected, an explanation of methods utilized to collect data, and an explicit manner in
which the data was analyzed. There were a number of strategies utilized to promote the
reliability and validity of this study such as adequate engagement in data collection, data
verification, member checks, triangulation, audit trail, and rich, thick descriptions.
The findings of this research are presented in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 is an
elaboration of the findings, including conclusions, interpretations, implications, and
recommendations.
57
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS
The aim of this descriptive case study was to explore elementary teachers’
perceptions and experiences of a synergistic school culture employing collaborative goal-
setting strategies for improved student learning. The data in this chapter expounds upon
the strengths, weaknesses, and needs of a collaborative school culture with respect to
answering the three research questions:
Research Question One
What are the elementary teachers’ perceptions of their roles while using
collaborative goal-setting strategies within the school organization?
Research Question Two
What do elementary teachers perceive to be the aids and barriers in the
collaborative goal-setting process?
Research Question Three
How has the goal-setting process impacted teachers’ experiences and perceptions
as professionals within the collaborative culture?
The first section of this chapter summarizes the collaborative goal-setting history
of the participants before discussing the findings. Next, the findings of the identified
collaborative relationships are described based on the data from the individual interviews.
From the interviews, the collaborative relationships were defined on a more complex
level in terms of cross-categorical themes uncovered. Then the research questions are
restated with corresponding data findings in narrative, tabular, or pictorial forms. Finally,
a summary of the findings can be found at the end of the chapter.
58
Highlighted Elementary School
An abridged history of the school improvement process is provided with a
summary of current building-wide collaborative-goal setting practices and expectations
of the teaching staff within elementary school A.
Collaborative Goal-Setting Background
Elementary School A’s brief history leading up to the present day collaborative
school culture initially started with low OAA scores in mathematics (ODE, 2006), which
led the teachers and myself, in the elementary’s Building Level Team (BLT), to
investigate possible mitigating factors. The BLT members explored and listed aids and
barriers to student success. Issues, such as teacher isolation; competitiveness; lack of a
team concept; absence of joint goals; and low staff buy-in for collaboration emerged; all
or any of which may have negatively impacted student achievement. (School A BLT
Minutes, personal communication, September, 2007). The BLT members believed the
non-existence of a combined vision, mission, and goals among the teaching staff,
manifested itself in low achievement scores.
These findings prompted the BLT members to search for a solution to the school-
based problem of a non-synergistic culture, whereby non-collaborative planning and
teaching practices were impeding student learning. After a BLT review of best planning
and teaching practices (School A BLT Minutes, personal communication, September,
2007), it was that administration, teachers, and students would benefit from the
implementation of a systematic endeavor to employ collaborative goal-setting strategies
59
with timely feedback based on the Locke and Latham’s (2006) measurable goal-setting
theory for work motivation.
For the past six years, School A has honored a school compact developed by the
BLT members in 2007 that included school-wide expectations of the adopted vision,
mission, and goals for student improvement (School A Website, 2013):
Vision. Building Blocks of Excellence for the Foundation of Our Future!
Mission. By partnering with our students, families, and community, School A
will create a foundation, which encourages students to reach high expectations for social,
emotional, and academic excellence.
Building Block Goals. A - Academics focused around scientific, research based
curriculum and data driven decisions for improved student learning. B - Behaviors for
positive character development, which promote a respectful, caring, and safe
environment for improved student learning. C - Collaboration with students, families, and
community to promote a partnership focused on improved student learning.
In 2007, School A’s BLT members implemented an improvement plan that
emphasized the framework of Locke and Latham’s (2006) collaborative goal-setting
theory of work motivation: acceptance for goal commitment; specific goals; goal
difficulty; and outcomes/feedback for Improved student learning. The unpublished
R.I.S.E.R School Improvement Model developed by a colleague, Dr. S. Ebbrecht was
implemented (personal communication, December 4, 2007):
60
• Research. The BLT pinpointed present levels of performance, identified aids
and barriers to student success, and identified collaborative goal setting as a
best practice for improved student learning.
• Implement. The BLT established aligned building, grade level, classroom,
and individual student collaborative SMART goals as their plan of action for
improved student learning.
• Study. The BLT collected data over time on the collaborative goal-setting
strategies in relationship to student achievement.
• Evaluate. The BLT evaluated results yearly.
• Revise. The BLT revised their plan on collaborative goal setting based on
results of the yearly evaluation.
The BLT team agreed that the use of the goal-setting model in the business world
was well suited to our need for a more synergistic school culture. The BLT team
predicted further that an improved culture could affect student achievement directly and
indirectly. With this prediction, the goal-setting theory of work motivation was
implemented within School A. Based on building level student achievement data
analyzed by the BLT members, building level SMART goals were set in reading and
mathematics. PLC grade level teacher teams analyzed grade level data and set one
SMART goal in reading and one SMART goal in mathematics. The classroom teachers
looked at the testing data at the beginning of the school year with their particular group of
students and set classroom SMART goals in reading and mathematics. At the student
level, individual SMART goals in reading and mathematics were developed.
61
At the beginning of each school year, School A’s students and the teacher wrote a
class mission statement. This mission statement was recited and referred to daily. The
teachers helped individual students write and track their own progress with SMART
goals through charts, graphs, and data folders known as Individual Learning Plans (ILPs).
Data folders were then shared with parents during curriculum night/open house in the
fall, as well as the student-led conferences in the fall and spring of each school year.
This helped with accountability as the parents were working towards the same goals as
the students. A discussion of how the parents could help at home was held and the results
written in a student/parent contract in the data notebook.
School A’s teachers tracked progress individual and group progress towards
SMART goals through classroom data centers known as data dashboards. Grade-level
teachers shared progress in grade-level PLC meetings for discussions on interventions
and strategies. The grade-level chairs meet quarterly with the BLT regarding tracked
building goals.
The abridged history of School A described a collaborative goal-setting culture,
which developed over a six-year time span. The collaborative work included the
development of building level vision, mission and goals. A cyclical school improvement
plan was implemented. Aligned SMART goal-setting practices from the building level to
the student level were expected, tracked, and analyzed by the PLCs and the BLT.
Presentation of the Findings
In this next section, I focus on the research questions of this inquiry. The research
questions are restated, with corresponding data in narrative, tabular, or visual form and
62
utilized as the structure for reporting a summary of findings. Research Question Three
starts this section to give an overarching view of the collaborative goal-setting
relationship categories developed from the individual interviews coupled with emerging
themes. These outcomes were explored further through the focus group interviews, which
described the collaborative culture. Research Questions One and Two follow.
Research Question Three
How has the goal-setting process impacted teachers’ experiences and perceptions
as professionals within the collaborative culture?
Participant Interviews. From the literature review of Hall and Simeral’s (2008)
research, I gleaned a set of predefined collaborative goal-setting relationship categories:
Teacher/Administrator (T/A), Teacher/Teacher (T/T), and Teacher/Student (T/S). These
three relationship categories were the basis for the individual participant interview
questions posed to gain a deeper understanding of the experiences within this
collaborative culture and which were later explored via focus groups.
T/A collaborative goal-setting relationships. I asked the teachers how the
administrative leadership style played a role in the collaborative process within the
school? Verbatim responses included:
Teacher A. “A leader who has the end in mind. You know by sharing the vision,
mission, and goals.”
Teacher B. “The administrator trusts us. A framework is provided and we are
given the freedom to work within it. For example the framework of goals… our action
plans can be different to reach the end goal.”
63
Teacher C. “Someone who is approachable and non-threatening. Someone who
asks “How can I help?” You know, someone who is open to our insecurities, yet
confident in our abilities.”
Teacher D. “Side-by-side leaders… one who pushes, but also lets us figure it out.
You (the administrator) are also the instructional leader. You know what I mean, I didn’t
get that at my previous school.”
Teacher E. “Active leadership, which holds everyone accountable in the goal
setting process at the building level. The administrator provides resources and
professional development. Actually the administrator can make or break the building
wide collaborative culture.”
Teacher F. “The administrator is visible, organized, and aware of the mandates.”
I asked the teachers what the collaborative goal-setting process looked like at the
building level? Verbatim responses included:
Teacher A. “Administration and teachers work as a team to set building-wide
goals. This team is known as our BLT.”
Teacher B. “Building data team looks at student data such as OAAs and sets
SMART goals for improved student learning.”
Teacher C. “Year end OAA scores are used as baseline data. The BLT is charged
with setting building wide SMART goals for grade levels to follow at their level.”
Teacher D. “Well SMART goals are set by the BLT with K-5 expectation to
follow through at developmentally appropriate levels. Everyone has a role in this process
from administration down to the student level… You know what I mean?”
64
Teacher E. “Grade level data charts posted in halls to track progress towards goals
are based on the BLT building-wide goals.”
Teacher F. “BLT, which includes the principal, oversees the K–5 goal-setting
process and holds entire staff accountable for the outcomes.”
I asked the teachers how they knew if and when the building level collaborative
goal setting process was success? Verbatim responses included:
Teacher A. “The building level successes are shared at the opening staff meeting
from the previous year. We also have year end celebrations of building wide student
progress.”
Teacher B. “The administrator shares progress on building wide goals and
celebrates outcomes.”
Teacher C. “Of course, by the building scores on the OAAs! The proof is in the
pudding.”
Teacher D. “By the school rating on building report card from ODE. We all
celebrate in K-5, because we are in this together… Do you know what I mean?!”
Teacher E. “OAA scores in grades 3–5 are celebrated at the beginning of the year
(from previous year-end data). We all celebrate at the end of the school year per grade
level.”
Teacher F. “OAA test scores are the bottom line!”
T/A collaborative goal-setting relationships findings. Utilizing the filtering
system within Dedoose, the coded excerpts related to the T/A collaborative goal setting
relationship were set up in a code co-occurrence table with the emerged themes of
65
belonging; ownership; process; feedback; and outcomes (see Figure 3). The code co-
occurrence table showed the association between two codes with a numeric
representation of findings. The excerpts attached to each numeric number led to a deeper
understanding of the phenomenon under study once the attached experts are reviewed for
underlying factors that help shape and give meaning to the concepts captured.
Within the code co-occurrence table for the T/A collaborative relationship, 13
associations were attached to the theme of Belonging; 21 associations to the theme of
Feedback; 24 associations to the theme of Outcomes; 17 associations to the theme of
Ownership; and 18 associations were attached to the theme of Process.
66
Figure 3. Code co-occurrence within the T/A collaborative goal-setting relationship.
In Figure 4, 37 T/A codes were attached to the active excerpts. Digging deeper
into these associations, the active excerpts representing the these themes within the T/A
collaborative goal setting relationship indicated: (i) 35% of the codes related to the theme
of Belonging at the building level; (ii) 46% related to the theme of Ownership in their
work at the building level; (iii) 49% related to the theme of Process at the building level;
(iv) 57% related to the theme of Feedback at the building level; and (v) 65% of the codes
related to the theme of Outcomes at the building level.
67
Figure 4. Code applications per respondent within the T/A collaborative goal-setting
relationship.
T/T collaborative goal-setting relationships. I asked the teachers to describe the
collaborative goal-setting process at the teacher level? Verbatim responses included:
Teacher A.
Previous data is reviewed for trends and baselines. The SMART goal process is
used to set grade level goals. Common assessments are developed to track growth
toward the grade level goal, which is tracked and charted quarterly for grade level
growth.
Teacher B. “Data is gathered and analyzed for grade level strengths and
weakness. An action plan is set to meet the grade level goal, which is tracked over time.”
68
Teacher C. “The previous grade level’s year end data is our starting point. A
grade measurable grade level goal is set and tracked every month for growth.”
Teacher D.
Well…From the building level framework, the PLC members meet weekly to
discuss data. The data is reviewed at the student level, grade level and compared
to the building level SMART goals. And…Goals need to be revisited each nine
weeks for student growth.
Teacher E.
Common grade level or subject level assessments are used and data tracked over
time by the teacher team. Our team works well together to ensure that student
growth is noted in the goals set. If not, the team decides what the next appropriate
step is to ensure growth.
