1
1
1
by
Liberty University
Doctor of Education
Liberty University
March, 2013
TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY: COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS WITHIN A
21ST CENTURY SKILLS FRAMEWORK
Doctor of Education
March, 2013
APPROVED BY:
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this case study was to understand teachers’ self-efficacy in instructing
21st century learning skills in a high school core curriculum. This study examined the
impact of three highly qualified teachers’ attitudes toward instructing the Common Core
a 21st century skills framework. Four research questions guided this study. What
what extent do teachers seek to engage students in creativity and innovation? To what
degree do teachers implement neomillennial learning styles? How will the participants
measure their own self-efficacy in teaching 21st century learning skills within the core
curriculum? This qualitative collective, instrumental case study examined three core
curricular teachers in Georgia. The social cognitive theory, the situated learning theory
interactionism. Data were collected through survey, four classroom observations and a
stimulated recall interview. The study’s findings revealed major themes regarding
learning culture, and student learning styles. The findings revealed minor themes with
Keywords: Common Core State Standards, 21st century skills, learning styles,
I want to thank my dissertation committee for their service. Dr. Russ Yocum, Dr.
Martha Smith and Dr. Jerry Woodbridge each helped me by providing genuine guidance
and strong academic skills. I appreciate your prayers your wisdom. It has helped me
I want to express my deepest appreciation to my wife, Janie. Thank you for your
heartfelt love and dedication. Without your deepest support, I could not have completed
this advanced program of study. I love you so much. To my children, Jenny and Josh,
and my son-in-law, Jeffrey, your encouragement has helped me to complete this four-
year process. You mean the world to me. I love you very much.
I thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, for calling me into this journey and
academic pursuit. I have learned how to pray fervently and to put into action the
promise, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (Phil 4:13).
Lastly, I want to thank the three wonderful participants who worked with me
during the data collection, the data analysis and the writing phases. I highly respect you.
Each of you is an amazing teacher and role model for 21st century students. I thank my
sister, Janet Hummel, for transcribing every observation and interview word for word.
Without your help, the data transcription would not exist. Thank you so much. I want to
ii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. ii
Background ....................................................................................................................... 15
Situation to Self..................................................................................................... 29
Definitions............................................................................................................. 30
Delimitations ..................................................................................................................... 34
Constructivism Theory.......................................................................................... 38
iii
Situated Learning Theory ..................................................................................... 42
Cognition............................................................................................................... 45
Assessment ............................................................................................................ 46
Literacies ........................................................................................................................... 46
Creativity............................................................................................................... 49
Innovation ............................................................................................................. 49
Technology ........................................................................................................... 53
Leadership ......................................................................................................................... 54
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 55
Research Design................................................................................................................ 60
iv
Description of the Study ................................................................................................... 63
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 64
Setting/Site ........................................................................................................................ 66
Procedures ......................................................................................................................... 66
Surveys .................................................................................................................. 68
Observations ......................................................................................................... 68
Triangulation ......................................................................................................... 73
Transcription ......................................................................................................... 73
Trustworthiness ..................................................................................................... 74
v
Credibility ............................................................................................................. 77
Dependability ........................................................................................................ 77
Confirmability ....................................................................................................... 77
Transferability ....................................................................................................... 78
Major Theme One: 21st Century Skills Instruction – Dana Dunn ........................ 87
Major Theme One: 21st Century Skills Instruction – Kate King .......................... 92
Major Theme Two: Thematic Relevance to the Research Questions ................. 125
Major Theme Three: Learning Culture Engagement – Dana Dunn ................... 139
Major Theme Three: Learning Culture Engagement – Kate King ..................... 156
Major Theme Three: Thematic Relevance to the Research Questions ............... 159
vi
Minor Theme One: Critical Thinking – Dana Dunn ........................................... 182
Minor Theme Two: Thematic Relevance to the Research Questions ................. 204
Minor Theme Three: Thematic relevance to the research questions. ................. 224
Minor Theme Four: Thematic Relevance to the Research Questions ................ 240
vii
Constructivism .................................................................................................... 262
viii
List of Tables
ix
List of Figures
Figure 5: Research questions correlation to the major and minor themes 283
x
List of Abbreviations
xi
CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION
America’s potential for achieving global effectiveness may be dependent upon its
future educational system. Recent studies (Achieve, 2005; Friedman, 2006; Partnership
for 21st century skills, 2006) suggested that business leaders were concerned about issues
originally posited nearly three decades ago in A Nation at Risk (National Commission on
school graduates were underprepared for the 21st century workplace (Achieve, 2005;
Partnership for 21st century skills, 2008). A need existed for improving education so that
high school graduates possessed skills required for participation in the 21st century
measure teacher effectiveness by end of course test (EOCT) standardized test scores
Background
Systemic reforms, initiated by No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2008), fueled a
cogent next step in promoting equity and excellence independent of a single test
measurement (National Research Council, 2008). The heralded Common Core State
nearly every state. These standards were aligned with college and work assumptions,
thorough and globally standardized (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010).
15
They included four essential learning and innovation skills, as noted in Figure 1, and
critical thinking;
communication;
collaboration; and,
creativity.
engage student learning and were symmetrical with the Partnership for the 21st century
learning and innovation skills (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2006).
Figure 1. Framework for 21st Century Learning (Partnership for 21st Century Skills,
2009).
readiness, were dismally underrepresented within the CCSS (Partnership for 21st century
standards by which creativity and innovation were measured during instruction posed a
16
extremely complex phenomenon that renders such research rather more difficult than
studying a more basic cognitive process, such as attention or memory. Because of these
difficulties, the empirical research does not always generate consistent results” (p. 1). No
single measurement definitively determined the extent to which one was engaged in
creative process or action. Yet, a review of the creativity identified key factors that were
Creativity and innovation were identified as two key components of the CCSS.
Framed in the broader research, creativity was defined as the capacity to produce novel
and appropriate work (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). Innovation was described as the
realization of new ideas that resulted in the production of something valuable and was
demonstrated through its use in the marketplace. Sternberg & Lubart (1999) suggested
that innovation was determined to be a first time new idea that was typically overlooked
by others.
factors (European Commission, 2008c), the constituent components were broad and
innovation (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). Framing creativity and innovation into the
broader purview, a cornucopia of research and connotations often provided fuel for
Ferrari, Cachia & Punie (2009) noted that creativity in the educational arena was
seldom clearly defined. As a result, educators held erroneous assumptions about how to
17
identify creativity during classroom instruction. Problems related to conceptualizing
creativity and innovation into the educational mindset included five factors:
intangible outcomes;
inherent subjectivity;
educational policies that were not reflected in praxis (Ferrari et al., 2009).
Theoretical Perspectives
theoretical viewpoints.
mostly as an innate talent that was found among highly gifted individuals. Creativity was
creativity was recognized as the ability to discover new and workable solutions to
everyday problems. Creativity was divided into two constituent parts. “Big C” creativity
described traits that existed only among genius minds. “Little C” creativity existed
among the general population (Ferrari et al., 2009). Beghetto (2005) noted potential
merit for using an equal and egalitarian perspective toward teaching creativity across
every age group domain in schools. Based on my teaching experience, I agreed that the
18
The psychoanalytic approach proposed that creativity flowed out of unconscious
processes. Jung (1953, cited by Arieti, 1976) expanded this viewpoint of creativity into
psychological art and visionary art. Maslow (1968) categorized creativity as primary
creativity, secondary creativity, and integrated creativity. Creativity proceeded from the
primary cognitive and conative volitional processes. Secondary creativity stemmed from
discipline and rigor. Integrated creativity joined primary and secondary creativity as the
source for great artistic works, philosophy, and systematic discoveries. While I found the
information intriguing, this viewpoint did not offer a clear understanding of how to
was based on common assumptions, implicit theories (Runco, 1999) and connotations,
rather than on scientific research. This concept of creativity has often being mingled
when associating creativity and innovation with talent and inspiration. Others expressed
creativity as a divinely inspired product wherein originality was valued over the creation.
Based on this theoretical perspective creativity should not be taught in schools because it
must originate from divine illumination. For purposes of this research, I did not assume
this position.
19
Creativity was process driven and led to an end product. Creative experience
notion that creativity was associated with creative output has long permeated the research
literature (Albert & Runco, 1990; Sternberg, 1999a). This perspective provided a clear-
cut rationale for recognizing creativity during instruction by focusing on tangible versus
intangible behaviors.
Lastly, the cognitive approach – the single most prevalent research perspective –
sighted creativity as a thinking skill (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). Three main schools of
pragmatic methods and cognitive theories (Ferrari et al., 2009). In the phase-oriented
include seven stages. The pragmatists focused on issues like problem solving and
brainstorming (Osborn, 1953). In general, cognitive theorists evaluated genius (Albert &
Runco, 1990), intelligence (Albert & Runco, 1990) and personality traits (Simonton,
and factors that precipitated or impeded creative potential (Amabile, 1998). This
perspective was relevant to this study in that factors surrounding student engagement
The cognitive approach was well-aligned with the constructivist frame of mind.
Recent cognitive-based creativity research (Albert & Runco, 1990; Runco, 2007) fit
uniformly into the Partnership for 21st century skills framework (Partnership for 21st
20
century skills, 2008). I collected data during the classroom observations using a
Sternberg and Lubart (1999) notated that creativity was comprised of six components
with three being critical. The critical components were viewing problems in new ways,
analyzing ideas to determine their value and persuasion skills. According to Albert &
Runco (1999), creative people exhibited strong intellect, a centric factor in understanding
framework when collecting data because it correlated well with the 21st century
The literature generally posited that creative persons possessed unique and
creative abilities. Various creativity studies examined the traits and intellectual abilities
of illustrious individuals. They affiliated creativity with genius, intelligence (Albert &
Runco, 1999) and knowledge (Weisberg, 1999). Two important theories were noted in
the literature. First, Sternberg & Lubart (1999) investigated the Investment theory of
creativity where creative people sought novelty, expended energy on atypical and
unfashionable ideas, and bought low and sold high. This viewpoint helped me to
Threshold Theory (Guilford, 1950) maintained that a minimum level of intelligence was
21
required for one to be creative. On the other hand, Runco (2007) suggested that all
intelligent people possessed creative skills was erroneous. Debates concerning the nature
ability threshold levels were significant in domain-specific products like patents and
Various professional development strategies stressed the need for academic rigor.
They discovered that many “intelligent” students lacked creative ability. Creativity,
intelligence and talent were determined to be distinguishable traits (Sharp, 2004). Russ
(1996) suggested that an interaction between personality traits, emotional processes and
defined general intelligence as linguistic and logical mathematical abilities (Stern, 1912).
estimated mental age and his actual chronological age. A single convergent
Intelligence-Creativity Relationship
potential and IQ among low-income high school students. Their research reflected that
approximately 80% of the top 20% of creative students would be overlooked if giftedness
were identified only by IQ testing. Their research coincided with earlier research by
Torrance (1962). More recently, Gardner (1983) propounded the idea that individuals
22
to Stern (1912) individuals possessed innate or core intelligence. The relationship
between intelligence and creativity held merit for understanding creativity in education
settings.
the research on creativity and intelligence into five frameworks. Understanding the
based on the years one has spent working in their respective field. Therefore, the most
final years compared to those just starting their careers (Adams, 2005).
whereas synergistic extrinsic motivators supported it. The implications were that non-
synergistic motivators inhibited creativity in the classroom. The research suggested that
most learning assessments should be informal and be used as a tool for improvement
learning (Durlak & Weissberg, 2007). According to Adams (2005), typical classroom
23
creativity as a subset of intelligence;
creativity involved some facets of intelligence, i.e. divergent thinking. Gardner (1983)
purported various intelligences that fostered creative results. Traditional core class
curricula primarily focused on intellectual aspects rather than creativity. Amabile (1989)
traditional schools.
than intellectual ability for intellectual processing. Creativity involved intelligence and
solving existed as a shared component. They were different in that intelligence supported
creativity. This view was supported by IQ tests and implicit theories (Roe, 1976).
Implicit theories were ideas or theories that regarded a phenomenon (Sternberg &
Dweck (1999) intelligence theories existed in two camps. Entity theorists maintained
that intelligence existed as a fixed entity while incremental theorists believed that
intelligence was malleable (Dweck, 1999). Individuals who held to entity theories tended
24
toward setting and reaching goals. Those who maintained intelligence based on
foundational constructs for creativity reflected those needed for intelligence. Creative
of creativity. This perspective was sensible and useful for conceptualizing knowledge in
as interconnected components.
constant and deliberate practice in a domain versus personal ability. From this
perspective was not used in this study. Several key factors that influenced creativity and
innovation included:
25
skillful learning and assessments that account for creativity; and,
in knowing how high performance teachers taught creativity in the classroom. A side-by-
side comparison of the 4Cs with the P21 Learning and Innovation (L&I) skills
(Partnership for 21st century skills, 2007) revealed a precarious deficit in the critical areas
effectively engage students in the 21st century learning skills (Olsen, 2010) which
This study presumed that creativity and intelligence were correlated. To better
framework, wherein general intelligence (“g”) existed as a single factor that supported all
2006). The multiple intelligences theory (Gardner, 1983) challenged traditional thinking
by positing that intelligence existed as eight unitary and separate entities. Herein,
(Gardner & Moran, 2006). Although various researchers supported MI theory, skeptics
disavowed Gardner’s theory (Pashler, McDaniel, Rowher, & Bjork, 2009; Willingham,
26
2010).
This study examined teachers with respect to the multiple intelligence theory
(MIT) wherein individuals possessed innate abilities (Gardner, 1983). The multiple
The two factors “interpersonal” and “intrapersonal” were specific to this study.
distribution within the learning environment culture (Beliavsky, 2006; Gardner, 1993).
learning by using learning styles (LS) that helped individuals to gain knowledge. The LS
research suggested that individuals possessed unique learning preferences that directly
impacted learning (Evans & Cools, 2011; Kozhevnikov, 2007; Li, 2008; Zhang &
Sternberg, 2006) and they used multitudinous cognitive styles (Coffield, Moseley, Hall,
& Ecclestone, 2004b; Li, 2008; Rayner & Cools, 2011; Sadler-Smith, 2009). Significant
recent neuroscience research investigated LS (Pashler et al., 2009; Sims & Sims, 2006;
Zull, 2011) yet proffered incongruous assumptions and competing ideologies (Coffield et
27
al., 2004b; Cools, 2009) without establishing a unified theoretical LS position. The 21st
Purushotma, Robinson, & Weigel, 2006; Salaway, Caruso, Nelson, & Ellison, 2007).
These preferences extended beyond a single milieu and were tailored to individualistic
LS preferences (Dieterle, Dede, Perkins, & Russell, 2008). NLS were complex and
multimedia;
one’s needs and preferences (Dede, 2005; Dieterle, Dede & Schrier, 2007).
rather than explicit. This factor was significant to understanding how teachers
communicated with their students in this study. Knowledge building occurred best in
active learning contexts where knowledge was disseminated among the group and with
students’ learning preferences based on the NLS literature review. Furthermore, NLS
co-designed simulations and Web pages. NLS was proposed by Dede (2005) and more
broadly developed by others (Dieterle, Dede & Schrier, 2007; Dunleavy, Dede &
28
Mitchell 2009; Dieterle et al., 2008). The literature noted that students’ technological
immersion created blurred lines between the physical and digital realities and created a
nearly insurmountable task for some teachers. The 21st century teachers were challenged
pedagogies. Hadjioannou (2012) determined that teachers accomplished this task only
when they possessed pertinent knowledge, instructional skills and the school district’s
financial support.
Situation to Self
grounded in both social and experimental learning environments. From this perspective,
theory or pattern of meaning” (Creswell, 2007, 21). The researchers and the participants
in this study taught at the same school. The three participants taught core academic
subjects with EOCT assessments. As the sole researcher, I differed from the participants
by teaching only elective courses and did not assess students using an EOCT. At the
Problem Statement
that American schools were failing (Patel & Yelland, 2006) in comparison to other
nations (Friedman & Mandelbaum, 2011) and that secondary schools were
underachieving (Au, 2007). The data reflected that the US could regain competitiveness
by increasing its PISA scores by 25 points in 20 years (Paine & Schleicher, 2011). The
29
Hoover Institute at Stanford University research suggested this increase in PISA scores
would provide over forty trillion dollars in the U. S. economy for those persons born in
2010. If the U. S narrowed its achievement gap with other OECD nations, the ensuing
results could potentially double. The implication was that U. S. global competitiveness
hinged on its ability to increase the quality of education for its citizens. Other research
Engagement in learning was cited as a key to effective learning (Carini, Kuh &
Klein, 2006; Lambert & Cuper, 2008; Partnership for 21st century skills, 2006; Rocca,
2010) and was enhanced by effective learning designs and learning environments
(Partnership for 21st century skills, 2007). The literature cited issues regarding student
engagement in learning (Carini et al., 2006; Lambert & Cuper, 2008; Partnership for 21st
century skills, 2006; Rocca, 2010), improper 21st century instructional designs (Olsen,
2010) and lackluster showcasing of instructional praxis with evidential learning and
cognitive theory (Galloway & Lasley, 2010; Tormey & Henchy, 2008; Zelenka, 2007;
Zima, 2007). This investigative, qualitative study examined three highly qualified high
school core academic teachers at Westtown High School (WHS) in Georgia where each
participant had a minimum of three years teaching experience and instructed courses with
Definitions
This qualitative study case study included several unique terms that needed
definition. A set of working definitions were included at the inception of the study.
Other key terms were developed during the course of the study. Throughout this study,
30
specific terms were used to explain important components in the research. The following
Critical thinking was the examining and testing of propositions in order to determine
High school teachers were identified as full-time, state certified teachers who
instructed students in grades nine through twelve in public high schools in the state of
Georgia.
21st century learning was defined as the area of overlap that existed between
areas in the 21st century skills frameworks (Lemke, Coughlin, Thadani, & Martin, 2003;
Partnership for 21st century skills, 2007b; Wagner, 2008). These areas were:
collaboration;
31
prolonged endeavor to actualize the demand to generate the next batch of K–12 standards
that helped guarantee all learners were prepared for college and were career ready prior to
Creativity was identified as the capacity to produce novel and appropriate work
Innovation was defined as the realization of new ideas that resulted in the
production of something valuable and was demonstrated through its use in the
marketplace. Innovation was determined to be a first time new idea that was typically
Learning and Innovation skills 4Cs were recognized as essential building blocks
Neomillennials were identified as persons who were born after 1982 (Dieterle,
Dede, Perkins & Russell, 2008; Winograd & Hais, 2011). Approximately one-third of
realities, multi-user virtual environments and various types of multimedia (Dieterle, Dede
Self-efficacy was generally defined as the belief one had regarding the capacity to
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of teachers’ attitudes
32
towards instructing 21st century learning skills and to know the degree that teachers
engaged students in creativity and innovation. The study determined to know the extent
to which teachers implemented NLS in the core curricular content areas. A final purpose
of this study was to ascertain teachers’ self-efficacy regarding their instruction of content
Research Questions
21st century learning skills? The literature cited explicit skills necessary for success in
the 21st century learning environment and workplace (Partnership for 21st century skills,
2011; Wagner, 2008). These skills were only implied within the CCSS framework
(Magner, 2011).
creativity and innovation? The extent to which teachers engaged their students in
creativity and innovation skills was determined through data gathering and data analysis.
learning styles? The extent that NLS was implemented in the classroom was initially
believed to reflect teachers’ ability to effectively blend recent research findings and
understandings of pedagogy.
Research Question 4. How will the participants measure their own self-efficacy
in teaching 21st century learning skills within the core curriculum? This self-assessment
held the potential to portray teachers’ self-efficacy in implementing 21st century learning
instruction.
33
Significance of the Study
issue. No salient research studies existed that specifically probed into this phenomenon.
This study extended an examination of 21st century instructional designs (Olsen, 2010).
(Zull, 2011) and help teachers to more effectively instruct the CCSS in light of 21st
century skills.
Delimitations
The parameters of this bounded case (Creswell, 2007) included three core
academic high school teacher participants who taught at WHS. The participants were
required to have taught three years or more, to teach a core subject with an EOCT and to
display 90% or above passing rate on their students’ EOCT scores. The delimitations
were the number of participants, the data collection instruments and the location of the
study.
Research Plan
Creswell (2007), collective case studies were to occur in one or more locations. WHS
was selected as a research site based on its historical academic excellence. WHS was
2012). Each participant within the school was purposefully selected based on his or her
versus collective teacher efficacy. The collective teacher agency reflected the
34
measurement of an entire faculty’s influence on student achievement throughout the
school. Bandura (1997) noted, ‘‘Teachers’ beliefs in their efficacy affect their general
the phenomenon was more important than the case itself (Creswell, 2007). The
phenomenon under investigation was critically important to local, state and national
35
CHAPTER TWO. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
engaging students in 21st century learning skills development. The problem was that
United States secondary schools were underachieving (Au, 2007); yet, no mutually
accepted set of content neutral 21st century learning and innovation skills (Partnership for
21st century skills, 2007) was being effectively taught, assessed and implemented in the
instructional outcomes and support systems (Wagner, 2008). Myriad questions about
Progress (AYP) outcomes (Borkowski & Sneed, 2006). Contemporary concerns about
between the CCSS and P21 skills. Wagner (2008) furthermore included essential
survival skills. Teachers’ perceptions of their own abilities to effectively instruct the 21st
century learning skills was pertinent to gauging the potential for US education to regain
highly qualified teachers were undetermined regarding their ability to instruct and assess
36
This chapter initialized by examining three theoretical underpinnings of the study
and a rationale for implementing each theory. These included: 1) constructivism theory;
2) social learning theory; and, 3) situated learning theory. The chapter continued with a
synthetic literature review of six key factors that were specifically related to this study:
instructional practices;
learning environments;
educational leadership.