Teacher F. “PLC meets every Friday. At-risk students are identified and
discussed based on data collected and reviewed. Then CBMs are given three times a year
(you know… baseline, mid and year end) to watch student growth over time.”
I asked the teachers how they knew if and when the PLC collaborative goal
setting process was success? Verbatim responses included:
Teacher A. “Success is determined by meeting the goal set by the teacher team.”
Teacher B. “Watching the progress in the kids’ scores… as a class to meet
expected outcomes.”
69
Teacher C. When you see the slope on the chart or graph move upward towards
the target set. If the line is flat or a negative slope then you are in trouble and it’s time to
rethink things.”
Teacher D. “Celebrations is another component to teamwork. We take ownership
of the data and celebrate as a team when goals are met. You know… because we all have
a piece of the pie so to speak.”
Teacher E.
The visual data in the hall reminds us of our progress towards goals. We hold
each other accountable and celebrate together as a team because we know our part
in the process/team. Here’s a quote: “Success is measured not by what you
accomplish, but by the opposition you have encountered, and the courage with
which you have maintained the struggle against overwhelming odds,” This quote
was from Orison Swett Marden.”
Teacher F. “If we didn’t work as a team then holes would be in the process. You
know… We are all in this together… True collaboration.”
T/T collaborative goal-setting relationships findings. Utilizing the filtering
system within Dedoose, the coded excerpts related to the T/T collaborative goal-setting
relationship were set up in a code co-occurrence table with the emerged themes of
belonging; ownership; process; feedback; and outcomes (see Figure 5).
Within the code co-occurrence table for the T/T collaborative relationship, 13
associations were attached to the theme of Belonging; 18 to the theme of Feedback; 18
70
associations to the theme of Outcomes; 12 to the theme of Ownership; and 18
associations were attached to the theme of Process.
Figure 5. Code co-occurrence within the T/T collaborative goal-setting relationship.
In Figure 6, 31 T/T codes were attached to the active excerpts. Digging deeper by
into these associations, the active excerpts representing the these themes within the T/T
collaborative goal setting relationship indicated: (i) 39% of the codes related to the theme
of Ownership in their work at the teacher level; (ii) 42% of the codes to the theme of
Belonging at the teacher level; (iii) 58% of the codes to the theme of Process at the
teacher level; (iv) 58% of the codes to the theme of Feedback at the teacher level; and (v)
58% of the codes related to the theme of Outcomes at the teacher level.
71
Figure 6. Code applications per respondent within the T/T collaborative goal-setting
relationship
T/S collaborative goal-setting relationships. I asked the teachers to describe the
collaborative goal-setting process with students. Verbatim responses included:
Teacher A.
The goal-setting process between the teacher and the student is one/one. More
teacher guided in the beginning with students taking over the process more at the
end of the year since they are only kindergarteners… For example, shading in
their own progress on their own charts/graphs.
72
Teacher B.
The process is a visual one where I show the student (from a graph) with my
finger… Here’s where you are and here’s where you need to be. Then we set the
measurable goal together with student input. This works well with the parents
during conferences, as well.
Teacher C.
The goal-setting process with the younger students is more of a visual. I set goals
with my students… both class and individual… then we track progress towards
goals with shading, stickers… or whatever comes to mind at the time to make it
fun for the kids, like the Paw Stickers for Pawsitively Perfect Spellers.
Teacher D.
Well, for example Rocket Math pretest results are the starting points for students,
in the beginning all students try to reach six levels the first nine weeks, then
individual goals are set the next nine weeks based on the growth noted in the first
nine weeks, you know what I mean?... The students love the process and try to
beat their last goal.
Teacher E. “Teachers and students collaboratively outline steps needed to achieve
goals. All students have a part to do. Action plans are set together. I find that goals with
personal meaning to students become attainable with student ownership in the process.”
Teacher F. “As a teacher, I define the goal-setting process, model it with
examples and then help the students to come up with their own individual goals based on
their baseline data.”
73
I asked the teachers how they knew if and when the student collaborative goal
setting process was success? Verbatim responses included:
Teacher A. “When the student meets their goals and feels inspired to set new
goals. They take ownership in their action plan.”
Teacher B. “The students can tell me what they need to do to be successful in
reaching their own goals. They get excited about their own progress.”
Teacher C
With the visual of charts and graphs, the students can see and chart their progress-
you know by upward trends. They are excited to share with parents during student
led conferences. If a goal is abstract, students are less excited. If it is measurable,
attainable and visual, they stay excited in the process to the end.
Teacher D. “Kids will comment: I passed my goal! They have the awareness,
conversations, and the desire because of ownership to set more goals. We celebrate
individual success; do you know what I mean?”
Teacher E.
Students are stakeholders in their own learning. They know and see successes
when their goals are met. Students are more involved in their own work now.
More student directed and less teacher directed at this age… I help facilitate them
to success with dialogue about their action plans.
Teacher F. “Year end results are celebrated. This group of students has been
collaboratively goal setting for several years now… so it is second nature to them… they
understand how they fit in the process.
74
T/S collaborative goal-setting relationships findings. Utilizing the filtering
system within Dedoose, the coded excerpts related to the T/S collaborative goal-setting
relationship were set up in a code co-occurrence table with the emerged themes of
belonging; ownership; process; feedback; and outcomes (see Figure 7).
Within the code co-occurrence table for the T/S collaborative relationship, 17
associations were attached to the theme of Belonging; 21 to the theme of Feedback; 21
associations the theme of Outcomes; 19 to the theme of Ownership; and 23 associations
were attached to the theme of Process.
75
Figure 7. Code co-occurrence within the T/S collaborative goal-setting relationship.
In Figure 8, 32 T/S codes were attached to the active excerpts. Digging deeper by
into these associations, the active excerpts representing the these themes within the T/S
collaborative goal-setting relationship indicated: (i) 53% of the codes related to the theme
of Belonging in their work with students;(ii) 59% to the theme of Ownership at the
student level; (iii) 66% to the theme of Outcomes at the student level; (iv) 66% to the
theme of Feedback at the student level; and (v) 72% of the codes related to the theme of
Process at the student level.
76
Figure 8. Code applications per respondent within the T/S collaborative goal-setting
relationship.
Teacher/Parent (T/P) collaborative goal-setting relationships. When I asked the
teachers if they would like to add information to at the end of the interviews, a fourth
relationship category emerged with all six participants voiced their opinions on a T/P
collaborative relationship. Verbatim responses included:
Teacher A. “Yes – We need to do a better job with making the families being a
part of the goal-setting process. The kids’ backgrounds should be a big part of this.”
77
Teacher B. “We need to work on the parents being more active in the at-home
action plan of the goal-setting process.”
Teacher C. “We need collaborative work with parent involvement in the goal-
setting process. There is a need for more than one-way communication. You know, how
do we get the open dialogue with parents to support them at home in this process?”
Teacher D. “Yes definitely! Parents need to be more involved in the goal-setting
process. We do a good job with student led conferences but how do we do an even better
job throughout the year, do you know what I mean?”
Teacher E. “I think you should do a focus group on collaborative involvement
with families. You could ask the group these same types of questions from this
interview.”
Teacher F. “Everyone needs to be on board with the goal-setting process. Even
the parents.”
T/P collaborative goal-setting relationships findings. With the emergence of the
new T/P relationship category, as well as suggestions from Teacher E, I added a fourth
focus group to gain a broader perspective on this collaborative relationship. Utilizing the
filtering system within Dedoose, the coded excerpts related to the T/P collaborative goal-
setting relationship were set up in a code co-occurrence table with the emerged themes of
belonging; ownership; process; feedback; and outcomes (see Figure 9).
Within the code co-occurrence table for the T/P collaborative relationship, three
associations were attached to the theme of Belonging; nine to the theme of Feedback;
78
four to the theme of Outcomes; four to the theme of Ownership; and ten associations
were made to the theme of Process.
Figure 9. Code co-occurrence within the T/P collaborative goal-setting relationship.
In Figure 10, 18 T/P codes were attached to the active excerpts. Digging deeper
by into these associations, the active excerpts representing the these themes within the
T/P collaborative goal setting relationship indicated: (i) 17% of the codes related to the
theme of Belonging in their work with parents; (ii) 22% related to the theme of
Ownership at the parent level; (iii) 22% related to the theme of Outcomes at the parent
level; (iv) 50% related to the theme of Feedback at the parent level; and (v) 55% of the
codes related to the theme of Process at the parent level.
79
Figure 10. Code applications per respondent within the T/P collaborative goal-setting
relationship.
Summarized Findings of Collaborative Goal-Setting Relationships Related to
Research Question Three
From the interview data collected, all six individual participants expounded upon
and confirmed the importance of the relationship triangle described by Hall and Simeral
(2008) for a collaborative goal-setting culture T/T collaborative goal-setting
relationships; T/S collaborative goal-setting relationships; and T/A collaborative goal-
80
setting relationships. Through these individual interviews, a fourth relationship category
emerged, which the participants felt was equally important to explore through focus
groups: T/P collaborative goal-setting relationships. It is important to point out that the
relationship triangle developed into a relationship diamond with the teacher at the center
of all four collaborative goal-setting relationships (see Figure 11).
Figure 11. Collaborative goal-setting relationships.
81
Focus group interviews. The five main cross-categorical themes uncovered
during the individual interviews were belonging; ownership; process; feedback; and
outcomes. Each of the themes arose first in the interview data analysis and was verified
for data saturation through the focus group analysis of data. The five different themes
presented themselves within each of the four identified collaborative goal-setting
relationship categories.
Belonging. The theme of Belonging appeared in all four of the collaborative goal-
setting relationship categories as evidenced by teachers’ responses. Utilizing Dedoose, 29
active excerpts were matched with the code of Belonging (see Figure 12).
Figure 12. Sample of coded excerpts related to the theme of Belonging.
In Figure 13, I utilized the filtering system within Dedoose to develop a visual
representation of the relative frequency of the theme of Belonging among the four
82
relationship categories. This visual representation is also called a code cloud. Belonging
was tagged 29 times out of 122 excerpts, thus presenting 24% of the time across the
collaborative relationships.
Figure 13. The Belonging code cloud.
It is important to summarize these 29 coded excerpts per the collaborative goal-
setting relationship category for a comparative meaning of the overarching theme of
Belonging (see Table 3). Belonging in the T/A relationship cloud was described as side-
by-side leadership from the coded excerpts. In the T/T relationship cloud, Belonging was
defined membership within the PLC teams from the coded excerpts. Belonging in the T/S
relationship cloud was described as a partnership between the teacher and the student
from the coded excerpts. In the T/P relationship cloud, Belonging was defined as parental
involvement with the at-home help from the coded excerpts.
Table 3
83
Cross-Categorical Theme – Belonging
Theme Collaborative Relationship Comparative Meaning Belonging T/A Side-by-side leadership (BLT) T/T Member of PLC T/S Partnership with teacher/student T/P Involvement partnership/at-home help Table 3 Cross-Categorical Theme – Belonging
Ownership. The theme of Ownership appeared in all four of the collaborative
goal-setting relationship categories as evidenced by teachers’ responses. Utilizing
Dedoose, 42 active excerpts were matched with the code of Ownership (see Figure 14).
Figure 14. Sample of coded excerpts related to the theme of Ownership.
84
In Figure 15, I utilized the filtering system within Dedoose to develop the code
cloud for Ownership. Ownership was tagged 42 times out of 122 excerpts, thus
presenting 34% across the collaborative relationships.
Figure 15. Ownership code cloud.
It is important to summarize these 42 coded excerpts per collaborative goal-
setting relationship category for a comparative meaning of the overarching theme of
Ownership (see Table 4). Ownership in the T/A relationship cloud was described as
having equal input within the BLT from the coded excerpts. In the T/T relationship cloud,
Ownership was defined as having equal membership within the PLC teams from the
coded excerpts. Ownership in the T/S relationship cloud was described as a partnership
between the teacher and the student in the goal setting process from the coded excerpts.