This study examined various gaps that existed. This research focused on LS
theory and instructional practices (Rayner, 2011; Kozhevnikov, 2007; Zima, 2007) that
were specific to K-12 learning and empirical studies (Evans & Cools, 2011) and
clarify and reify neomillennial literacies, especially specific to creativity and innovation
(Sternberg, 2006), and addressed the issues of neomillennial support systems that aided
37
the implementation of learning outcomes. Identified gaps existed regarding effective
learning designs that engaged learners in promoting 21st century learning skills.
Theoretical Framework
governed their use in the classroom. Twenty-first century learning skills were grounded
in three theoretical frameworks: (a) the social learning theory (Bandura, 1977); (b)
constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978); and (c) situated learning theory (Lave & Wenger,
1991). As noted in Figure 2, this threefold cord formulated a theoretical support system
for the study. I examined 21st century instructional practices/learning designs, literacies
and educational leadership in light of these three theoretical perspectives. A goal was to
and self-efficacy in instructing neomillennial skills where creativity and innovation were
centric factors.
Constructivism Theory
through active engagement and personal knowledge construction. It was dissimilar to the
contextualized process by which knowledge was created versus acquired (Patel &
Yelland, 2007). The learner was not tabula rasa but built upon previous knowledge to
construct meaning. Learning was best understood in social contexts (Vygotsky, 1978)
38
and required that students learned effective communication skills (Anderman & Sinatra,
2009). 21st century learning occurred in contexts that encouraged social interaction,
safety and community in an effort to facilitate formal and informal learning (Durlak &
Weissberg, 2007).
contextualists and social constructivists. The root metaphor of contextualism was act-in-
context and existed as a descriptive theory of learning. Knowledge was acquired through
interaction with the environment, situated cognition, and social negotiation. “One of the
main reasons constructivism is proving to be such a perplexing issue for the instruction
designer and technologists is the lack of theoretical clarity and philosophical cohesion in
constructivist writing” (Fox, 2006, 6). Matthews (2000) suggested the existence of a
dozen constructivist strains. Contextualism existed as a worldview where any event was
interpreted as an ongoing act inseparable from its current and historical context and in
theorists, i.e., Vygotsky, Piaget, Dewey, and Bruner. The descriptive theory of
knowledge acquisition (Spector, Merrill, Merrienboer & Driscoll, 2007) posited that
individuals created knowledge based on the interplay between one’s experiences and
contextualized and was not imparted or acquired (21st Century Learning Environments,
2007). Learners built upon previous knowledge to construct new meanings by active
39
2007). Bruner (1966) posited that student-centered learning occurs through inquiry, or
discovery learning, and was linked to problem solving. Knowing was not an end-result in
itself; rather, it occurred as a process (Bruner, 1966). Active learning was oppositional to
constructivist theories (Spector et al., 2007) and provided theoretical support to effective
inseparable from its present and past contexts. Therein a revolutionary functional
approach to truth and meaning was espoused (Jonassen & Hung, 2008). Conversely,
application. Educators were to focus on academic achievement over test scores. Those
coherence (Fox, 2006); yet, others viewed constructivism as essential to 21st century
learning (Morgan, 2008; Palko, 2009). This study assumed constructivism was a key
component of effective 21st century learning. Constructivism founded this research effort
to understand teachers’ attitudes towards 21st century learning. As teachers assessed their
abilities to instruct 21st century learning skills, they were challenged during the survey
and interviews to rationalize reasons for their instructional methods and praxis.
Constructivism theory provided a theoretical platform for analyzing participants’ data and
40
Social Learning Theory
(1977), individuals learned from one another by observation, imitation, and modeling.
SLT helped link behaviorist and cognitive learning theories. SLT explained human
to SLT, teachers modeled and learned by modeling others. Their instructional strategies
potentially mirrored the instructional methods of their own teachers. This study sought to
know the strategies teachers used to engage students in the learning process and the
proximal determinants of human motivation, affect, and action. They operated on action
41
through motivational cognition and affective intervening processes" (Bandura, 1989,
1175). This study sought to deeply understand teachers’ metacognition and sense of self-
efficacy in pursuit of instructing 21st century skills, a toolbox of unique skills that
extended beyond core academic benchmarks. The teachers selected for observation
skills that were distinctly unique and distally positioned from traditional standards.
Self-efficacy represented one’s belief in his capacity to structure and carryout the
action steps necessary for producing the given goals (Bandura, 1997). According to
Bandura (1993), these beliefs were the end result of convincing oneself, a process
vicarious, cultural, and physical means. Twenty-first century teachers faced immense
According to the situated learning theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991), normal
learning was situated and operative within activities, contexts and social settings. Active
posited that 21st century learning was situated in socially active and contextual learning
42
century learning and their self-efficacy towards 21st century learning skills development.
Situated learning theory provided an essential theoretical support for 21st century
certain beliefs and behaviors through active social interaction and collaboration with one
another. Over time, novices gained confidence and assumed an authoritative role.
Situated learning, or learning in context, was commensurate with 21st century learning
goals (Partnership for the 21st century, 2007b; Wagner 2008; Jonassen & Hung, 2008).
Instructional Practice
(Hattie, 2009). Recent research reported that current instructional practices were mostly
were outdated, distally positioned and even polarized from emerging neomillennial
pedagogy. Those traditions tended to disengage students from active learning (Carini et
Student Engagement
Authentic engaged learning held strong meaning for learners when they
constructed knowledge that was transitional (Splitter, 2009). A recent study reported that
engagement in learning was based upon a relationship between the student and five social
school adults;
43
instructional practices;
peers; and,
curriculum.
The literature cited student behavior (self-regulation, and motivation) and school
structures (class size, attendance, and use of technology) as two integral factors in
engagement. It was presumed in this study that students who were actively engaged in
learning displayed higher assessment scores on the EOCT. This factor seemed pertinent
While teachers were responsible for instruction, students were required to self-
capability of interest. The issue is not whether one can do the activities occasionally, but
whether one has the efficacy to get oneself to do them regularly in the face of different
types of dissuading conditions” (p, 311). The relationship between self-regulation and
engagement showed that both factors potentially affected student learning behaviors in
the classroom. In this study, I presumed that self-regulation and engagement were
important factors in 21st century learning regarding the overall learning environment.
Yazzie-Mintz (2010) reported that high school students felt disengaged and bored
in school. Many students were disinterested in yesterday’s praxis and felt disconnected
education as being impertinent and irrelevant. This problem could have extended from
44
and praxis, or misinformation regarding NLS research. It was plausible that teachers
were unaware of current praxis and/or research practices, were resistant to change, and/or
Learning Styles
ingredient in long-term learning (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2008) and was highly
effectuated when theory and pedagogy were combined (Dignath & Büttner, 2008). As
result, cognitive transfer occurred when theory and praxis were coexistent in learning.
The self-regulation factor existed as a learning goal in education. Significantly, this same
factor was cited as a workplace demand, especially where knowledge work and
innovation were involved. This finding bridged classroom learning to the real world, a
Cognition
cognition (Beetham, McGill & Littlejohn, 2009; Rayner, 2011). Distributed cognition
purported that cognition and knowledge were shared among individuals within a learning
environment (Perry, 2003). Current research suggested a paradigm shift that converged
existing theoretical constructs into an effective 21st century learning theory (Sontag,
45
2009; Evans & Cools, 2011; Olsen, 2010). This case study was framed on theoretical
perspectives gained from the literature. Unlike grounded theory qualitative studies, the
understanding of how 21st century core curricular teachers implemented NLS in the
classroom.
Assessment
existed regarding the most effective instructional and assessment methods (Drouin,
2010). Some suggested that alternative assessment practices should replace traditional
fundamental to the data analysis in this study. According to Silva (2009), assessment
practices unanimity had not occurred. Essentially, teachers were required to measure the
learning outcomes that they believed mattered most for the 21st century learner (Silva,
Literacies
A synthesis of the 21st century learning literature suggested that new literacies had
been identified and that others were in development. At this juncture, a generalized
perspective underpinnings of 21st-century literacies (Coiro & Dobler, 2007; Schrader &
Lawless, 2011; Warlick, 2006; Zhang & Duke, 2008). Yet, research suggested that
students were required to gain new literacies that would allow them full productivity in
46
the global economy (Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear & Leu, 2008; Friedman, 2006; Taboada,
Guthrie & McRae, 2006; Wagner, 2008). The collective neomillennial literacies
incorporated a plethora of essential content and workplace skills necessary for regaining
boundaries of 21st century learning literacies presented challenges in this study, especially
in the areas of creativity and innovation. A framework for assessing technology that was
used in the classroom provided an initial impetus for assessing the participants’
instruction in creativity and innovation (Moersch, 1995). This framework was not used
Among the respective identified 21st century skills competencies, the CCSS and
21st century learning skills (Partnership for 21st century skills, 2007) stood at the forefront
across 48 states collaborated with educational experts, local administrators, teachers and
parents to establish the K-12 common core standards for English-language arts and
While AYP reports identified many failing schools, annual reports alternatively
recognized effective schools that appeared academically strong. In this study, I presumed
that notably effective schools employed teachers who were competent in teaching core
academic content. The AYP general reports did not delineate the extent that teachers
effectively instructed the new literacies (Partnership for 21st century skills, 2008),
specifically the CCSS 4Cs. To date, most states voluntarily adopted this new set of
47
standards that guided instruction and assessment practices beginning 2012 (Common
This study explored teacher attitudes towards instructing 21st century learning
skills, digital contextual literacies (Wynn, 2009), and their relevance to student
engagement (Coiro et al., 2008), collaboration (Dede, 2007), and facilitated learning
rich body of knowledge and provided application of that knowledge (Silva, 2009) and
integrated instruction with technology (Lawless & Pelligrino, 2007; Partnership for 21st
This case study sought to understand how teachers engaged students in innovation
and creativity, two critical neomillennial skills (Partnership for 21st century learning,
2008). The 4Cs briefly identified the need to implement creativity and innovation in
learning. Despite their significance, creativity and innovation were nearly unnoticed in
the CCSS (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010). It seemed pertinent to more
fully examine creativity and innovation to gain a deeper understanding of the premises
grounded in the literature. To engage students in learning these critical skills, teachers
were required to conceptualize and value creativity and innovation. The literature
referenced a strong need for developing creativity and innovation where distributed
creativity (digital transformation literacy) and innovation (employability skills) were keys
to successful living (Beetham et al., 2009; Martin & Grudziecki, 2006; Partnership for
48
Creativity
The CCSS earmarked both creativity and innovation as essential 21st century
skills. The CCSS alluded to 21st century competencies, e.g., creativity, rather than stating
them implicitly (Magner, 2011). For example, in the areas of mathematics, creativity was
not specifically addressed. Implications for implementing creativity existed in the areas
English Language Arts where students engaged in creative writing (Magner, 2011). The
CCCS failed to provide a clear definition for either skill. The literature cited that
artifacts, services, operations and procedures by a group who worked together (Shin &
Zhou, 2007). It played a significant role in engaging learning (Salaway et al., 2007;
Picciano & Seaman, 2007; Gardner, 2007). According to Rogers (1970) creative
freedom and original thinking were effective keys to problem solving, a key
neomillennial skill. Various researchers reflected a new paradigm where students needed
to learn creatively, constructively and with wisdom by brainstorming, using ideation, and
thinking critically (Partnership for 21st century skills, 2007; Shaheen, 2010).