85
In the T/P relationship cloud, Ownership was defined as parental involvement with the
goal setting action plan from the coded excerpts.
Table 4
Cross-Categorical Theme – Ownership
Theme Collaborative Relationship Comparative Meaning Ownership T/A Equal input in building goals (BLT) T/T Equal input in grade level goals (PLCs) T/S Students are part of goal-setting process T/P Parents are a part of the goal-setting action plan Table 4 Cross-Categorical Theme – Ownership
Process. The theme of Process appeared in all four of the collaborative goal-
setting relationship categories as evidenced by teachers’ responses. Utilizing Dedoose, 52
active excerpts were matched with the code of Process (see Figure 16).
Figure 16. Sample of coded excerpts related to the theme of Process.
86
In Figure 17, I utilized the filtering system within the Dedoose to develop the
code cloud for Process. Process was tagged 52 times out of 122 excerpts, thus presenting
43% of the time across the collaborative relationships.
Figure 17. Process code cloud.
It is important to summarize these 52 coded excerpts per collaborative goal-
setting relationship category for a comparative meaning of the overarching theme of
Process (see Table 5). Process in the T/A relationship cloud was described collaborative
building level SMART goals from the coded excerpts. In the T/T relationship cloud,
Process was defined grade level SMART goals from the coded excerpts. Process in the
T/S relationship cloud was described as a mutual understanding of the individual student
SMART goals from the coded excerpts. In the T/P relationship cloud, Process was
defined as parental understanding of the SMART goals from the coded excerpts.
87
Table 5
Cross-Categorical Theme – Process
Theme Collaborative Relationship Comparative Meaning Process T/A BLT defines building level SMART goals T/T PLC defines grade level SMART goals T/S Students understand the SMART goal process T/P Parents understand the SMART goal process Table 5 Cross-Categorical Theme – Process
Feedback. The theme of Feedback appeared in all four of the collaborative goal-
setting relationship categories as evidenced by teachers’ responses. Utilizing Dedoose, 46
active excerpts were matched with the code of Process (see Figure 18).
Figure 18. Sample of coded excerpts related to the theme of Feedback.
88
In Figure 19, I utilized the filtering system within Dedoose to develop the code
cloud for Feedback. Feedback was tagged 46 times out of 122 excerpts, thus presenting
38% of the time across the collaborative relationships.
Figure 19. Feedback code cloud.
It is important to summarize these 46 coded excerpts per collaborative goal-
setting relationship category for a comparative meaning of the overarching theme of
Feedback (see Table 6). Feedback in the T/A relationship cloud was described
communication of the building level’s vision, mission, and goals from the coded
excerpts. In the T/T relationship cloud, Feedback was defined as supportive
communication with peers from the coded excerpts. Feedback in the T/S relationship
cloud was described supportive communication between the teacher and the student from
89
the coded excerpts. In the T/P relationship cloud, Feedback was defined as two-way
communication with parents from the coded excerpts.
Table 6
Cross-Categorical Theme – Feedback
Theme Collaborative Relationship Comparative Meaning
Feedback T/A Communicated vision, mission and goals T/T Supportive communication with peers T/S Supportive communication with students T/P Two-way communication process Table 6 Cross-Categorical Theme – Feedback
Outcomes. The theme of Outcomes appeared in all four of the collaborative goal-
setting relationship categories as evidenced by teachers’ responses. Utilizing Dedoose, 49
active excerpts were matched with the code of Outcomes (see Figure 20).
Figure 20. Sample of coded excerpts related to the theme of Outcomes.
90
In Figure 21, I utilized the filtering system within Dedoose to develop the code
cloud for Outcomes. Outcomes were tagged 49 times out of 122 excerpts, thus presenting
40% of the time across the collaborative relationships.
Figure 21. Outcomes code cloud.
It is important to summarize these 49 coded excerpts per collaborative goal-
setting relationship category for a comparative meaning of the overarching theme of
Outcomes (see Table 7). Outcomes in the T/A relationship cloud were described as a
building wide focus on student data from the coded excerpts. In the T/T relationship
cloud, Outcomes were defined as a grade level focus on student data from the coded
excerpts. Outcomes in the T/S relationship cloud were described as an individual focus
on student data from the coded excerpts. In the T/P relationship cloud, Outcomes were
defined as an individual focus on student data from the coded excerpts.
91
Table 7
Cross-Categorical Theme – Outcomes
Theme Collaborative Relationship Comparative Meaning Outcomes T/A Building-wide focus on student data T/T Grade level focus on student data T/S Individual focus on student data/learning T/P Individual focus on student data/learning Table 7 Cross-Categorical Theme – Outcomes Summarized Findings of Cross-Categorical Themes Related to Research Question
Three
Five main cross-categorical themes uncovered during the individual interviews
were expounded upon for a deeper meaning within the focus groups. Based on the data
collected between the individual and group interviews, a rank order of importance was
gleaned from the data that represented the collaborative goal setting culture from
teachers’ professional perspectives and experiences within this inquiry. Understanding
the collaborative goal-setting Process ranked the highest. Outcomes, Feedback, and
Ownership seemed to have near equal importance across the collaborative relationships.
A sense of Belonging ranked last in the importance of the four relationship categories.
Research Question One
What are the elementary teachers’ perceptions of their roles while using
collaborative goal-setting strategies at various levels of the organization?
I asked the teachers how they perceived their collaborative goal-setting roles with
different levels of the school organization. Verbatim responses included:
Teacher A.
92
At the BLT level, I see the teachers working with you and not for you- like a
family. The teachers of that team take building level goal info to the PLC level
where teachers work in teams. On the teacher team, I am more of a note taker and
sharer but sometimes I need to step into the role of the facilitator to help keep the
focus on student data and goals. With students, I guide the students, since they are
so young. We set realistic target goals based on their baseline data I share with
them. I show the students where they are at and where they ended up on the graph
and the students shade in their progress. We do this quarterly. It is exciting to
what the students get excited about their own growth towards the target goals. I
see them taking ownership of their own learning.
Teacher B.
Well, the building level team works together on K–5 data and supports the
process with up-to-date research and literature, which is shared with all of us. In
my teacher team, I am the techie. I work on all the forms and graphs. I guess you
could call me the organizer of the team. With students, I share the graphs and
charts for their individual work and I guide them in the process of setting
measurable goals. At this age, our student goals all look similar… So I guess my
role with the students is more of a guidance – Is that a word?
Teacher C.
At the administrator level, the members of the BLT team encourage each other
when frustration of the process is brought to the team. The members are free to
talk and share without worries of a threat. The members help each other. My PLC
runs the same way as the BLT team does. We have developed the same type of
93
relationships. We are well balanced and a family. I find myself more of a co-
leader with ideas to keep the ball rolling. I also play devil’s advocate so everyone
can see all sides before we make decisions. I find my role with students more
challenging when it comes to the goal-setting process. With the young ones, I
have to provide a visual and define the process. The process needs to be tangible
not abstract or they won’t get it – They are just little kids after all!
Teacher D.
I see the role of the BLT as the ones who set the framework of goal-setting K–5,
where the expectations are known for all of us – You know what I mean? Well I
guess my role is more of a redefining expert, you know what I mean… I pay
attention to detail within the teacher team. With the students, I take on the role of
the guider and supporter of the goal-setting process. You know, I explain what an
attainable, measurable goal is and then I encourage them along the way with
tracked data in their student binders. Does that make sense to you?
Teacher E.
The administrator/teacher team sorts through the building data together and
breaks it down into manageable grade level parts. Like an umbrella for the goal
setting process… from the BLT team down to the student level, we all have a
piece of the puzzle on how we fit in. In my teacher team, I am the lead teacher,
you know, I have to keep the others in line, no really, I share with my team
members and we work well together. With students, I find myself more of a
director. Individual students goals are set privately on a one/one situation and the
student help to set the action plan. I step in when the attainment is in question.
94
Teacher F.
The teachers in the BLT work with you (administrator) in setting the goal-setting
framework and oversee K–5 for accountability purposes. My grade level PLC
works well together. I guess I am more of the even keel person, the negotiator
taking no sides – maybe that’s why our team works well together. With the
students, I model the process so they can take over and have ownership.
T/A group. Group members stated the roles of teachers in PLCs included:
“leaders, computer guru for charts and graphs, supporter of the process and team
members, family oriented, facilitator, devil’s advocate, note taker, comic relief, voice of
reason, data person.”
T /T group. Group members stated the roles between teachers and students
included:
Beginning of the year the goal setting process is modeled and more teacher
directed and then by midyear more student ownership is noticed, cheerleader,
motivator, facilitator, sharing of progress, we are a teacher/student(s) team with
roles in the goal-setting process.
T /S group. Group members stated the roles between teachers and administrator
included: “Side by side leadership, supportive, visible, flexible, approachable – where
everyone is valued and has purpose, the BLT’s role is to set the framework of the goal-
setting process, share outcomes and celebrate building wide accomplishments.”
T/P group. Group members stated the roles between teachers and parents
included: “two-way communicators and part of the action plan in student goal-setting.
95
Teacher’s should include the parents and educate them on the goal-setting process, while
parents should be the at-home supporters of the process.”
Summarized Findings Related to Research Question One.
Utilizing the filtering system within Dedoose, the coded excerpts related to the
Roles were set up in a code co-occurrence table with the collaborative goal-setting
relationship categories of T/A, T/T, T/S, and T/P (see Figure 22).
Figure 22. Co-occurrence roles associated with collaborative goal-setting relationships.
Within the code co-occurrence table for Roles, 13 associations were attached to
the T/A collaborative relationship; 13 to the T/T collaborative relationship; 13 to the T/S
collaborative relationship; and 6 to the T/P collaborative relationship.
96
Digging deeper by into these associations, I filtered the co-occurrence table for
Roles. Child codes were attached to sub themes that emerged in association to
collaborative relationships (see Figure 23). The 29 active excerpts representing the Roles
indicated: (i) 31% of the child codes related to the role of side by side leadership within
the T/A collaborative relationship; (ii) 28% to the role of teaming with peers within the
T/T collaborative relationship; (iii) 21% to the role of teaming with students within the
T/S collaborative relationship; and (iv) 21% related to the role of teaming with parents
within the T/P collaborative relationship.
Figure 23. Collaborative goal-setting roles.
Research Question Two
97
What do elementary teachers perceive to be the aids and barriers in the
collaborative goal-setting process?
I asked the teachers about the aids and barriers to their collaborative goal-process with
different levels of the school organization. Their verbatim responses included:
Teacher A.
The leadership can make or break the goal-setting process. We experience
supportive leadership. The biggest hurdle we face is with time… time meeting in
our teams and setting time aside in the classroom to goal-set and give adequate
feedback, you know, you just have to make time a priority. Team dynamics and
work ethic of others come into play, as well.
Teacher B. “Time! Time to meet in teams and time to carry out action plans can
be a problem. Resources and professional development need to be available, which the
BLT team does a good job with.”
Teacher C.
At first, teachers resented the goal-setting expectations, now it’s how we do
business… It’s who we are, so I guess you can say that ownership is now an aid
and not a barrier to the goal-setting process. Of course, we all need more time
when it comes to meetings, the goal-setting process, and data tracking! Is there
ever really enough time to do all that we have to do as teachers?
Teacher D.
Personally I always feel the pressure of time constraints… time needed to work
with the different personalities of team members, time to meet all expectations of
the process for accountability purposes, and time to meet with individual
98
students… you know what I mean? But, the benefits outweigh the time
constraints because the process gives us a sense of purpose and ownership of the
collaborative process. You know we have a focus to meet certain outcomes!
Teacher E.
Well at first, there were naysayers to this “shelly project”, which I know you are
aware of. But now, there is a majority buy-in and that’s something that takes
supportive leadership skills when it comes to PD, resources and time to meet and
do the work. If I had to pinpoint a barrier, I’d say it is time whether it is having
enough time to meet in teams or work with individual students, but we just do it!
Teacher F.
In the beginning, we were all overwhelmed with understanding the whole ideas of
the goal-setting process and expectations. It was one more thing added to our
plate. But now, even though time is still a constant issue to deal with, it’s just how
we do business with from the BLT, to the PLC and down to the student level with
individual goals tracked in data notebooks, which is shared with parents.
Speaking of parents we need to do a better job of sharing at the parent level with
this goal-setting process, so I guess you would consider that a barrier.
T/A group. “Time management is the biggest problem. As a teacher team, we now
have a purpose- student growth while implementing best practices, rather than talking
about the flavor of the month in teacher practices.”
T/T group. “Taking the time to individually set goals with students is time
consuming, but taking the time is worth it when we see the kids taking ownership of their
own progress towards goals and getting excited about it!”
99
T/S group.
Finding the time for several team members to meet monthly and talk about
student data is time consuming. At first these meetings didn’t make much sense,
but as we took the time to meet and talk about student data on the OAAs in terms
of strengths and weakness, the ah ha moments started to happen and goals with
action plans evolved for the entire building.
T/P group.
Aid- parental involvement, barrier- understanding the goal setting process and
how they (families) can be a part of the action plan in helping at home. Need for
better forms of communication about the goal-setting process and the time to do it
well.
Summarized Findings Related to Research Question Two.
Utilizing the filtering system within Dedoose, the coded excerpts related to the
Aids and Barriers were set up in a code co-occurrence table in association to each
respondent’s interview (see Figure 24)
100
JQMQGYWMN
Figure 24. Aids and barriers of a collaborative goal-setting culture.
Within the code co-occurrence table for Aids and Barriers listed by the teachers,
themes emerged and were coded with child codes. In relationship to the aids of a
collaborative goal-setting culture, prominent themes emerged: (i) 6 out of the 10
interviews listed shared expectations of teachers as an aid in the collaborative goal setting
culture; (ii) 5 out of 10 interviews listed supportive leadership as an aid in the
collaborative goal setting culture; (iii) 4 out of the 10 interviews listed student ownership
as an aid in the collaborative goal setting culture; and (iv) 2 out of the 10 interviews listed
parental involvement as an aid in the collaborative culture.
101
In relationship to the barriers of a collaborative goal setting culture, prominent
themes emerged through the coded excerpts: 10 out of 14 excerpts related to the lack of
Time needed to carry out the goal setting process at all levels of the organization; and 5
out of 14 excerpts related to the lack of understanding of the collaborative goal-setting
process at various levels of the school organization, particularly within the T/P
collaborative relationship.
The summary of findings was obtained through code co-occurrence and code
cloud relationships. Excerpts attached to each of the numeric codes allowed for a deeper
analysis of the collaborative goal-setting culture under study. From this deeper analysis,
key findings were extrapolated.
Key Findings Related To Research Questions
Research Question Three Key Findings
How has the goal-setting process impacted teachers’ experiences and perceptions
as professionals within the collaborative culture?
From the analysis, four collaborative goal-setting relationship categories and five
cross-categorical themes emerged from the data that captured the teachers’ perceptions
and experiences as professionals in this collaborative goal-setting culture. The
collaborative goal-setting relationships diamond was T/A; T/T; T/S; and T/P. The themed
outcomes were Belonging; Ownership; Process; Feedback; and Outcomes (see Table 8).
102
Table 8
Illustration of Collaborative Goal-Setting Relationship Categories and Themes Categories Themes Comparative Meaning
T/A Belonging Ownership Process Feedback Outcomes
Side by side leadership (BLT) Equal input in building goals (BLT) BLT defines building SMART goals Communicated vision, mission and goals Building-wide focus on student data
T/T Belonging Ownership Process Feedback Outcomes
Member of the PLC Equal input in grade level goals PLC defines grade level SMART goals Supportive communication with peers Grade level focus on student data
T/S Belonging Ownership Process Feedback Outcomes
Partnership with teacher/student Students are part of goal-setting process Students understand the SMART goal process Supportive communication with students Individual focus student data and learning
T/P Belonging Ownership Process Feedback Outcomes
Involvement partnership/at-home help Parents part of the goal-setting action plan Parents understand the SMART goal process Two-way communication process Individual focus student data and learning
Table 8 Illustration of Collaborative Goal-Setting Relationship Categories and Themes- Research Question 3 Research Question One Key Findings
What are the elementary teachers’ perceptions of their roles while using
collaborative goal-setting strategies at various levels of the organization?
Responses indicated that the roles of teachers throughout the organization
included a shared sense of belonging, ownership, facilitation of collaborative goal-setting
strategies, and communicator of outcomes at all levels of the school. From the analysis, it
was important to summarize the teachers’ roles per collaborative goal-setting relationship
category (see Table 9).
Table 9
103
Collaborative Goal-Setting Culture – Research Question 1
Collaborative Relationship Roles T/A Side by Side Leadership for Student
Learning (BLT) T/T Teaming for Shared Expectations of Student
Learning (PLCs) T/S Teaming for Individual Student Learning T/P Teaming for Individual Student Learning
Table 9 Collaborative Goal-Setting Culture – Research Question 1 Research Question Two Key Findings
What do elementary teachers perceive to be the aids and barriers in the
collaborative goal-setting process?
Responses indicated that aids of teachers throughout the organization included a
shared sense of belonging, ownership, facilitation of collaborative goal setting strategies,
and communicator of outcomes at all levels of the school. Time was the overarching
barrier.
From the analysis of aids and barriers of the collaborative goal setting, it was
important to summarize the findings per collaborative goal-setting relationship category
(see Table 10).
Table 10
Collaborative Goal-Setting Culture – Research Question 2
Collaborative Relationship Aids Barrier T/A Supportive Leadership Time T/T Shared Expectations Time T/S Student Ownership Time T/P Parent Involvement Time/Understanding
Table 10 Collaborative Goal-Setting Culture- Research Question 2 re – Research Question 2
These key findings as they related to each of the research questions described the
collaborative goal-setting culture within School A. Teachers’ roles, experiences and
104
professional perspectives were captured. Strengths and weakness of the collaborative
goal-setting practices were identified through Aids and Barriers.
Summary of Chapter
This chapter contained an abridged collaborative goal-setting history of School A.
The presentation of findings was described. Key findings were identified which
described the collaborative goal-setting culture of School A.
The abridged history of School A described a collaborative goal-setting culture,
which developed over a six-year time span. The collaborative work included the
development of building level vision, mission and goals. A cyclical school improvement
plan was implemented. Aligned SMART goal-setting practices from the building level to
the student level were expected, tracked, and analyzed by the PLCs and the BLT.
The summary of findings was obtained through code co-occurrence and code
cloud relationships. Collaborative goal-setting relationships were identified between the
Teacher/Administrator, Teacher/Teacher, Teacher/Student and Teacher/Parent. Within
these relationship categories, common themes emerged. The themes included Belonging,
Ownership, Process, Feedback and Outcomes. Excerpts attached to each of the numeric
codes allowed for a deeper analysis of the collaborative goal-setting culture under study.
From this deeper analysis, key findings were extrapolated.
These key findings as they related to each of the research questions described the
collaborative goal-setting culture within School A. Teachers’ roles, experiences and
professional perspectives were captured. Strengths and weakness of the collaborative
goal-setting practices were identified through Aids and Barriers.
105
Chapter 5 briefly summarizes the findings. Significance of the findings will be
shared. Implications of the research will be discussed. And, recommendations for future
research will be made.
106
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
This chapter is structured into six different sections to give an overview and
conclusion of key findings of this descriptive case study. Key findings related to each of
the research questions are presented in the first section of this chapter. The second section
includes interpretation of the findings. In the third section of this chapter, contextual
findings in relationship to existing literature are discussed. Implications of the research
findings are suggested in the fourth section. In the fifth section of this chapter, limitations
of the study are discussed, with the sixth section concluding with recommendations for
future research.
Key Findings
This study identified the elementary teachers’ perceptions and experiences within
a collaborative goal-setting culture. The participants in this inquiry provided compelling
narrative information through interviews and focus groups in terms of collaborative goal-
setting practices at various levels of the school organization.
This inquiry built upon the theory of Locke and Latham’s (2002; 2006) goal-
setting practices of the business world described in this study through a collaborative
effort among administration, staff, and students in an educational, elementary setting. The
conditions of acceptance for goal commitment, specific goals, goal difficulty, and
feedback of work motivation (Locke & Latham, 2002; 2006) impacting school culture
were the foundation on which the research questions were posed. The conceptual
framework of collaborative partnership described by Hall and Simeral (2008) guided the
types of questions within the types of questions within the interviews and focus groups.
107
The following key findings supported the theoretical framework of Locke and
Latham (2002; 2006) and the conceptual framework of Hall and Simeral (2008) that
guided this study. Research Question Three gave an overarching perspective of the
collaborative goal-setting culture within the elementary setting, so I started with that
question in terms of the key findings supporting the theoretical and conceptual
frameworks. Research Questions One and Two followed.
Research Question Three
How has the goal-setting process impacted teachers experiences and perceptions
as professionals within the collaborative culture?
Key findings based on conceptual framework. From the literature review of
Hall and Simeral’s research (2008), a set of predefined collaborative goal-setting
relationship categories – T/A, T/T, and T/S –were extracted. These three relationship
categories were the basis for the individual participant interview questions posed to gain
a deeper understanding of the experiences within this collaborative culture.
The teachers in the individual interviews provided an overview of the dynamic
collaborative goal-setting culture from their perspectives and experiences. All six
participants provided data that supported the literature on collaborative goal-setting
relationships described by Hall and Simeral (2008). Hall and Simeral (2009) described
the collaborative partnership for improved student learning as a relationship triangle:
collaboration between the T/A, T/T, and T/S.
From the data provided by the participants in the individual teacher interviews, a
fourth collaborative goal-setting relationship emerged: T/P collaborative partnership. The
108
data from the participants indicated that the teachers had an awareness of how important
this fourth collaborative partnership should be; however, some teachers struggled to make
it happen within this collaborative culture. With this key finding, the relationship triangle
changed to a collaborative goal-setting relationship diamond, keeping the teacher at the
core of the collaborative levels within the school setting.
Findings supported in literature depicted a school’s collaborative culture that
cultivated formative instructional practices at the building level, teacher level, and down
to the student level should partner with parents to understand and be an active participant
in learning targets; action plans; ownership of learning; and effective two-way
communication for improved student learning (Battelle for Kids, 2012; Epstein et al.,
2009).
Key findings based on theoretical framework. From the theoretical framework
and research of Locke and Latham (2002; 2006), the conditions of acceptance for goal
commitment, specific goals, goal difficulty, and feedback for work motivation of the
business world were applied to this educational setting for the last six years via a school
improvement plan. The participants in the individual teacher interviews and focus groups
provided purposeful experiences and perceptions of the collaborative culture that
developed over the years. The key findings supported the goal-setting work of Locke and
Latham (2002; 2006) with themes that crossed all four collaborative goal-setting
relationships levels, while keeping the teacher at the core of the partnerships: a sense of
belonging, ownership, process, feedback and outcomes.
109
These key findings built upon Locke and Latham’s (2002; 2006) original work by
adding two more themes identified by these participants. Locke and Latham’s acceptance
of goal commitment was synonymous with the key finding of Ownership. The theoretical
framework provided information on specific goals and goal difficulty translated into
findings for this inquiry as Process. The authors also discussed feedback for work
motivation as equally important, whereas the findings for this inquiry maintained the
word Feedback. Two additional findings emerged within this study that the participants
felt were equally important in this collaborative culture: a Sense of Belonging and
Celebrated Outcomes.
Research Question One
What are the elementary teachers’ perceptions of their roles while using
collaborative goal-setting strategies at various levels of the organization?