Innovation
included borrowing and implementing new ideas or praxis invented elsewhere (Shin &
theoretical frameworks (Partnership for 21st century skills, 2008). Craft, Gardner &
Claxton (2008) postulated that students needed to gain traditional wisdom (Prov 4:5-7)
49
while they learned culturally relevant information. This perspective reflected a potential
Some researchers questioned how teachers would implement the new literacies.
Prensky (2009) questioned how the digital skills would be taught and assessed in the new
literacies. This factor was realized in this collective case study. The innovative process
suggested that participants in this study would instruct their students by incorporating the
assessments were standardized and assumed a single right answer. The 4Cs gave little
reflected a need for building a learning culture where students were willing to learn by
discovery and trial and error. Craft et al. (2008) suggested that teachers must ground
instruction based on ethical standards that managed Western individualism and ego, right
Learning Environments
learning design whereby learning was contextualized (Dewey, 1938), problem-based and
optimally contextual, real world and problem-based (Dewey, 1938; Morgan, 2008; Palko,
2009; Spector et al., 2007). A descriptive overview of NLS showed integrated practices
(Geiselhofer, 2010; Seo, Templeton & Pellegrino, 2008) and rigorous deep learning
(Dieterle et al., 2008; Ketelhut, Nelson, Clarke, & Dede, 2010; Prensky, 2010). A need
50
existed for determining the most effective instructional designs (Olsen, 2010). The
neomillennial learners’ unique needs demanded that teachers design and implement new
curricular and instructional practices like real-world learning (RWL) and problem-based
learning (PBL).
Problem-Based Learning
2008). The findings suggested that learning modalities included methodologies that
and involved complex productions. New learning modalities were non-linear and
incorporated new forms of social connection, i.e., Second Life, Facebook, and YouTube
(Gardner, 2007). The PBL instructional model promoted hands-on, active and
recent meta-analysis (Viilo et al., 2011) suggested that PBL provided students with
greater learning satisfaction than traditional learning environments (Strobel & van
Barneveld, 2009). Therein, students learned more thoroughly when participating in PBL
designs and production processes (Strobel & van Barneveld, 2009). This purview
knowledge base and promoted self-reliance and deeper independent learning (Gülbahar &
Tinmaz, 2006). PBL reflected a paradigm transition from traditional methods that
engaged students in creativity (Adams, 2005) and inspired individuals to learn. Self-
51
their own questions (Seo et al., 2008). PBL placed students in real-world environments
where they gained permanent knowledge and life skills (Gülbahar & Tinmaz, 2006).
to adapt new information to the learning environment (Jonassen & Hung, 2008). The
generalized to the real world (Rubin, 2007). Based on the research, this study assumed
that constructivistic problem-based classrooms were the most effective 21st century
learning designs.
Instructional Design
the neomillennial content neutral skills required for accomplishment in the 21st century
(Olsen, 2010). Teachers were to effectively integrate core curricula and 21st century
based on students’ learning styles (Dieterle et al., 2008; Gardner & Moran, 2006). Based
maximizing student learning in this study (Hamel, 2007; International Society for
52
Technology
information processing. This outcome stemmed from Internet access and an array of
technologies made available to him during his brief lifespan (Rodgers et al., 2006). New
learning models were needed that incorporated dynamic digital designs that resolved
critical learning issues (Hamel, 2007; International Society for Technology Education,
2007; Partnership for 21st century skills, 2008). New media literacies focused on the
nature of media, construction of media, and interpretation of media (Coiro et al., 2008).
identified teachers’ weaknesses with technology integration and their aptitudes with
keeping pace with technology. Some suggested that teachers were polarized based on
challenges with rapidly developing technology. As a result, a digital divide polarized the
mass of teachers (Mullen & Wedwick, 2008). Some teachers were to keep pace with
technology demands while others were not. Those teachers who were less proficient with
technology could have argued that their primary job was to teach content, rather than
teaching with technology. It was probable that some teachers questioned the relevance of
Technology Plan (2010). Three factors that impacted teachers’ perspectives stemmed
integration, lack of technology skills/training and time constraints (Honan, 2008; Stolle,
53
2008). It was clear from the research that instructional technology was relevant and
useful for instructing core standards. The effective 21st century teacher was required to
Leadership
Since 2001, high-stakes, standardized test scores were the single determinant
regarding the success or failure of United States public schools (Au, 2007). “High-stakes
testing” (Au, 2007, 264) led to a narrower curriculum, a focus on lecture and teacher-
Student-Centered Teachers
individuals who engaged learners in thinking and learning (Cornelius-White, 2007). The
master 21st century teacher possessed a broader talent range than previous generations.
He mastered pedagogical content and delivery, instructional learning designs that met
NLS and simultaneously kept pace with emergent technologies. Research posited that
effective teachers had a plethora of commensurate skills that enabled them to accomplish
relationship that existed between the individual learner and the environment that
holistically met the students’ unique needs (Rayner & Peterson, 2009).
Educators were challenged to prioritize learning goals that focused on the most
important issues over issues that held less importance. In a standards-based, over-tested
age, teachers had cause to feel unconfident about understanding emerging research and
54
socio-cultural phenomena. The reasons why the 21st skills were taught or not taught
Transformational Leaders
challenges inherent in the uncharted frontiers of future education. The transition from
AYP to neomillennial instruction and assessment may have adversely affected the self-
efficacy of some teachers. This study examined teachers’ self-efficacy in instructing 21st
Professional Development
cynicism towards political mandates that affected instructional practices. Educators at all
environments and to keep pace with emergent technologies. Teacher leaders needed to
engage in bringing about positive changes by learning to effectively maneuver within the
Summary
Effective pedagogy critically affected the breadth and depth in students’ learning.
55
engagement in learning. Teachers were required to make daily choices that affected
learning. These factors included: (a) class tasks and homework assignments; (b) reward
systems; (c) assessment practices; (d) heterogeneous or homogeneous student groups; (e)
level of student autonomy; and, (f) expectations of student performance (Anderman &
Anderman, 2009). Learning in the 21st century best occurred in contexts that encouraged
social interaction, safety and community. These critical factors helped facilitate formal
and informal learning (Durlak & Weissberg, 2007) and were important factors in this
case study.
learning. Although much information existed regarding the nature of the learner, much
remained unknown regarding the new literacies. A generalized consensus regarding the
literacies was absent in the literature (Coiro & Dobler, 2007; Schrader & Lawless, 2011;
Warlick, 2006). Yet, teachers were required to teach new literacies that provided
students full productivity in the global economy (Coiro et al., 2008; Taboada et al.,
2008). Theoretical perspectives derived from social learning theory, Situated Learning
Theory, and Constructivism were commensurate with 21st century learning goals
(Partnership for the 21st century, 2007b; Wagner 2008; Jonassen & Hung, 2008).
believed to enhance current and futuristic learning. RWL aided students to identify,
assess, and provide alternative solutions to problems (Fazarro, Pannkuk, & Pavelock,
56
The disconnection between research and classroom praxis was cited as a strong
practitioners needed to bridge the gap between knowledge creation and pragmatic
dissemination of knowledge that was derived from evidential theoretical perspectives and
practical instruction (Cools & Van Den Broeck, 2007). Further research with self-
regulatory frameworks, adaptability and situational learning was needed to expand the
2011) proffered positive changes for educators. Lastly, the U. S. educational frontier
may have remained unaltered unless a transmogrification dispelled the divergence of all
learners caught in the grips of the 21st century academic global achievement gap.
57
CHAPTER THREE. METHODOLOGY
This study was a qualitative collective, instrumental case study. Five recent
dissertation studies implemented similar methodologies that were used in this research.
English teachers. The proposed study determined to examine three high school teachers’
secondary school social studies classes. The two criteria that guided the research study
were course design and the type of school under investigation. Similarly, this proposed
study focused on specific course designs that included EOCT measures and academic
achievement levels.
In a collective case study, Penna (2007) examined four social studies teachers
from a single historical site in an effort to understand how key practices affected
academic outcomes. This study examined teachers whose instruction was guided by the
better understand the work activities of online educational staff members. The researcher
collected data through questionnaires, interviews, and site observations. Data collection
58
towards instructional technology (Dartt ,2011). Data were collected through pre-
fashion, this study investigated three core academic teachers using similar data collection
strategies.
engaging students in 21st century learning skills development. Olsen (2010) suggested
that researchers and practitioners must address this generation’s needs with specificity. A
idiosyncratic 21st learners. There existed a dire need to: (a) understand issues of student
styles; and, (c) rigorously analyze instructional design and its evidential implications for
21st century learning. It was appurtenant to investigate teacher perceptions regarding 21st
century learning and the extent to which instructional design instruction engages students
in nascent 21st century learning skills development. This case study used a holistic
investigation of a contemporary phenomenon that occurred within the local school. The
research questions were paramount to specific concerns and issues that signified this as
an instrumental case study (Stake, 1995). The research questions were significant to the
Research Questions
This study will focus on four research questions that will guide this study:
21st century learning skills? Although the 4C’s (Partnership for the 21st century, 2011)
were implied within the CCSS framework, the literature cited specific skills necessary for
59
success in the 21st century learning environment and workplace (Partnership for the 21st
creativity and innovation? The extent to which teachers sought to engage students in
these skills was determined through observational data collection and was analyzed after
learning styles (NLS)? The extent to which NLS was implemented in the classroom may
reflect the degree to which effective blending of research and pedagogy exists.
Research Question 4: How will the participants measure their own self-efficacy
in teaching 21st century learning skills within the core curriculum? This self-assessment
Research Design
Applied research was used in this study because I sought to understand how these
research. I used a case study because I provided deep description of the phenomena that
existed among the three teachers. Data were collected in three separate ways. I
observations during instruction. I used stimulated recall interviews with each of the
participants.
teacher efficacy regarding instruction with 21st century learning. According to Wagner
60
(2008), 21st century learning skills were: (a) critical thinking and problem solving; (b)
collaboration across networks and leading by influence; (c) agility and adaptability; (d)
initiative and entrepreneurialism; (e) effective oral and written communication; (f)
accessing and analyzing information; and, (g) curiosity and imagination. These themes
were pervasive threads in the fabric of innovative learning designs. The type behaviors
that the researcher desired to capture included instructional techniques that engaged
students in active learning, instructional strategies that promoted 21st century learning
skills development and instructional strategies that coincided with cognitive styles
Students who are engaged in learning were more apt to obtain knowledge than
those who were disengaged. It was important to understand student engagement and
those traits and characteristics that defined engaged learning. Engagement referred to the
time teachers allotted for instructional activities that were designed to engage students in
factors:
This study determined to understand how teachers engaged student learning in the
classroom.
61
For purposes of this research, the pre-observational participant survey examined
engagement and participatory engaged learning. The pre-observational survey data were
derived from the 2009 High School Survey of Student Engagement (HSSSE), a
comprehensive survey on student engagement and other factors that influenced student
learning. The survey instrument endeavored to discover student attitudes about their
lives at school and to provide survey data to schools. The three main purposes of the
HSSSE were to assist secondary high schools in understanding issues regarding student
engagement, to help high school teachers and administrators use survey data to promote
effective practice, and to research student engagement. For the purposes of this study,
the teacher survey items were constructed from concepts that students’ nationwide
2010).
(Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010; Wagner, 2008). The researcher worked
music;
talking;
role-playing;
62
games;
storytelling;
cooperative groups;
high-challenge/low-stress;
movement; and,
The overriding goals of this study were to examine three high school core subject
learning skills development. I explained to each participant that he/she was participating
answered questions using the researcher designed pre-observational survey. During the
observations, I examined how the participants used instructional designs and strategies
that were pertinent to this research. Second, I video recorded four 50-minute classes
instructed by each participant. Each teacher was notified prior to two out of four
observation sessions. The other two sessions were unannounced. Each teacher
participated in a stimulated recall session. The research discoveries were shared with all
techniques included use of heterogeneous techniques: (a) hand coding; (b) color-coding;
(c) note cards; (d) notes in margins; and, (e) software (Russell Yocum, personal
63
communication, June 17, 2011). I used MAXQDA Qualitative Data Analysis Software
(QDAS) to aid me in organizing the pre-observational survey data, case study field notes,
Participants
The sample size included three core subject teachers in a single school system in
the State of Georgia. The demographic information included two female teachers and
one male teacher whose approximate ages ranged from 40-51 years. I used pseudonyms
for all of the participants to maintain each subject’s anonymity and identity
the selected teacher samples. The conglomerate ensemble represented a broad spectrum
of experiences within the core curriculum. The goal of this investigation was to
personify and depict a plethora of experiences that related to this study. Resultantly
information learned from one teacher was used to enlighten the next step in the journey
towards an emergent pathway. As noted by Maykut & Morehouse (2000), this technique
was especially effective when using a small sample size. A diverse range of successful
teachers assembled a unique sample that held the potential to display much information
about issues central to this study. A goal of this study was to find manifestations of a
Andy Adams
The first instrumental case study focused on Andy Adams. Andy was
approximately forty years and had taught for 16 years out of 18 total years at WHS.
Andy brought diversity to the instructional scene as a two-time Star Teacher at WHS.
64
Andy held degrees in both English and History and taught high school students English,
worked with disadvantaged students (Project Express) at a nearby school system. His
students’ 2010 cumulative EOCT scores in Economics were 94% “meets and exceeds”
expectations. Andy’s 2011 first semester EOCT scores in Economics were 91% “meets
Dana Dunn
The second instrumental case study focused on Dana Dunn. She was
approximately 51 years old and had taught for 28 years. Dana taught Advanced Biology,
Physiology and English. She had taught at WHS for four years. Dana currently taught
Ninth Grade Literature. Her teaching awards included the Master Teacher Award (2000)
and the Golden Apple Award (2002). Dana was recognized as a quality teacher as
evidenced by her track record with exceptional EOCT scores. Her students’ 2010
cumulative EOCT scores were 94% “meets and exceeds” expectations. Dana’s 2011 first
semester EOCT scores were 91% “meets and exceeds” expectations (Georgia Department
of Education, 2012).
Kate King
The third instrumental case study focused on Kate King. She was approximately
50 years old and had taught for 26 years. Kate had taught Physical Science at WHS for
two years. Her teaching awards were the system-wide “teacher of the year” in a nearby
county. Kate was recognized as a quality teacher as evidenced by her track record with
exceptional EOCT scores. Her students’ 2010 cumulative EOCT scores were 97%
65
“meets and exceeds” expectations. Kate’s 2011 first semester EOCT scores were 98%
Setting/Site
At the inception of this study, I began with a vested interest in understanding 21st
century learning as an academic concept. Specifically, studies by Olsen (2010) and Dartt
(2011) deeply captured my attention. General guidelines and frameworks were derived
from these studies as well as various other articles and dissertations. I chose to conduct
research at the same school where I taught. Westtown City School System was a city
school located in a region of West Georgia. This “single A” high school existed as one of
very few high schools in the state who were recognized as a “2010 Georgia School of
Excellence”. During the 2011-2012 school year, approximately 600 students attended
academic areas and were recognized for their instructional expertise. Each teacher
instructed three classes per day and had a planning block. Each teacher was identified
with a pseudonym. Each of the proposed teachers agreed to participation in this study
and completed all data collection components from start to finish. Each participant
Procedures
The process for beginning this study included various steps. In this section, I
listed procedures needed to begin this research project. I followed the Liberty University
dissertation guidelines for acquiring the research participants and direction from my
dissertation chair. I began this study by forming a research committee of three for the
66
purpose of guiding each step of the research process. The initial step began with seeking
and obtaining IRB approval to conduct this research. Upon receipt of approval
(Appendix A), a letter was sent to the local board of education seeking approval to
conduct research (Appendix B). A meeting was held with the head principal to explain
the goals and procedures of this study. Then, I created a letter of informed consent for
the participants to peruse. After receiving permission from the principal, I submitted the
proposal and local school research to the IRB. I provided an informed consent form to
each teacher. Once each participant had read the form, agreed to it and signed it, I began
Researcher’s Role
In this study, I was actively involved in administering the surveys, recording the
observations and performing interviews. I recorded each teacher using a high definition
camera and tripod during the classroom observations (Dentley & Bishop, 2010). I audio
recorded the SRIs using a USB microphone and Garageband. During the classroom
camera, where I focused solely on the teacher’s behaviors during instruction. Whenever
students appeared to move near the camera’s focus, I repositioned and focused on
inanimate objects in an effort to avoid recording the students. The Sony camcorder
displayed video footage in hours, minutes and seconds. I used the built-in meter to
determine the exact times when teachers were engaged in specific instructional behaviors.
This process proved useful when transcribing, coding the data and writing memos. The
audio was replayed using iTunes and ExpressScribe. Video clips were replayed using
Quicktime.
67
Data Collection
of the participants. Second, I observed the teachers during normal classroom instruction.
I used a Stimulated Recall Interview (SRI) technique with each of the participants. I used
teacher interviews were centered on identification of the 4C’s instruction and the
supporting 21st century skills components (Wagner, 2008). I investigated how teachers
2010).
Surveys
learning styles and personal self-efficacy towards 21st century learning skills
development. Once the surveys have been completed, they were collected from the
Observations
learning skills instruction and praxis that coincided with cognitive styles research
(Wagner, 2008; Evans & Cools, 2011). Engagement was defined as instructional
activities designed to engage students in the learning process (Krause, 2005) and
68
the student and school adults;
I wanted to know observe how each participant actively engaged students in learning. As
Recording Procedures
recorded in 50-minute sessions. This provided a cushion for teachers to instruct their
Powell, 2005). A seminal longitudinal research study by Reitano & Sim (2010)
effectuated VSR as a major data collection tool. Recent research posited that VSR
helped fill gaps between theoretical understandings and instructional practices (Reitano &
Sim, 2010). SRI purportedly increased some participants’ anxiety levels and impacted
their ability to accurately recall the observed event (Calderhead, 1981). Conversely,
substantive research supported positive responses when using SRI in educational research
(Dentley & Bishop, 2010; Schepens, Aelterman, & Van Keer, 2007; Stoffels, 2005).
69
Field Notes
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). The descriptive aspects of my field notes included an exact
transcription of the dialogue and a description of the setting. The reflective portion
mind during data collection. Using MAXQDA analytical software I included both
descriptive and reflective memos. I safeguarded against personal biases by sharing field
notes with my dissertation committee, but not with persons outside the committee
new questions during the interview based on the interviewee’s comments. As the sole
interviewer, I used a prepared thematic framework based on themes to group topics and
questions based on the context and the person with whom I was interviewing at the time
(Lindlof & Taylor, 2011). Independent teacher interviews occurred in my classroom and
provided an uninterrupted and secluded location. Only the participant and I were present
during the SRI. Each teacher was given a copy of each of the interview transcriptions
following the interviews. This member check process helped to ensure credibility.
I used guided SRI questions (Appendix E) during the interview process and
reserved the right to veer from the interview guide. Through active listening (Lindlof &
Taylor, 2011), I determined the need to ask relevant questions that pertained to the
70
instructional decision-making. These techniques helped to validate the participant’s
responses (Lyle, 2003). I used the stimulated recall interview (SRI) to help the
participants vividly relive their instruction (Bloom, 1953) and to aid in providing reasons
Stimulated-recall interviews (SRI) were preceded with specific task instruction that
helped participants rationalize their instructional behaviors. The SRI served as a type of
ex post facto verbal report where teachers evaluated their decision-making processes
I used applied research in this study to help solve an actual problem in education
(Ary, Jacobs, Razavieh & Sorensen, 2006). I determined to better understand how these
consisted of case study research to provide deep description of the unique phenomena
Data Analysis
Constant Comparison
Once the data had been gathered, I coded each participant’s data using open
coding then axial coding. I used employed constant comparison, the process of
comparing occurrences of data that were organized by a specific code. This process
helped me to discover commonalities in the data that indicated the meaning of the code
71
(Appendix F). Common data codes were distinguished from dissimilar codes (Bodgan &
Open Coding
The participants reviewed statements from the research report to confirm their
accuracy and thoroughness. Following data collection, data for each individual case
study was coded and categorized separately. I read the transcripts and used open coding
to identify, name, categorize and describe the events. Beginning with a broad view of the
case, I funneled the data into specific themes (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).
Cross-Case Comparison
After I compared results from all three cases, I employed a cross-case analysis
and determined if common themes were present. This process reduced existing threats to
transferability that included selections effects, setting effects and history effects (Ary et
al., 2006).
Member Checking
viewpoint and engaged in axial coding to disaggregate existing core themes that made
them more abstract. I then created categories by grouping codes that were assigned to
words or phrases.
Audit Trail
I used an audit trail to retrace the researcher’s course of action and sequences.
This action provided sequential step-by-step actions and gave credence to my decision-
making and procedures. The audit trial supplied structure and a roadmap of the
72
Triangulation
Data analysis triangulation expedited the data validation by cross verifying with
more than two sources to increase the credibility and validity of the results. The iterative
triangle. The “simultaneous display of multiple, refracted realities” (Denzin & Lincoln,
2011, 5) reflected various research processes that were interwoven into the research
through discovery and storytelling (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). The qualitative research
that the analysis inevitably indicated representation (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011).
Field Notes
I gathered rich data from multifarious data chunks by taking copious notes on
what I observed, heard, and thought (Bogdan & Biklin, 2007). I deliberately composed
as possible.
Transcription
transcription process required slightly less than 30 hours. Each participant was provided
access to his own transcriptions but not the transcriptions of the other participants.
towards the field experiences (Bogdan & Biklin, 2007). After reviewing the findings, the
participants were provided their case study findings. I asked each participant to review
73
the findings and to confirm or disconfirm their accuracy. Andy and Dana both confirmed
the data’s accuracy without needing corrections. Kate offered nominal corrections that
Trustworthiness
I used many processes to strengthen the quality of the study. Nine specific data
processes were used to maintain research trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985;
field notes;
transcription;
open coding;
axial coding;
member checking;
triangulation;
constant comparison.
During and immediately after the observations, I recorded field notes that
described the setting, the interactions, and my perspectives. I used an open coding format
to conceptualize the phenomenon in full measure. Once the data were recorded, I
employed axial coding through an inductive process. To confirm the accuracy of the data
findings and their interpretations, I used member checks with the participants. My
journey was recorded daily by using an audit trail. This process allowed any individual
to retrace the research study’s pathways. During the data analysis stages, I engaged in
74
applicable to the themes (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). I integrated the themes until four
main themes and four minor themes emerged from the data analysis.
those meanings accurately. Merriam (2009) stated, “What is being investigated are
people’s constructions of reality– how they understand the world” (p, 214).
research. I did not hypothesize in this study. Rather, I determined to realize the factors
surrounding the described phenomena. According to Lincoln & Guba (1985), the
findings must be credible, based upon the data presented in this study. I sought to
achieve this aim by providing rich, thick description based on my data analysis.
providing consistent rich detail of the context and setting. I embraced the issues
regarding the “crisis of representation” (Marcus & Fischer, 1986, 15) by video recording
each of the twelve observations. I audio recorded the SRI sessions using a USB
microphone, an iMac computer, and Garageband. The SRI sessions were transcribed to
maintain accuracy. I typed field notes immediately after the observations, so that I
accurately remembered the events and my impressions. My field notes helped to provide
description and representation would have been problematic if I had portrayed reality
75
I established confirmability by examining the extent to which this research was
bias free and objective (Ary et al., 2006). This occurred by founding the findings in
validity in quantitative research. The applicability of the findings in this study were
Maxwell (2005),
relationship to the purpose and circumstances of the research, rather than being a
Although it was possible that the research findings were transferrable to another
setting, I did not necessarily expect them to be transferrable (Ary et al., 2006). Lincoln
and Guba (1985) suggested that “the burden of proof lies less with the original
investigator than with the person seeking to make an application elsewhere. The original
inquirer cannot know the sites to which transferability might be sought, but the appliers
can do.” (p. 298). I established trustworthiness in this study by addressing four essential
confirmability; and, 4) transferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Shenton, 2004). Each was
addressed separately.
76
Credibility
The credibility in this case study depended upon the accuracy of the findings and
the extent to which the findings correctly detail reality. It was dependent upon the
richness of the gathered information, i.e., the data, and the researcher’s analytical
quantitative research.
Dependability
providing consistent rich detail regarding the context and setting of the study. Effective
field notes and member checking in an effort to counter the “crisis of representation”
(Marcus & Fischer, 1986, 15). The issue of writing the reality of another person was
representation would have been problematic if I had portrayed reality based solely on my
Confirmability
assumptions. As the sole data collector and analyzer, I intended to avoid personal bias
I examined the extent to which this research was bias free and objective effects
(Ary et al., 2006). I used an audit trail as a main strategy for confirming data accuracy.
Through reflexivity (self-reflection), I actively looked for potential personal biases that
77
may have existed.
Transferability
Although it was possible that the research findings were transferrable to another
setting, I did not expect them to be transferrable (Ary et al., 2006). Shenton (2004)
establish the setting of the investigation. I provided thick description about the
uniqueness of the individual classroom settings and its potential impact on the research.
Ethical Issues
survey. All documents were stored in an off-campus location to maintain safety. All
observations were coded and transcribed. Copies of all hand-written and electronic
documents were kept in an off-campus location to maintain safety. All interviews were
stored on an external hard disk versus using the camera’s internal memory. The drive
leader who reflected Christ and challenged conventional thinking in a 21st century
learning constructivist environment (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). My goal was to exemplify
credibility and excellence in the research process. My ultimate purpose was to glorify
God (I Cor 6:19). God existed as the ultimate standard by which all else was measured
(Col 1:17). Therefore, my ethical perspectives were held to the highest possible
78
analyses to the best of my ability. I used quality listening skills (Brown, 2009), was
dependable, professional and relational while showing concern for the participants in this
79
CHAPTER FOUR. FINDINGS
instructing 21st century learning skills in a high school core curriculum. This study
sought to deeply understand teachers’ metacognitive processes and their sense of self-
efficacy in pursuing the instruction of 21st century skills, a unique set of skills that
reached beyond the core academic benchmarks. This study examined the impact of three
highly qualified teachers’ attitudes toward instructing the 4Cs within a 21st century skills
and creativity.
This study focused on learning styles and instructional practices (Rayner 2011;
Kozhevnikov, 2007; Zima, 2007) specific to K-12 learning and empirical studies (Evans
& Cools, 2011). The study investigated learning styles frameworks in reference to self-
metacognition (Evans & Waring, 2009). Neuroscientists Goleman & Boyatzis (2006)
proffered the notion that discerning another’s thoughts existed as a highly regarded talent.
Discernment separated persons and allowed them to understand that another person’s
intentions were not what were best for that individual. This viewpoint was closely linked
to understanding metacognition.
This study sought to clarify, better understand and reify neomillennial literacies,
outcomes. Identified gaps existed regarding effective learning designs that engaged
80
learners in promoting 21st century learning skills (Partnership for 21st century skills,
2007).
An initial document analysis was performed to identify teachers who met the
confidentiality for the participants during the study. A pre-observational survey was
the classroom, the CCSS learning and innovation skills, student engagement, learning
styles and creativity and innovation. The survey was conducted to determine the
century learning as well as learning styles and understanding of the CCSS based on their
This chapter will be initiated by discussing the four major themes that emerged
from each case study participant’s data. I will present and discuss the data collected from
the survey, observations and SRI. In staying true to the data, the four major themes
emerged after examining the participants’ codes and code patterns. The axial coding
process provided a way to aggregate and disaggregate various codes that regularly
occurred in groups and led eventually to creating themes. These factors will be presented
When teachers had favorable attitudes towards 21st century skills instruction, it
student assessments;
81
When teachers created an effective learning culture, they sought to engage
learners; and,
instructional habits.
The initial theme reflected that when teachers maintained favorable attitudes
towards 21st century skills instruction, it was reflected in their praxis. This theme
emerged as Andy’s second most commonly occurring major theme. Two areas within the
21st century skills instruction contained significant codes. Both “critical thinking” and
“accessing and analyzing information” (Partnership for 21st century skills, 2007;
Wagner, 2008) regularly emerged in the data set. Separating “critical thinking” and
“analyzing information” into separate codes was problematic when analyzing the data set.
I employed two specific criteria for determining which code to use. First, I used the code
“accessing and analyzing information” when Andy required his students to access, read
or use information. Second, I used the “critical thinking” code when students were asked
A review of the 21st century learning literature defined 21st century learning as
the areas of overlap that occurred between the 21st century skills frameworks Lemke et
al., 2003; Partnership for 21st century skills, 2007b; Wagner 2008). A plethora of 21st
century skills were identified (Carini et al., 2006; Lambert & Cuper, 2008; Partnership
for 21st century skills for 21st Century Skills, 2006; Rocca, 2010). These skills included:
82
curiosity and innovation;
collaboration; and,
Critical Thinking
The critical thinking concept appeared repetitively in the 21st century learning
literature review and was confirmed in this case study as a critical component to learning.
During the SRI, I asked Andy if he saw a connection between critical thinking skills and
test taking skills. I said, “You teach test-taking skills to your students in the next three
short clips. Is this part of critical thinking? If so, help me understand how you try to
teach critical thinking?” (A. Adams, personal communication, September 13, 2012).
Andy stated,
. . . you’re actively reading questions. You’re saying, What’s the most important
thing here? What is the key information that they are looking for in the question?
You can underline those things. That is a skill that we have to work on all the
In the final data analysis, “critical thinking” was coded with 21st century skills and “test
taking skills” parent code group was coded as a subset of “assessment”. During the SRI,
Andy described the critical thinking process students used during testing. He asked,
What is the key information that they are looking for in the question? And you
83
can underline those things. That is a skill that we have to work on all the time.
Okay? So, I should see when I get these back where you’ve underlined things,
13, 2012).
Andy’s students studied how the American political system worked. Andy
wanted his students to think critically about the underlying premises the speakers at the
2012 Republican convention presented. He stated, “They think America has lost its
greatness. Hello? You will hear that preached over and over again. ‘If we don’t do
something, we’re gonna be a third world country’. Does that make sense?” (A. Adams,
classroom observation, August 28, 2012). Students were required to think critically
about the concepts Andy had taught them and to analyze the political rhetoric in light of
that knowledge.
Andy encouraged students to read books that caused them to engage their minds
in deeper cognitive processing. He claimed that students should link their previous
skills. Andy suggested that knowledge contained the power to change cultures. He
stated,
But I will never forget this quotation out of this book. He warned her. He said,
‘Don’t you be teaching people how to read. Reading leads to thinking! Reading
leads to thinking!’ So right here. That’s one of the things that Harriet Beecher
Stowe really pointed out in that book. ‘Don’t let slaves read. Don’t teach ‘em
how to read; or, they will begin to question our whole system that we have set up’
84
Andy connected critical thinking to learning effective test-taking skills. During the SRI
he stated,
So as I go along teaching, you know, the other critical thinking things that I do in
my class. One of the things that I try to work on them is ‘How do you take a
test?’ . . . How do I make the best decision? (A. Adams, personal communication,
Andy taught students the critical thinking skills they needed for testing. He said, “When
you’re taking the test, when you look into these things … you’re eliminating … If it’s a
multiple-choice test, you’re looking at those things. Say, ‘Okay, I’m eliminating’” (A.
Adams, classroom observation, August 22, 2012). When students asked “purpose” and
“why” questions, they were engaged in critical thinking. “Why” was coded as a subcode
During the SRI, I stated, “You often ask questions of your students that
emphasize understanding the purpose and why things happen. Help me understand your
goals with that”. Andy responded, “That’s why I want the critical thinking . . . and the
creativity. I wanna know ‘why’. I want their brains to click on a different level … I’m
glad you spit out the definition; but, why is that so?” (A. Adams, personal
The second factor in 21st century skills instruction was “accessing and analyzing
85
you had to describe a Republican?” (A. Adams, classroom observation, August 28,
2012). Students were required to first access the knowledge and analytically determine
how to formulate an accurate description. Prior to a quiz, Andy stated, “This is just a
brief paragraph…I want you to tell me what a Republican is…what they believe” (A.
Adams, classroom observation, August 28, 2012). Andy engaged students in analyzing
the information and presenting it in written format. Oral and written communications
were identified as essential 21st century skills (Partnership for 21st century learning,
2007). Students accessed and analyzed various viewpoints of both United Stated political
parties. Andy presented and discussed the various platform arguments that they would
later hear from the candidates and helped engage the students in analyzing their
arguments.
demanded, “Why would you raise taxes on job creators and producers? They don’t like
that idea. They want you to cut taxes on those people!” (A. Adams, classroom
“Why is he entrepreneurship? Talk to me. Don’t just answer the test…It was his
idea. He came up with it. He’s innovative. ‘I’m gonna get the right people’.
school… better know how to manage people. If he can’t manage people, you’re
gonna have problems… Put the right people in the right place; let them do what
86
they do best” (A. Adams, classroom observation, August 22, 2012).