Key findings based on conceptual framework. The participants described their
roles across the three predetermined relationship categories of Hall and Simeral (2008)
and new T/P partnership supported in literature from Battelle for Kids (2012) and Epstein
et al. (2009). From the teachers’ thick, rich descriptions, responses indicated that the roles
of teachers were equally important in relationship categories. The connecting key
findings were the words or phrases between the T/A, T/T, T/S, and T/P of shared
expectations of teaming for student successes.
Key findings based on theoretical framework. Building upon the theoretical
framework of Locke and Latham (2002; 2006), the participants described their roles
through the key the findings of Belonging, Ownership, Process, Feedback, and
110
Outcomes. By taking ownership of the SMART goal setting process within the BLTs,
PLCs, classrooms, and with parents, a sense of belonging to a family group developed.
The teachers fostered this sense of belonging by sharing professional knowledge of the
goal-setting process, while helping those at various levels within the organization who
struggled. Along with the collaboration of shared goals, communication became key to
the success of the goal-setting process. This two-way communication fostered ownership
of the process, feedback, and celebration of the outcomes. The key findings of teachers’
roles among the themes mirrored that of the conceptual findings, where the words or
phrases of shared expectations of teaming for student successes emerged.
Research Question Two
What do elementary teachers perceive to be the aids and barriers in the goal-
setting process?
Key findings based on conceptual framework. The participants described the
aids and barriers across the three predetermined relationship categories of Hall and
Simeral (2008) and new T/P partnership supported in literature from Battelle for Kids
(2012) and Epstein et al. (2009). A key barrier finding in all four collaborative goal-
setting relationship categories was issues with time. In the T/P category, a lack of
understanding of the collaborative goal-setting process was identified as a barrier within
this collaborative setting. Teachers indicated that a key aid finding in the collaborative
culture included a connecting theme of collaborative involvement between teachers,
administrators, students, and parents.
111
Key findings based on theoretical framework. Building upon the theoretical
framework of Locke and Latham (2002; 2006), the participants described the aids and
barriers through the key the findings of Belonging, Ownership, Process, Feedback, and
Outcomes. The participants all agreed that in order for teachers, administrators, students,
and parents to work collaboratively on the goal-setting process, there must be time
scheduled for the professional development to occur for an understanding of the SMART
goal-setting process. Time was necessary for feedback and celebration of the outcomes at
all levels of the school organization. The key findings in aids and barriers among the
themes mirrored that of the conceptual findings, where time, involvement, and
understanding of the process emerged.
The summary of the key findings supported the theoretical framework of Locke
and Latham (2002; 2006) and the conceptual framework of Hall and Simeral (2008)
study. These key findings included collaborative goal-setting relationships between the
Teacher/Administrator, Teacher/Teacher, Teacher/Student and Teacher/Parent. Within
these relationship categories, common themes emerged. The themes included Belonging,
Ownership, Process, Feedback and Outcomes.
These key findings as they related to each of the research questions described the
collaborative goal-setting culture within School A. Teachers’ roles, experiences and
professional perspectives were captured. The collaborative roles between Teachers and
Administrators were evidenced with side-by-side leadership roles nurtured within the
BLT. The collaborative roles between Teachers and Teachers were described with
shared expectations for student learning nurtured within the grade level PLCs. The
112
collaboration roles between Teachers and Students were characterized as teaming for
individual student learning measured through the SMART goal process. The
collaborative roles between Teachers and Parents emerged as a desire to strengthen the
teaming between home and school for individual student success through the SMART
goal setting process.
Strengths and weakness of the collaborative goal-setting practices were identified
through Aids and Barriers. Aids emerged along the collaborative relationship categories
including: supportive leadership, shared expectations, student ownership and parental
involvement. The Barrier of time remained consistent among the four relationship
categories along with the lack of understanding the SMART goal process at the parental
level.
Interpretations
In this next section, the interpretation or the meanings of the findings are
discussed in terms of strengths, weakness, and needs within this collaborative goal-
setting culture in this elementary setting. A summary of personal reflections in comparing
and contrasting the key findings to the theoretical framework found in literature are
given.
Strengths of the Findings
The findings within this case study described elementary teachers’ perceptions
and experiences of a collaborative goal-setting culture for improved student learning. The
conceptual framework of Hall and Simeral (2008) and theoretical framework of Locke
and Latham (2002; 2006) used to guide the research questions of the study were
113
supported and expounded upon. The key findings of this inquiry gave a descriptive
meaning to the collaborative culture experienced by these elementary teachers. Findings
that supported the conceptual framework found in literature were collaborative goal
setting relationships between the T/A, T/T, and T/S. A new finding emerged, which was
equally important within this collaborative culture, was the goal-setting practices between
the teacher and parent. Within these collaborative relationships, ownership, process,
feedback emerged and aligned with the theoretical framework guiding this study.
However, two new themes emerged across all four of the relationship categories: a sense
of belonging and celebrated outcomes as equally important areas within this collaborative
culture for improved student learning.
Weaknesses and Needs of the Findings
Although not suggested in Hall and Simeral’s (2008) original study on
collaborative relationships, the new finding of the T/P goal-setting relationship within
this collaborative culture under study translated into a weak area for this particular
teacher team. There was awareness by all teachers and practiced by some of the teachers
that the T/P collaborative relationship was important. Battelle for Kids (2012) and
Epstein et al. (2009) supported this new relationship category. However, with the barriers
of time and understanding between many teachers and parents on the collaborative goal-
setting process, this relationship category suffered. With this identified weakness and
need for the school in this inquiry, the school improvement plan should be revisited for
future impact on student learning.
Personal Reflections in Relationship to the Theoretical Framework
114
In Chapter 2 of this inquiry, I presented a detailed description of the theoretical
framework of the goal-setting research within the business world as researched by Locke
and Latham (2002; 2006). I feel it is important to reflect on the strengths and weakness of
this theory in relationship to the findings within this study.
Latham (2004) reported that goal setting is a factor in self-management. Goal
setting creates purposeful work and attainable challenges to motivate individuals or
groups to complete tasks. However, limitations and weaknesses cited to goal-setting
practices can hinder progress. Some limitations and weaknesses cited in literature were
setting too many goals; prioritizing goals; risks associated with goal-setting, such as
tunnel vision and ignoring other important aspects of the work; and arguing about
negative side effects, such as possible unethical behaviors to reach target goals set
(Gergen & Vanourek, 2009; Latham 2004).
With the key findings of this inquiry, I postulated that the theoretical framework
translates well in the education arena for improved student learning. However, I feel it is
important to point out that the goal-setting practices must be collaborative in nature with
the teacher at the core. With collaborative goal-setting practices in place, the teams at
various levels of the school organization can monitor the amount of goals set; prioritize
the goals; limit the risks associated goal-setting practices, such as tunnel vision; and help
maintain checks and balances to limit or prevent unethical behaviors.
The interpretation or the meanings of the findings were summarized in terms of
strengths, weakness, and needs within this collaborative goal-setting culture in School A.
115
A summary of personal reflections in comparing and contrasting the key findings to the
theoretical framework found in literature were given.
Context
This third section describes the findings in relationship to existing literature
outlined in Chapter 2 of this inquiry.
Findings Related to the T/A Collaborative Goal-Setting Relationship
The findings indicated that the collaborative culture within the T/A team, known
in elementary setting as the BLT, exhibited a side-by-side leadership style. A
collaborative relationship, which supported, mentored, and coached others to lead in the
SMART goal-setting process was visible. The team celebrated together the long and
short-term successes of building wide student achievement. Findings supported in
literature indicated that a strong T/A BLT team is characterized by relationships of trust,
respect, and understanding (Battelle for Kids, 2012; Hall & Simeral, 2008; Marzano,
2003; Schmoker, 2009).
Findings related to the theoretical outcomes within the T/A collaborative goal-
setting relationship were a sense of belonging to a school family; teachers had ownership
in their work at the building level; teachers and administration understood and led the
collaborative goal setting process at the building level; teachers had supportive feedback
with and from administration; and the BLT studied and celebrated successful outcomes at
the building level. The findings defined a collaborative goal-setting culture in the
elementary school as characterized by Eaker et al.’s (2002) description of a traditional
school verses a collaborative school. In traditional school settings, Eaker et al. (2002)
116
described leadership in terms of authority given to administration with teachers as
subordinates. A true cultural shift takes place when administration is viewed as a “leader
of leaders” and teachers are “transformational leaders” (Eaker et al., 2002, p. 22).
Findings Related to the T/T Collaborative Goal-Setting Relationship
The findings suggested that the collaborative culture within the T/T team, known
in the elementary school as the PLC, exhibited shared expectations of student learning. A
collaborative relationship included the grade level expectations in the SMART goal-
setting process. The teacher teams celebrated together the long and short-term successes
of grade level student achievement. Findings supported in literature come from The
OLAC (2013), which renamed PLCs as TBTs; whereby, problem-solving data teams
analyze formative data to inform classroom instruction for positive outcomes on
summative student data. This process is also known as FIP (Battelle for Kids, 2012).
Findings related to the theoretical outcomes within the T/T collaborative goal-
setting relationship were a sense of belonging in the PLC; teachers had ownership in their
work; teachers understood and participated in the collaborative goal-setting process at the
teacher level; teachers had supportive communication and feedback with peers; and the
PLC studied and celebrated successful outcomes at the teacher level. The findings
defined a collaborative goal-setting culture in the elementary school was also
characterized by Eaker et al.’s (2002) description of a traditional school verses a
collaborative school. In traditional school settings, Eaker et al. (2002) described a random
list of goals that are not measurable or monitored. The authors stated clearly that
117
successful collaborative teams have an aligned plan with the mission and vision through
shared goals, which are measurable and monitored for student growth.
Findings Related to the T/S Collaborative Goal-Setting Relationship
The findings identified the collaborative culture within the T/S relationship
category exhibited a mutual SMART goal-setting process where students were engaged
and took ownership of their learning with evidence of their progress. As suggested in
literature, when a collaborative goal-setting partnership is formed between the student
and teacher, student ownership and accountability flourishes (Conzemius & O’Neill,
2006; Marzano et al., 2010; McDevitt et al., 2008; O’Neill, 2000).
Findings related to the theoretical outcomes within the T/S collaborative goal-
setting relationship were a sense of belonging in the classroom by the students; students
had ownership in their work; students understood and participated in the collaborative
goal-setting process at the their developmental level; students had supportive
communication and feedback with teachers and peers; and the students and teachers
celebrated successful outcomes in the classroom. The findings define a collaborative
goal-setting culture in the elementary school as characterized by Eaker et al.’s (2002)
description of a traditional school verses a collaborative school. In traditional school
settings, a school organization is described with a random list of goals not measurable nor
monitored or even known and understood by the student (Eaker et al., 2002). Whereas, as
a collaborative approach for facilitating student growth is observed at the clear down to
the student level (Battelle For Kids, 2012).
Findings Related to the T/P Collaborative Goal-Setting Relationship
118
The findings identified that the collaborative culture with the T/P should exhibit a
collaborative goal-setting process with two-way communication. Parents needed to be
part of the goal-setting process with an action plan for at home help. For this study, the
findings showed the awareness of the need for this fourth collaborative relationship to go
beyond the present one-way communication process. The two-way understanding and
feedback should include clear learning targets, understanding of performance
expectations, and measurable action plans on ways to support learning at home (Battelle
for Kids, 2012; Epstein et al., 2009).
Findings related to the theoretical outcomes within the T/P collaborative goal-
setting relationship were the need for a sense of belonging in classroom goal-setting
process at the parent level; the need for parents to take ownership in the action plan for
at-home help; the need for all rather than some parents who understood the collaborative
goal setting process at various levels; the need for parents to be a part of the supportive
communication and feedback with teachers and students-two way communication; and
the need for all rather than some parents who celebrated successful outcomes at home.
The elementary teachers in this study identified the themed outcomes at the T/P
collaborative goal-setting relationship as an area of need for improvement. Having an
awareness of the need is the first step in developing a plan for future improvement.
Findings supported in literature depicted a school’s collaborative culture cultivating
formative instructional practices at the building levels, teacher levels, and down to the
student levels and adds a fourth relationship dimension of a collaborative a partnership
119
culture with parents who understand learning targets, action plans, ownership of learning,
and effective two-way communication (Battelle for Kids, 2012; Epstein et al., 2009).
Findings Related to the Teachers’ Roles Within the Collaborative Relationships
Findings related to the teacher’s roles within the various collaborative relationship
throughout the school organization were T/A (BLT) side by side leadership for student
learning; T/T teaming (PLCs) for shared expectations of student learning; T/S facilitated
teaming for individual student learning; and T/P shared teaming for individual student
learning.
The roles of the administrators and teachers on the BLT include side-by-side
leadership that is multifaceted creating a sense of trust and respect (Battelle for Kids,
2012; Hall & Simeral, 2008). Eaker et al. (2002) explained a framework, which promotes
teacher collaboration, known as PLCs. Through PLCs, educators work, grow, and learn
together in TBTs to improve upon their teaching practices for improved student learning.
The educator’s role is multifaceted in the collaborative goal-setting practices with
students, which has teaching measurable goal-setting strategies; helping the students to
develop action plans; teaching students ways to track progress; celebrating successes with
students; and facilitating the goal-setting process as a cyclical cycle with new
collaborative goals (Battelle for Kids, 2012; Conzemius & O’Neill, 2006). Collaborative
partnerships between the teachers and parents sustain two-way understanding and
feedback with clear learning targets; understanding of performance expectations; and
measurable action plans on ways to support learning at home with parents (Battelle for
Kids, 2012; Epstein et al., 2009).
120
Findings Related to the Aides/Barriers Within the Collaborative Relationships
Findings related to the teacher’s perceptions and experiences of aids and barriers
of implementing the goal-setting process within the collaborative culture were that the
T/A level was supported with a trusting and respectful leadership, which allowed the
BLT to carry out a building wide vision of the SMART goal process. However, a
remaining barrier is the time management of the process. The T/T level was supported
with TBTs, known as PLCs, who exhibited shared expectations of analyzing student data
to inform classroom instruction, thus supporting the SMART goal process at the teacher
level. The barrier of time management remained a constant within this collaborative
relationship as well. The T/S level was supported with a shared collaborative SMART
goal process with individual students and facilitated by the teachers, where students
assumed ownership of their own learning. The barrier of time management remained a
constant in this relationship at the student level. The T/P level was supportive of the goal-
setting process; however, the findings indicated that the process functioned through one-
way communication, thus hindering a true collaborative process for understanding on the
parents’ side.
Findings in literature indicated that a barrier to the collaborative goal-setting
process would be top-down leadership styles, with no side-by-side facilitated process of
leading the way (Hall & Simeral, 2008). The teachers and administrators should be
partners in school improvement plans and not adversaries with the ultimate goal of school
improvement (Hall & Simeral, 2008). A vision and mission of collaboratively goal
121
setting at all levels of the organization must be shared with teachers gaining a sense of
belonging and taking ownership of the process.
Roadblocks experienced by many teachers were lack of a goal-setting mindset;
lack of a common CBM assessment tool; lack of experience in using CBM to examine
student data collaboratively; lack of necessary collaborative student feedback on progress
monitoring; lack of time; and lack of comfort in the collaborative goal-setting process.
Several different authors suggested that by forming significant relationships between the
teachers and administrators, change is more likely to occur (Deal & Peterson, 2009; Hall
& Simeral, 2008; OLAC, 2013). In forming a collaborative goal-setting process between
the teacher and the student, many benefits were recognized: a focused way of meeting a
learning goal, efficient use of time, and matching learning strategies to learning needs
(McDevitt et al., 2008)
The facilitated, collaborative goal setting between the teacher and the student
allows for a partnership with frequent feedback (Battelle for Kids, 2012; Hall & Simeral,
2008; OLAC, 2013). Epstein et al. (2009) suggested a partnership between the teacher
and parents utilizing six types of involvement to foster an understanding of: parenting;
two-way communication; volunteering; learning at home; collaborative decision making;
and building a sense of community between home and school.
The findings in relationship to existing literature outlined in Chapter 2 of this
inquiry were summarized. Collaborative goal-setting relationship categories of
Teacher/Administrator, Teacher/Teacher, Teacher/Student and Teacher/Parent were
described in contextual terms supported in literature. The cross-categorical themes of
122
Belonging, Ownership, Process, Feedback and Outcomes were detailed in each of the
relationship levels. The teachers’ Roles as well as Aids and Barriers were supported in
literature among the identified relationship categories.
Implications
The fourth section of this chapter contains implications of findings at the national,
state, local, and educator levels.
National Level Implications
National level education reforms, such as the NCLB Act (2001) have academic
expectations that all children will learn. However, little educational guidance and
minimal funding are provided for local educators to fulfill the expectations. I suggest the
strategies of goal setting with timely feedback employed within this case study show
findings at all levels of the organization that promote a collaborative culture for improved
student learning.
State Level Implications
The state educational reforms have aligned with the national NCLB Act (2001)
requirements. The OAAs for students are in place as a way to measure state and local
academic progress toward the NCLB guidelines (ODE, 2012b). In recent years, an
emphasis on value added growth of individual students over time has been a new
indicator on building report cards (ODE, 2012c). I believe the collaborative, measurable
SMART goal-setting strategies identified in this case study may be a local answer to
meeting the unfunded state mandates of individual, measurable student progress.
Local Level Implications
123
At the local level, educational reform seems to have had little impact on
traditional, isolated teaching styles. Much of the district’s professional development
seems to be from a top-down approach, with little time or money for follow through
(Hirsh, n.d.). I postulate that the collaborative professional communities of TBTs,
combined with the SMART measurable goal-setting methods identified in this case study
should provide districts with cost-effective professional development methods, which
include measurable modes of collaborative professional job embedded work for improved
student learning.
Educator Level Implications
At the educator level, reform is expected through The Ohio Educator Standards
(ODE, 2004), which focus on teacher performance levels in instruction, assessment,
collaboration, and communication of student learning. I suggest that the instructional
strategies of goal setting with timely feedback identified in this case study may be a way
to motivate all students to learn to their potential. More recently, Ohio House Bill 153
(HB 153) was been adopted, which focuses on the evaluation of teachers in relationship
to student achievement (ODE, 2012a). More so, I believe that collaborative professional
communities of TBTS identified in this study may provide educators the necessary local
control of job-embedded professional development to improve upon their collaborative
teaching methods for measurable student learning outcomes.
The summary findings had implications at the national, state, local, and educator
levels. By implementing the strategies of collaborative goal-setting practices with timely
124
feedback at all levels of the school organization a collaborative culture was developed
which directly or indirectly improved student learning.
Limitations of the Study
The following limitations within this study were generalizability, respondents’
bias, and researcher’s bias.
Generalizability
The case study was a descriptive method of describing human interaction. The
exploratory design had limitations due to the subjective data gathered through interviews
and focus groups. This descriptive case study may be hard to generalize due to possible
subjective data in the particular context of the elementary setting in the study.
Respondents’ Bias
The case study took place in my elementary school setting. Being the
respondents’ supervisor, a case could be made that the teachers’ responses were either
coerced or tailored to meet expectations.
Researcher’s Bias
The case study took place in my elementary school setting, and I am also an
active participant in the school-wide collaborative goal-setting study; therefore, it could
be argued that the analyzed data may contain researcher bias of subjective rather than
objective findings.
Limitations were summarized within this study through descriptions of
generalizability, respondents’ bias, and researcher’s bias as it related to this inquiry.
125
Recommendations for Future Research
The final section of this chapter contains suggestions for further research.
Possible Action Research Study
Extracted from professional literature, Epstein et al. (2009) outlined the difference
between educating the student versus caring and educating a child. If the person is
defined as a student, then the role of the school is to educate the person. If the person is
defined as a child, then it is the role of the family, community, and school to partnership
in educating and caring for the person. Epstein et al. (2009) further defined six types of
caring involvement that create a culture of partnering for student success: parenting
communicating; volunteering; learning at home; decision making; and collaborating with
the community.
The findings of this case study indicated that elementary school staff had an
awareness and desire to improve upon the T/P relationship category but failed to show
measurable progress toward collaborative goal setting outcomes within the developed
themes of belonging, ownership, process, feedback and, outcomes.
Future research could include an action research case study within this elementary
school utilizing Epstein et al.’s (2009) six types of involvement. The school improvement
plan could include measureable goals in the following combined areas: Parenting –
improvement in the areas of preschool and kindergarten transitions with goal-setting
expectations and parental understanding; Communicating – seeking ways to develop two-
way communications techniques, such as surveys on the goal-setting process and parental
understanding; Volunteering – parents helping within the school on goal assessment and
126
tracking of student data; Learning at Home – parents should be part of the action plan at
home in the student learning; Decision Making – parental participation in student’s goal
setting and tracking; and Community Collaborations – utilizing community parenting
programs within the school system. The findings of the action plan could be explored
utilizing the developed themes of this case study.
Possible Quantitative Correlational Research Study
The original school-based problem of stagnant achievement scores within the
elementary school encompassed many subjects and many elementary grade levels.
However, there was an exclusionary decision not to focus on the association between a
pre and post collaborative goal-setting practices in relationship to academic outcomes
over the past six years of this case study. It would have been difficult to attribute a
relational change to academic outcomes based on one variable of collaborative goal
setting in this study.
Future research studies could include several school settings newly implementing
goal-setting practices for a collaborative culture focused on student learning. The schools
could be studied over time for summative academic improvement in relationship to the
goal-setting process.
The final section of this chapter summarized suggestions for further research. An
Action Research Study was suggested to further develop the Teacher/Parent Relationship
category explored within this inquiry. A Quantitative Correlational Research Study was
also suggested to gain insight on the effects of collaborative goal-setting strategies in
relationship to student achievement.
127
Closing Summary
Chapter 1 was an introduction to familiarize the readers with the purpose of the
study. A brief history of the lack of goal-setting strategies in the educational setting was
introduced. The theoretical framework of the goal-setting theory was presented. The
problem statement was identified. The purpose of the inquiry was developed. Research
questions were listed to guide the study. Definition of terms was listed. Limitations,
delimitations, and assumptions were identified. The significance of the study was
highlighted. Gaining consent to move forward with the study was discussed.
Chapter 2 described the goal-setting theory through the related literature. Teacher
roles, student roles and mutual collaborative roles were identified through strengths and
weaknesses of each. A results oriented culture was described through collaborative goal-
setting relationships at the administrative, teacher, student and parental levels.
Collaborative goal-setting case studies were reviewed at the district and building
levels. These examples included effective goal-setting strategies, feedback, and student
motivation. However, many of the examples did not show collaboration at the student
level. The literature review also highlighted the effects of goal-setting, feedback and
student motivation in relationship to student achievement.
Chapter 3 defined the research design as an embedded, single-case design. The
main unit of analysis was the elementary school faculty employing goal-setting strategies.
The holistic context of the synergistic school culture was described utilizing data
collected from interviews and focus groups of the teachers, thus giving an embedded
level of data.
128
The data sources were through individual interviews and focus groups. Based on
the data collected from the interviews, focus groups were intentionally chosen to
represent varied grade levels within the elementary building. The data collected gave an
aligned perspective from Kindergarten through Grade 5 on the collaborative structure and
belief system of elementary teachers employing collaborative goal-setting strategies.
The narrative data gathered was recorded in written form for a thematic analysis.
A free web-based program Dedoose, version 4.5.91 was utilized for the coding process.
Excerpts were blocked and coded with the emerging categories, patterns, and groups. The
analysis of the interviews was combined and interwoven with the analysis of the focus
groups. The triangulated analyses was explained through descriptions of coded figures
coupled with a narrative form as it related to each of the research questions of this study.