Andy utilized “oral and written communications”, another 21st century skill, as a
way for students to demonstrate their creative abilities. Andy elaborated on how he
But I’m looking for them to come up with any kind of idea and . . . or anything
like that that will click to the general concept that we’re doing . . . But go beyond
the standard instead of a just a basic definition. What other ways can we use this?
How can we use it, you know? And I might have a kid in there who . . . who
loves skateboards and he’s figured out a different way to make his skateboard
faster. And then all of a sudden it clicks with him . . . I could be an innovator (A.
When teachers had favorable attitudes towards 21st century skills instruction, it
was reflected in their praxis. Dana’s most prominent parent code groups were “21st
century learning skills” with 54 coded segments and “theoretical underpinnings” with 54
coded segments. Uniquely, the data set reflected an equal number of codes in both areas.
In staying true to the data, two parent codes were ranked as the top parent code groups.
The combined data codes appeared 108 times out of out 208 codes in the total data set.
Since both code groups contained 54 codes each, it was ethical to report both code
Three “21st century learning” subcode groups received important levels of coding:
87
innovation and creativity; and,
The “21st century learning” subcode area “critical thinking” was coded 20 times and was
discussed as a minor theme. The literature noted that 21st century learning skills
included critical thinking and problem solving (Partnership for 21st century learning,
2007; Wagner, 2008). Separating “critical thinking” and “analyzing information” into
separate codes was problematic during data analysis. I used two specific criteria for
determining which code to use. When students accessed, read or used information, it was
coded as “accessing and analyzing information”. When students were asked to think
critically about ideas or concepts learned in the classroom, it was coded as “critical
thinking”.
During the SRI, I asked Dana, “What 21st century skills are you teaching at this
I think uh, with regard to 21st century skills. . . I’m trying to teach them how to be
prepared for a specific kind of test. I’m also trying to teach them some problem-
solving skills . . . When . . . they have to look at what information they’re given,
they have to figure out what they are actually being asked (D. Dunn, personal
At no time during the data collection phase did Dana ask for a definition of 21st century
Whether that’s officially called a 21st century skill, I don’t know. I do know that
in today’s world um, more and more students are going to be asked to be able to
solve problems, figure out solutions. . . So I think just in helping them figure out
88
solutions about how to take this test is probably helping them get better at that (D.
for 21st century skills, 2007; Wagner, 2008) regularly emerged in the data set. The code
group “accessing and analyzing information” was coded ten times. During the
observations, students were not asked to access information through Internet searches.
She provided the students handouts and books. Codes occurred only when students were
actively analyzing.
Students were taught to value analysis. Dana noted, “Now most of it is gonna
come down to how well you can effectively analyze the passages” (D. Dunn, classroom
observation, August 23, 2012). Dana led her A. P. students in an analysis of “Goodman
Brown”. She stated, “So you’ve read Young Goodman Brown. Think about this. Three
words: moral, nature, psychology. Which one comes to mind in association with Young
Goodman Brown?” (D. Dunn, classroom observation, August 21, 2012). She instructed
them how to analyze and interpret the information the author presented. Dana described
But the climate, the weather, the seasons, all of that would play an important part
in interpretation. And you’re absolutely right! It sets the stage for this particular
story. It would not be the same story if it had been in the middle of the day in a
bright sunny, you know, woods with frolicking animals. It would not have been
89
As Dana presented comparative viewpoints, she challenged them to anatomize the story
and to interpret the hidden qualities of the allegory. She suggested, “So he insulates
himself from the possibilities of those things happening to him. We don’t know if this is
a dream. And we don’t know if we’re supposed to take it literally, since it’s an allegory”
The “innovation and creativity” codes occurred ten times in the code group. In
the literature, Magner (2011) suggested that the CCSS alluded to creativity instruction
but did not clearly state that it should be taught as an independent skill (Magner, 2011).
“Creativity and innovation” was coded whenever new ideas or instructional practices
were presented and reflected innovative concepts (Shin & Zhou, 2007). Both these
paralleled the constructivist theoretical frameworks (Partnership for 21st century skills,
2008). During the SRI, I asked Dana to describe creativity and innovation in her own
seems to be most meaningful and most significant to you. You know, some
students are creative . . . . creative musically and some in other artistic ways. And
some . . . people are more linear in . . . their thinking. But they can still be, you
know, creative in that way. That is their creative outlet . . . (D. Dunn, personal
Sternberg and Lubart (1999) referenced innovation as the realization of new ideas that
resulted in the production of something valuable in the marketplace; these products could
90
also be a first time new idea that was typically overlooked by others. The literature was
regarding creativity and innovation were aligned with the literature as how to specifically
identify and assess creativity and innovation in the classroom. She said,
So it’s . . . it’s hard to nail down what . . . what creativity is. But I guess you . . . I
try to go back to the way kids learn and try to make available to them
opportunities to use both the way they learn . . . in allowing them to be creative
means of producing socially acceptable products. The 21st century skills frameworks
(Lemke, et al., 2003; Partnership for 21st century learning, 2007b; Wagner 2008)
included curiosity and innovation as important learning skills. During the SRI, I asked
Dana the extent to which she included creativity and innovation in her instruction. Dana
said, “I do try to make my classroom sort of um, visually stimulating and . . . and creative
and try to bring connections to what I teach with what I have around in my classroom”
imaginative. She supported the students’ efforts to think, to write and to perform
creatively.
Recognizing the factors “curiosity and imagination” was problematic during data
coding. This factor was coded nine times during data collection. Dana interjected a
simile during one observation when she described a haunting scenario. She said, “It was
like they were about to do a sacrifice or something”. After a pause she interjected,
91
“Makes you wonder. Makes you wonder” (D. Dunn, classroom observation, August 21,
2012). Dana effectively referenced, “Hawthorne builds that suspense deliberately. You
don’t really know what’s gonna happen there!” (D. Dunn, classroom observation, August
21, 2012). Dana used imagination to engage the A. P. students in determining the
author’s potential intentions and sequencing the story’s events in their 21st century
minds. Dana guided her students to imagine the relationship between a married man and
his wife in one of Hawthorne’s story. Dana engaged their creative powers by quoting,
“‘They looked unmistakably married’. Now from sentence one, we don’t know if that
means that they are obviously in love. Their body language and . . . facial expressions
show that they’re obviously a perfect couple in love” (D. Dunn, classroom observation,
August 27, 2012). Indefinite answers to open-ended questions helped the students to
During the SRI, Dana explained, “I do try to make my classroom sort of um,
visually stimulating and . . . creative and try to bring connections to what I teach with
what I have around in my classroom” (D. Dunn, personal communication, September 17,
2012). Dana’s classroom reflected her imagination and that of her students. In the right
rear corner sat a fern tree dressed in soft green beads that gently dangled from the
branches. The leaves, which were most noticeable, nearly obfuscated the fact that the
beads were present. These qualities highlighted the unobvious and the embedded opaque
The first major theme state that when teachers had favorable attitudes towards
21st century skills instruction, it was reflected in their praxis. Kate’s second most
92
prominent code group was “21st century learning” with 58 codes. Within this primary
subcode group, “critical thinking” appeared 22 times. Critical thinking was discussed as
a minor theme. Two other significant factors within “21st century learning” were “oral
and written communication” and “creativity and innovation”. Each of the remaining
code groups contained four or five codes; thus, they were insignificant in comparison to
The “oral and written communication” code group appeared 16 times. Kate
engaged her students in oral and written communications during the classroom
communication skills was important. Her self-efficacy was lower in this area than in
other instructional content areas. During the SRI, she clarified by stating,
. . . As far as like trying to write the persuasive essays . . . we’re supposed to do, I
feel a lot less confident with that . . . I don’t feel really confident in grading
writing and the writing process. And I feel pretty comfortable with grading lab
Kate’s self-efficacy was strongest in technical writing but not as strong in teaching
presenting evidence and supporting conclusions. But I do not feel confident in the
mechanics of the writing instead of the overall purpose of the piece. I can’t see
93
‘the forest for the trees’, so to speak! Therefore, I do not feel I do a good job with
creative writing. But I do an adequate job with technical writing (K. King,
Kate valued written communication skills and required that her students write in
various ways. She stated, “This requires good communication skills, which we practice
in the form of written responses, which are taken up and marked up once each unit and
2010) as a centric goal and required a literacy component for science classes. Kate
engaged her students in learning to write lab reports effectively by thinking critically and
As far as my curriculum relating to the Common Core State Standards, the only
thing we have are literacy I think that we’re supposed to be doing right now . . . I
had written . . . MLA formatting for their citing their sources . . . That applies as a
standard for Common Core because when we write, I try to incorporate those into
Kate taught oral communication skills, explained the need for them and facilitated
challenges for some students. A student struggled to provide a clear answer. Kate asked,
“Do you want to explain to us how you started?” (K. King, classroom observation,
September 7, 2012). She supported the student’s efforts to verbalize the answers. Dana
gently suggested, “You had it correct . . . correct on your paper. You just didn’t write it
94
up on the board correctly” (K. King, classroom observation, September 7, 2012). Kate
What’s harder? Actually balancing the equations? Or, explaining how you
balanced it? . . . And that’s typical because you’re learning how to do it . . . But
you really know that you understand something when you can explain it in simple
terms . . . to somebody else. That means you really understand it . . . So it’ll get
September 7, 2012).
I just think it’s an important skill to be able to explain and be articulate and tell
people what you’re talking about. Now balancing equations is hard to explain.
It’s very hard to explain. And so I knew they would have trouble with it . . . I
model my thought processes and how exactly in detail how I would go through
She had them write equations on the whiteboard. One student had an academic epiphany
and was asked to write her equation on the whiteboard. She stated, “Alexia is going to
explain to us, because she had the ‘epiphany’ and figured it out” (K. King, classroom
observation, September 7, 2012). She moved to the side and provided the student
you’ve finished reading Chapter Two, you can work on the writing assignment which
goes into your composition book” (K. King, classroom observation, August 29, 2012).
95
While one student wrote an equation on the whiteboard, Kate asked another student to
types communication.
This code appeared nine times in the data set. Kate expressed concern about her
ability to be creative and to teach creativity. She stated, “I try to find new things to do all
the time. I don’t feel that I’m horribly creative. But, other people tell me I am” (K. King,
personal communication, September 12, 2012). She identified ways that she taught
We’re reading a book in my honors class, The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind, who
taught himself how to make a windmill in his village in Africa . . . They have no
electricity. And he taught it by going to the public library and reading the three
books they had there on science . . . We talk a lot about how important it is to
actually be able to do something with the information you have (K. King,
Kate felt that creativity was stifled somewhat because students were mostly focused on
providing correct answers. She felt that creative output was less focused on concrete,
And especially ‘our students’ . . . do not like open-ended assignments. They want
something concrete. They wanna know how much they have to have . . . how
many quotes they need. And I want them to learn that it’s not necessarily an
96
Kate implied that teaching creativity required a paradigm shift for both the teacher and
During the SRI, I asked Kate to define “creativity and innovation” in her words.
She stated, “As taking facts and being able to put them together in new and interesting
ways, or to come up with a new idea or something else that needs to be explored” (K.