Assurances of validity and reliability were provided through various strategies to
ensure trustworthiness and credibility of this qualitative research. This inquiry had a
transparent audit trail which included a clear description of how the teacher sample was
selected, an explanation of methods utilized to collect data, and an explicit manner in
which the data was analyzed. There were a number of strategies utilized to promote the
reliability and validity of this study such as adequate engagement in data collection, data
verification, member checks, triangulation, audit trail, and rich, thick descriptions.
Chapter 4 contained an abridged collaborative goal-setting history of School A.
The presentation of findings was described. Key findings were identified which
described the collaborative goal-setting culture of School A.
129
The abridged history of School A described a collaborative goal-setting culture,
which developed over a six-year time span. The collaborative work included the
development of building level vision, mission and goals. A cyclical school improvement
plan was implemented. Aligned SMART goal-setting practices from the building level to
the student level were expected, tracked, and analyzed by the PLCs and the BLT.
The summary of findings was obtained through code co-occurrence and code
cloud relationships. Collaborative goal-setting relationships were identified between the
Teacher/Administrator, Teacher/Teacher, Teacher/Student and Teacher/Parent. Within
these relationship categories, common themes emerged. The themes included Belonging,
Ownership, Process, Feedback and Outcomes. Excerpts attached to each of the numeric
codes allowed for a deeper analysis of the collaborative goal-setting culture under study.
From this deeper analysis, key findings were extrapolated.
These key findings as they related to each of the research questions described the
collaborative goal-setting culture within School A. Teachers’ roles, experiences and
professional perspectives were captured. Strengths and weakness of the collaborative
goal-setting practices were identified through Aids and Barriers.
The final chapter contained the summary of the key findings supported the
theoretical framework of Locke and Latham (2002; 2006) and the conceptual framework
of Hall and Simeral (2008) study. Collaborative goal-setting relationships were identified
between the Teacher/Administrator, Teacher/Teacher, Teacher/Student and
Teacher/Parent. Within these relationship categories, common themes emerged. The
themes included Belonging, Ownership, Process, Feedback and Outcomes. These key
130
findings as they related to each of the research questions described the collaborative goal-
setting culture within School A. Teachers’ roles, experiences and professional
perspectives were captured. Strengths and weakness of the collaborative goal-setting
practices were identified through Aids and Barriers.
The interpretation or the meanings of the findings were summarized in terms of
strengths, weakness, and needs within this collaborative goal-setting culture in School A.
A summary of personal reflections in comparing and contrasting the key findings to the
theoretical framework found in literature were given.
The findings in relationship to existing literature outlined in Chapter 2 of this
inquiry were summarized. Collaborative goal-setting relationship categories of
Teacher/Administrator, Teacher/Teacher, Teacher/Student and Teacher/Parent were
described in contextual terms supported in literature. The cross-categorical themes of
Belonging, Ownership, Process, Feedback and Outcomes were detailed in each of the
relationship levels. The teachers’ Roles as well as Aids and Barriers were supported in
literature among the identified relationship categories.
The summary findings had implications at the national, state, local, and educator
levels. By implementing the strategies of collaborative goal-setting practices with timely
feedback at all levels of the school organization a collaborative culture was developed
which directly or indirectly impacted student learning.
Limitations were summarized within this study through descriptions of
generalizability, respondents’ bias, and researcher’s bias as it related to this inquiry. The
final section of this chapter summarized suggestions for further research. An Action
131
Research Study was suggested to further develop the Teacher/Parent Relationship
category explored within this inquiry. A Quantitative Correlational Research Study was
also suggested to gain insight on the effects of collaborative goal-setting strategies in
relationship to student achievement.
In this closing chapter of this dissertation, I summarized the case study in terms of
purpose; research questions; literature review; methods; key findings related to each of
the research questions; discussed the meaning of the findings; discussed findings in
context to existing literature; shared the implications of the research; identified
limitations; and made recommendations. As eloquently stated by Marzano, Waters, and
McNulty (2005), “Collective efficacy is the shared belief that we can make a difference”
(p. 99) sums up this descriptive case study on the collaborative goal-setting culture
observed within this elementary school setting.
132
REFERENCES Battelle for Kids. (2012). FIP your school Ohio. Retrieved from
http://www.FIPYourschoolOhio.org
Busch, T. & Espin, C.A. (2003, Spring & Summer). Using curriculum-based
measurements to prevent failure and assess learning in the content areas.
Assessment For Effective Instruction, 28, 49-58.
Chappuis, J. (2005, November). Helping students understand assessment. Educational
Leadership, 63(3), 39-43.
Conzemius, A. & O’Neill, J. (2006). The power of SMART goals: Using goals to improve
student learning. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Covington, M.V. (2000, February). Goal Theory, motivation, and school achievement:
An integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 171-200. doi:
10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.171
Deal, T. & Peterson, K. (2009). Shaping school culture: Pitfalls, paradoxes and
promises. San Francisco, CA: Josey Bass.
De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & Op’t Eynde, P. (2000). Self-regulation: A characteristic
and a goal of mathematics education. In P. Pintrich, M. Boekaerts, & M. Zeidner
(Eds.) Handbook of Self Regulations (pp. 687-726). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Deno, S. L. (2003, November). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The
Journal of Special Education, 37, 184-192.
133
Deno, S. L., Fuchs, L. S., Marston, D., & Shin, J. (2001). Using Curriculum based
measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities.
School Psychology Review, 30(4), 507-524.
DeWalt, D.A., Davis, T.C., Wallace, A.S., Seligman, H.K., Bryant-Shilliday, B., Arnold,
C.L., … & Schillinger, D. (2009, November). Goal setting in diabetes self-
management: Taking the baby steps to success. Patient Education and
Counseling, 77, 218-223.
Eaker, R., DuFour, R., & DuFour, R. (2002). Getting started: Reculturing schools to
become professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Epstein, J., Sanders, M., Sheldon, S., Simon, B., Salinas, K., Jansorn, N., Voorhis, F.,
Martin, C., Thomas, B., Greenfeld, M., Hutchins, D., & Williams, K. (2009).
School, family and community partnerships: Your handbook for action. (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Fowler, F. (2009). Survey research methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Fried, Y. & Slowik, L. H. (2004). Enriching goal-setting theory with time: An integrated
approach. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 404-422.
134
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P., & Young, C. (2003, August). Response to intervention:
Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct,
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157-171.
Fullan, M. (2000, April). The three stories of educational reform. Phi Delta Kappan,
81(8), 581-584.
Goodlad, J.I. (2004). A place called school Twentieth anniversary. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Gergen, C., & Vanourek, G. (2009, January 14). Properly set goals aid success. The
Washington Times, p. B03.
Griffin, D. (2011). The SMART goal setting process. Desmand Media. Retrieved from
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/smart-goal-setting-process-4544.html
Hall, P. & Simeral, A. (2008). Building teacher capacity for success. A collaborative
approach for coaches and school leaders. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Hintze, J.M., Christ, T.J., & Methe, S.A. (2006, January). Curriculum-based assessment.
Psychology in Schools, 43(1), 45-56.
Hirsh, S. (n.d.). Breaking ranks revisited. Retrieved from
http://www.programs.educationalimpact.com/topics
135
Jenkins, J., Graff, J., & Miglioretti, D. (2009, Winter). Estimating reading growth using
intermittent CBM progress Monitoring. Exceptional Children, 75(2), 151-163.
Keller-Marqulis, M.A., Shapiro, E.S., & Hintze, J.M. ( 2008). Long-term diagnostic
accuracy of curriculum-based measurements in reading and mathematics. School
of Psychology Review, 37(3), 374-390.
Knoeppel, R., Verstegen, D., & Rinehart, J. (2007, Fall). What is the relationship
between resources and student achievement? A canonical analysis. Journal of
Education Finance, 33(2) 183-202. Retrieved from
http://www.sailforeducation.org
Latham, G. P. (2004). The motivational benefits of goal setting. Academy of Management
Executive, 18(4), 126-129.
Lipson, M., Mosenthal, J., Mekkelsen, J., & Russ, B. (2004, March). Building knowledge
and fashioning success one school at a time. The Reading Teacher, 57(6) 534-
542.
Little, J.W. (1990, Summer). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in
teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509-536.
Little, J.W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational
reform. Educational Evaluations and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.
136
Locke E.A. (2004). Goal setting theory and its applications to the world of business.
Academy of Management Executive, 18(4), 124-125.
Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (2002, September). Building a practically useful theory of
goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717.
Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265-268. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
8721.2006.00449.x
Marzano, R.J. (2003). What works in schools. Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R.J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for
effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R.J. (2009). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives. Bloomington,
IN: Solution Tree.
Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2004). Classroom instruction that works:
Research based strategies for increasing student learning. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
137
Marzano R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Heflebower, T. (2010). The highly engaged classroom.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
McDevitt, T., Sheehan, E., Sinco, S., Cochran, L., Lauer, D., & Starr, N. (2008, Fall).
These are my goals: Academic self-regulation in reading by middle school
students. Reading Improvement, 45(3), 115-138.
Morse, W. C. (2000). Foreword. In M. Friend & L. Cook, Interactions: Collaboration
skills for school professionals (3rd ed., pp. xi–xii). New York: Addison Wesley
Longman.
Morisano, D., Hirsh, J.B., Peterson, J.B., Pihl, R.O. & Shore, B.M. (2010, March).
Setting, elaborating and reflecting on personal goals, improves academic
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 255-264.
No Child Left Behind Act. (2001). Federal Policy. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/landing.htm.
Ohio Departement of Education. (2004). Ohio educator standards. Retrieved from
http://www.ode.state.oh.us
138
Ohio Department of Education. (2006). OAA Scores. Retrieved from
http://www.ode.state.oh.us
Ohio Department of Education. (2012a). Teacher evaluations. Retrieved from
http://www.ode.state.oh.us
Ohio Department of Education. (2012b). Testing. Retrieved from
http://www.ode.state.oh.us
Ohio Department of Education. (2012c). Value added. Retrieved from
http://www.ode.state.oh.us
Ohio Leadership Advisory Council. (2013). Ohio’s 5-step process. Retrieved from
http://www.ohioleadership.org
O’Neill, J. (2000, February). SMART goals, SMART schools. Educational Leadership,
57(5), 46-50.
Parker, S.L., Jimmieson, N.L., & Amiot, C.E. (2009, October). The stress-buffering
effects of control on task satisfaction and perceived goal attainment: An
experimental study of the moderating influence of desire for control. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 58(4), 622-652.
Redmond, B.F. (2010). Goal-Setting theory: What am I trying to achieve in my work?
Work Attitudes and Motivation. The Pennsylvania State University World
139
Campus. Retrieved from
https://wikispaces.psu.edu/display/PSYCH484/6.+Goal+Setting+Theory
Sanders, W. (2000). Value-Added Assessment from student achievement data:
opportunities and hurdles. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(4),
329-339. Retrieved from http://www.sas.com/govedu/ edu/teacher_eval.pdf
Schloemer, P., & Brenan, K. (2006). From students to learners: Developing self-regulated
learning. Journal of Education for Business, 82(2), 81-87.
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now. How can we achieve unprecedented improvements in
teaching and learning? Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Schmoker, M. (2009, January). Data now what? Measuring what matters. Educational
Leadership, 66(4), 70-74.
School Website. (2012). Local school district’s elementary link. Retrieved December,
31, 2012.
Shapiro, E.S. (2004). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (3rd
ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Spring, J. (2010). American education (14th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
140
Smith, K.G., & Hitt, M.A. (2005). Great minds in management: the process of theory
development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sorrentino, D.M. (2006). The SEEK mentoring program: An application of the goal-
setting theory. Journal of College Student Research, Theory & Practice, 8(2),
241-250.
Stone, C.A., & May, A.L. (2002, July and August). The accuracy of academic self-
evaluations in adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 35, 370-383.
Swain, K. (2005, September). CBM with goal setting: Impacting students’ understanding
of reading goals. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(3), 259-265.
Stecker, P.M. & Fuchs, L.S., (2000). Effecting superior achievement using curriculum-
based measurements: the importance of individual progress monitoring. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practices, 15, 128-134.
Taylor, B., Pearson, P. Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (2000). Effective schools and
accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary grade reading instruction in low-
income schools. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 121-165. Retrieved from
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu
141
Tubbs, M.E. (1986, August). Goal setting: A meta-analytic examination of the empirical
evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 474-483. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.71.3.474
United States Department of Education. (2001). The elementary and secondary education
act. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02
Yin, R.K. (2012). Applications of case study research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In
Bockaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & Zeidner (Eds.) Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 13-
39). San Diego: Academic Press.
142
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Cover Letter
Dear Elementary Staff Member, This letter is an invitation to participate in a research study. As a part-time doctoral student in the Department of Educational Leadership for Experienced Administrators at Concordia University Chicago, I am currently conducting a phenomenological case study on a collaborative goal-setting culture at the elementary school level.
Study Overview
The purpose of this case study inquiry is to identify the organizational structure and belief system necessary of a collaborative goal-setting culture for improved student learning at the elementary level. Opinions, feelings, knowledge and experiences of staff members employing collaborative goal-settings strategies for improved student learning will be gathered as qualitative data. Strengths, weaknesses and needs of a collaborative goal setting culture will be identified and expounded upon for school improvement.
Your Involvement
The interview and focus groups include questions about the organizational structure, expectations, action plans, implementation, tracking, analyzing, evaluating and revisiting targeted collaborative goals in your elementary setting.
If you agree to participate, you may involved in a 30 minute, face-to-face interview with me or participate in a 60 minute focus group of teachers representing grades K-5, which I will facilitate. You will only be asked to participate in one of these data collection methods. I will utilize your answers from either the personal interviews or focus groups that will take place during the research phase of this study.
There is no known physical risk to participants with this study. There may be informational and emotional risks associated with participation in interviews and focus groups. Informational risk involves the accidental breech of identifiers outside of the study, which could potentially harm the person’s professional reputation. Emotional risk for participants may be encountered due to my dual role as the principal investigator of the study, as well as being the school building administrator. Sensitive topics covered, may elicit emotional responses, which could potentially harm professional relationships. Participation is entirely voluntary. You may decline to answer any of the questions you do not wish to answer. Further, you may decide to withdraw from this study at any time,
143
without any negative consequences, simply by letting me know your decision. The confidentiality of all information collected will be protected, except as required by law, and will be used for research purposes only. No identifying information will be released and documents will be destroyed one year past this study.
Your name will not appear in any dissertation or publication resulting from this study unless you provide express consent to be identified and have reviewed the text and approved the use of the quote. After the data has been analyzed, you will receive a copy of the executive summary.
Contact Information
If you have any questions regarding this study, or would like additional information about participation, please contact the principal investigator, Shelly Dason by email at [email protected] or by phone at 1-740-360-8924. You may also contact Dr. Elizabeth Brennan, dissertation chair by email at [email protected] or by phone at 1-954-612-6637.
I assure you that this study has been reviewed for ethics clearance through Concordia University Chicago Institutional Review Board. For research related questions or concerns regarding subjects’ rights, please contact Dr. Amanda Maddocks by email at [email protected] or by phone at 1-708-209-3159. You may contact Dr. Arthur Safer, Executive Director, Division of Research, and Doctoral Programs by e-mail at arthur.safer@cuchicago,edu or by phone at 1-708-209-3612. You may also contact Dr. Cynthia Grant, Director of Research by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at 1-708-209-3554.
Thank you in advance for your interest and assistance with this research.
Sincerely,
Shelly Dason EdD Candidate Principal Investigator
144
Appendix B – Consent Form
I have read the information presented in the information letter about a study being conducted by Shelly Dason, Principal Investigator and EdD Candidate of the Department of Educational Leadership at Concordia University Chicago.
I understand that participation in this study is voluntary through personal interviews or focus groups and that I may refuse to answer questions posed.
I was informed that there are no foreseeable physical risks or benefits in participating in this study. I was also informed that I may withdraw my consent at any time without penalty by advising the researcher.
I am also aware that excerpts from the interview may be included in the dissertation and/or publications to come from the research, with the understanding that quotations will be either anonymous or attributed to me only with my review and approval and written documents will be destroyed after one year.
The principal investigator has assured me the Institutional Review Board at Concordia University Chicago has reviewed this research study for ethics clearance. I also understand the district superintendent granted consent for the study to be carried out in my elementary school building.
With full knowledge of all foregoing, I agree, of my own free will, to participate in this study. Participant Name: __________________________________(Please print)
Participant Signature: _______________________________
Participant’s e-mail______________________________________
Participant’s phone number____________________________________
Participant’s school building_____________________________________
Participant’s school district______________________________________
Date: ____________________________________________
Principal Investigator’s Signature:________________________________
Date:______________________________________________
145
Appendix C – Gaining Entry Into the Field Consent
Dear (Superintendent’s Name), As a part-time doctoral student in the Department of Educational Leadership for Experienced Administrators at Concordia University Chicago, I am currently seeking permission to conduct a phenomenological case study on a collaborative goal-setting culture at the elementary school level. The purpose of this case study inquiry is to identify the organizational structure and belief system necessary of a collaborative goal-setting culture for improved student learning at the elementary level. Opinions, feelings, knowledge and experiences of staff members employing collaborative goal-settings strategies for improved student learning will be gathered as qualitative data. Strengths, weaknesses and needs of a collaborative goal setting culture will be identified and expounded upon for school improvement. Qualitative data will be gathered through random teacher interviews as well as purposefully selected focus groups representing staff from Kindergarten to Grades 5. The data analysis will be triangulated for the findings. In conducting this research, I will comply with all the statutes, rules and regulations applicable to pupil records. I will comply with all rules of professional responsibility and/or code of ethics applicable to conducting research in public schools. The research and use of data will be consistent with the approved research design of the study. No further uses of this data will be allowed without additional district level permission. I will not disseminate any items of information to any other person, agency or organization directly related to an identifiable pupil, teacher, school, or district. Please see attached staff cover letter and consent forms. Upon your written approval on school district letterhead or via school district e-mail, I will be able to comply with the IRB process through Concordia University Chicago. When the IRB process is completed and approved, I will supply you with the confirmation documentation to start the study. A full report of the findings will be made public and shared with the school board.
Sincerely,
Shelly Dason EdD Candidate Principal Investigator
146
Appendix D – Interview Guide
Question Guide:
Teachers collaborating goal setting with other teachers:
1. Tell me about your educational background and experiences. (Grand tour,
throw away question)
2. Help me to understand your role or function in the collaborative grade level
goal setting process with other teachers. (Essential) (Chappius, 2005)
3. Explain the collaborative grade level goal setting process. (Essential) Tell me
more about baseline data collection, goals and tracking methods used.
(Probing) (Deno, 2003; Shapiro, 2004; Stecker & Fuchs, 2000)
4. How do you know if collaborative grade level goal setting process was
successful? (Essential Question) (Hall & Simeral, 2008)
5. Help me to understand the feelings and actions of other teachers toward grade
level collaborative goal setting. (Extra) Aids or Barriers? (Probing question)
(Conzemius & O’Neill, 2006)
Teachers Collaboratively Goal Setting with Students:
6. Help me to understand your role or function in the collaborative grade level
goal setting process with students. (Essential). The student’s role? (Probing)
(McDevitt et al., 2008)
7. Explain the collaborative goal setting process between teachers and students.
(Essential) Tell me more about baseline data collection, goals and tracking
147
methods used with students. (Probing) (Conzemius & O’Neill, 2006; ONeill,
2000)
8. How do you know if collaborative goal setting process was successful at the
student level? (Essential Question) (Marzano, 2003)
9. Help me to understand the feelings and actions of students toward the
collaborative goal setting process. (Extra) Aids or Barriers? (Probing
question) (McDevitt et al., 2008)
Teachers Collaboratively Goal Setting with Administration
10. Help me to understand the collaborative roles between administrators and
teachers in the collaborative goal setting process. (Essential) (Hall & Simeral,
2008)
11. Help me to understand the administrator’s leadership style in this
collaborative process at the building level? (Extra) (Hall & Simeral, 2008)
12. Explain the collaborative goal setting process between teachers and
Administrators. (Essential) Tell me more about baseline data collection, goals
and tracking methods used at the building level. (Probing) (Probing questions)
(Eaker et al., 2002)
13. How do you know if building level collaborative goal setting process was
successful? (Essential question) (Eaker et al., 2002)
14. Help me to understand the professional impact of this collaborative goal
setting process at the building, teacher and student levels. The impact on
148
student learning? Tell me more, aids/barriers? (Probing question, reflective
questions)
15. Is there any other information you would like to share? Do you have any
questions for me before we conclude this interview? (Probing)
149
Appendix E – Focus Group Guide
Focus Group 1 - Teacher/Teacher Collaborative Goal Setting
1. Help me to understand your role or function in the collaborative grade level goal
setting process with other teachers. (Essential) (Chappius, 2005)
2. Explain the collaborative grade level goal setting process. (Essential) Tell me
more about baseline data collection, goals and tracking methods used. (Probing)
(Deno, 2003; Shapiro, 2004; Stecker & Fuchs, 2000)
3. How do you know if collaborative grade level goal setting process was
successful? (Essential Question) (Hall & Simeral, 2008)
4. Help me to understand the feelings and actions of other teachers toward grade
level collaborative goal setting. (Extra) Aids or Barriers? (Probing question)
(Conzemius and O’Neill, 2006)
5. Is there any other information you would like to share? Do you have any questions
for me before we conclude this interview? (Probing)
Focus Group 2 - Teacher/Student Collaborative Goal Setting
1. Help me to understand your role or function in the collaborative grade level goal
setting process with students. (Essential). The student’s role? (Probing) (McDevitt
et al., 2008)
2. Explain the collaborative goal setting process between teachers and students.
(Essential) Tell me more about baseline data collection, goals and tracking
150
methods used with students. (Probing) (Conzemius & O’Neill, 2006; ONeill,
2000)
3. How do you know if collaborative goal setting process was successful at the
student level? (Essential Question) (Marzano, 2003)
4. Help me to understand the feelings and actions of students toward the
collaborative goal setting process. (Extra) Aids or Barriers? (Probing question)
McDevitt et al., 2008)
5. Is there any other information you would like to share? Do you have any questions
for me before we conclude this interview? (Probing)
Focus Group 3 - Teacher/Administrator Collaborative Goal Setting
1. Help me to understand the collaborative roles between administrators and teachers
in the collaborative goal setting process. (Essential) (Hall & Simeral, 2008)
2. Help me to understand the administrator’s leadership style in this collaborative
process at the building level? (Extra) (Hall & Simeral, 2008)
3. Explain the collaborative goal setting process between teachers and
Administrators. (Essential) Tell me more about baseline data collection, goals and
tracking methods used at the building level. (Probing) (Probing questions) (Eaker
et al., 2002)
4. How do you know if building level collaborative goal setting process was
successful? (Essential question) (Eaker et al., 2002)
151
5. Help me to understand the professional impact of this collaborative goal setting
process. The impact on student learning? Tell me more aids/barriers? (Probing
question, reflective questions)
6. Is there any other information you would like to share? Do you have any questions
for me before we conclude this interview? (Probing)
Focus Group 4 - Teacher/Parent Collaborative Goal Setting
1. Help me to understand the roles or functions parents have in the collaborative
goal setting process? (Essential question) (Epstein et al., 2009)
2. Explain collaborative goal setting process between the teacher, student and the
parent? (Essential question) Tell me more… Help me to understand the how goals
are tracked and measured at the parent level. (Epstein et al., 2009)
3. How do you know if the collaborative goal setting process was successful with
parental involvement? (Essential question) (Epstein et al., 2009)
4. Help me to understand the parental knowledge and feelings of involvement in the
collaborative goal setting process? (Extra question) Any Aids or Barriers?
(Probing question) (Epstein et al., 2009)
5. Is there any other information you would like to share? Do you have any question
for me before we conclude this interview? (Probing)