King, personal communication, September 12, 2012). I asked Kate the extent that she
tried to be creative and innovative when teaching. Kate smiled and commented, “Well, I
try to be. And I try to find new things to do all the time . . . I think it’s important and I try
to do it. I just don’t know . . . how good of a job I do with it (personal communication,
September 12, 2012). Kate suggested that her self-efficacy was lower in instructing
students in creativity and innovation. She politely stated, “It varies. Some students
respond really well to it. And some do not. I don’t know if it’s a lack in me, or that they
too just feel uncomfortable with it” (K. King, personal communication, September 12,
2012). Kate offered ways that her students creatively expressed their knowledge. Her
students produced colorful, visually appealing periodic tables. Students displayed their
charts in the hallway for others to see. Kate noted, “I am also comfortable with giving
students a choice in how they wish to show mastery of certain concepts. I have a variety
of project types for students to choose from (personal communication, September 12,
2012). She noted that most students were eager to show their artistic periodic tables for
an audience beyond the teacher. Kate proffered her reasons for providing creative
options. On the survey, she said, “I also feel confident and enjoy hands-on learning
97
activities. This allows students who do not like sharing out loud to share and show what
they are capable of in other ways”. Kate encapsulated her perspective about teaching
But is that the most important thing? No. Being able to take those facts and do
something with it. That’s what enables us to have all of this stuff that we have in
here that we use every day - the lights, the technology . . . So, being able to do
something with it, that’s the important part (K. King, personal communication,
September 7, 2012).
The initial theme reflected that when teachers maintained favorable attitudes
towards 21st century skills instruction, it was reflected in their praxis. The first research
question determined to understand the teachers’ attitudes toward instructing 21st century
learning skills. The first theme was very highly pertinent to research question one.
Andy. Andy’s second most prominent code in the code set was 21st century
learning. In the pre-observation survey, Andy confirmed his confidence about teaching
thinking” comprised nearly 70% of the subcodes. The subcode group “accessing and
analyzing information” was prominent and occurred twelve times. His students were
Dana. Dana’s number one ranking code set was 21st century learning. During the
SRI, Dana said that she taught test-taking and problem-solving skills. Both skills were
pertinent to the first theme. Her students regularly accessed and analyzed information
98
Kate. Kate’s second ranking parent code group was “21st century learning”. The
areas of “oral and written communication” and “innovation and creativity” were essential
components in her instruction. Based on the survey, Kate’s self-efficacy was lower in
teaching written communication. Yet, she reflected that she felt confident with teaching
The second research question sought to determine the extent that teachers
engaged their students in creativity and innovation. “Creativity and innovation” factors
were identified in the literature as essential 21st century learning skills. These factors
Andy. In the pre-observation survey, Andy did not provide an answer regarding
his confidence in teaching “creativity and innovation”. This factor initially provided an
unclear understanding of how he felt about instructing 21st century learning skills. Data
collection and analysis brought certainty to the concern. During one observation, Andy
engaged students in a brief discussion about “innovation and creativity” and “initiative
and entrepreneurialism”. Andy suggested that his small town should grow in
entrepreneurship, a practice typically not well-supported there. Andy used this idea to
engage his students in expressing their ideas about the election. He juxtaposed and
contrasted ideologies from both political parties in an effort to analyze each political
party’s impact in the lives of individuals (A. Adams, classroom observation, August 28,
2012). Andy tried to understand how well students comprehended the entrepreneurship
concepts. He asked,
99
society today. Bill Gates. Steve Jobs is not with us. But he oversees everything.
When you innovate, when you come up with a different way, you change the way
things are done. All right? So . . . you think the United States Congress, the
governing body of this country, would wanna protect that, or not? They would.
When you get a patent on something, it’s protected for a certain amount of time
because you came up with the idea. What if I came up with a great idea all of a
sudden? And someone stole it. Just, boom, he’s gone. He got my idea; now he’s
rich. I didn’t make any money off of it. Would you? Would you wanna be an
innovator in that situation? (A. Adams, classroom observation, August 22, 2012).
I sought to understand the extent to which Andy taught creativity skills. During
the SRI I asked, “What strategies do you use to teach your students creativity?” Andy
responded, “Well, one of the biggest things, uh, I let them explain it in different ways . . .
with their creativity (A. Adams, personal communication, September 13, 2012). In the
essential 21st century learning skills (Common Core State Standards, 2010). The
question asked the participant to state specific creativity and innovation strategies or
techniques he felt most and least confident using when instructing students? Why? Andy
did not provide an answer for this question. He left the answer blank. Andy suggested
that creativity was a learning environment factor. Creativity occurred when students felt
100
So what you do is bait ‘em on. And then it’s a hard thing to do… You have to
have some faith in that teacher before I think you get creative, because you’re
Dana. The subcode “creativity and innovation” was coded 10 times during
Dana’s instruction. Dana suggested that it was difficult to “nail down” creativity. She
correlated creativity with learning styles and with productivity (D. Dunn, personal
communication, September 17, 2012). She used visuals to stimulate creativity and to
connect learning concepts with the learning environment. Dana encouraged her students
Kate. Kate suggested that she did not believe that she was very creative. She
stated, “But, other people tell me I am” (K. King, personal communication, September
12, 2012). This factor was substantive in the data analysis; yet, for Kate, this factor was
not dominant. Kate noted that she offered students various opportunities to present their
knowledge mastery. Kate did not imply that she focused intently on teaching creativity
as a learning skill. She suggested that students needed to provide thorough answers
versus thinking only quantitatively about expressing their understanding. Kate stated,
“It’s difficult because of me and them” (K. King, personal communication, September
12, 2012). She believed that both the teacher and her students needed to shift their
The third research question determined to understand the degree that teachers
instructed their students in NLS. This relevant question was addressed in the section
101
The fourth research question endeavored to understand how the participants
measured their own self-efficacy in teaching 21st century learning skills within the core
Andy. Andy’s self-efficacy was assessed in three ways as suggested by the data:
Andy taught his students skills that extended the base curriculum and were designed to
aid them in the real world. The main focus for EOCT classes was standardized test
EOCT. He realized that the local and state boards of education predominantly
ascertained a teacher’s success in teaching by test scores. Andy vehemently taught the
skills his students needed to master for gaining high test scores.
Andy measured his self-efficacy in teaching 21st century learning skills within the
core curriculum through the EOCT scores. He suggested on several occasions that test-
During the SRI, Andy proclaimed, “I know what they’re gonna have to do in the end.
They’re gonna have to take a standardized test . . . They don’t know how to take a test”
mastering the curriculum content. He noted, “. . . One of the things that I try to work on
them is, ‘How do you take a test?’. . . They have to be able to know how most tests are
set up” (A. Adams personal communication, September 4, 2012). During the SRI, he
102
reiterated, “. . . gonna be made to take the . . . standardized test. So they have to know
determining how deeply students were engaged in the instructional process. He believed
that active engagement strongly impacted the students’ curricular test scores and EOCT
scores. Andy persistently demanded that his students look at him during instruction and
remain alert. He learned this concept from an unnamed research source. The research
suggested that those students who failed to look eye-to-eye with the teacher performed
poorly on tests. He stated, “Look at me!” (A. Adams, classroom observation, August 22,
2012). On the same day he proclaimed, “Look at me. Talk to me. Wake up!” (A.
Adams, classroom observation, August 22, 2012). He insisted that students remain
making eye contact with me. Look at me. If you’re not looking, I get nervous . . . I want
you to look right here” (A. Adams, classroom observation, August 28, 2012). On another
observation, he demanded, “Look right here! Make sure you’re looking at me” (A.
And it’s . . . everybody is like, “Oh, I can’t wake up this morning.” You gotta
wake up, okay. If I gotta wake up, you gotta wake up. If we have to stand up and
dance, we’ll dance. Okay, but we’re gonna wake up. All right? (A. Adams,
103
Andy believed that his students should focus on skills that reached beyond the basic
Right here, one of the best things that I do in my classroom . . . I want them to
think without the fear . . . I want ‘em to take the risk . . . I don’t want ‘em to
overlook the test or to downplay the significance . . . Look outside the box. It’s
not the worst thing to be wrong (A. Adams, personal communication, September
13, 2012).
Dana. Twenty-first century learning skills ranked as Dana’s number one parent
code. During the SRI, Dana said that she taught test-taking and problem-solving skills.
Both skills were pertinent to the fourth theme. Specifically, Dana taught her students in
three main areas related to 21st century learning. She taught them to be innovative and
creative, to access and analyze information and to use curiosity and imagination.
Kate. Kate’s 21st century learning codes suggested that she centered mostly on
teaching “oral and written communication”. Yet, Kate was moderately engaged in
teaching “innovation and creativity” as suggested by the nine subcodes in this area. The
three lowest subcode groups were “collaboration, “curiosity and imagination” and
“accessing and analyzing information”. Kate suggested in her survey that she felt
weakest instructing persuasive writing. She stated, “. . . I do not feel I do a good job with
creative writing” (K. King, personal communication, September 12, 2012). Kate’s self-
104
The first major theme was highly related to research questions one, two, three and
four as shown in Table 1. The third research question determined to understand the
degree that teachers instructed their students in NLS. This relevant question was
Table 1
Access/Analyze Information 12 10 4
Collaboration 6 2 5
Curiosity/Imagination 2 9 4
Critical Thinking 65 20 22
Initiative/Entrepreneurialism 3 0 0
Innovation/Creativity 4 10 9
Oral/Written Communication 2 2 14
The data reflects each participant’s active instruction in teaching 21st century skills.
assessment practices. Andy’s third most commonly occurring code was “assessment”
and was coded 77 times in the data set. Four key components emerged from the
test-taking skills;
accountability; and,
105
understanding.
Rigor and repetition. The code subgroup “rigor and repetition” appeared 11
times. The literature suggested that neomillennial students learned best during rigorous,
challenging and engaging learning experiences that were shared with others (Dieterle et
al., 2008). The literature suggested that “rigor and repetition” strengthened the neural
circuits and aided in memorization and mastery learning (Garrett, 2009; Freeberg, 2006).
What we’ll do is we’ll do that a million times. We will not forget that.
over and over again. We don’t leave something. We just leave it for a little bit
and come right back to it . . . Make sure you understand what’s going on (A.
During one observation, Andy stressed the need for rigorous learning versus measuring
You cannot simply take a test and be done with and say, “You know what? I did
my job, Coach (Adams). I either got it or I didn’t. I passed or failed”. That is not
an option in here. That is not an option! We will go over it and over it and over
it. We will understand it and we will get it. You understand? Everybody
understand? Okay. You got it? (A. Adams, classroom observation, August 22,
2012).
The literature review suggested that creativity was produced from self-disciplined
higher-order processes, an Apollonian concept that involved analysis, discipline and rigor
(Maslow, 1968). Andy promoted rigorous learning practices with his students. During
106
an early morning session, he asked a relevant question. He asked, “Now, why are we
doing these? ‘Cause we practice. We go back. We fix. We see where you are. And we
Andy stated, “Make sure you understand what’s going on, all right? It counts ten points.
Counts ten points. All right? If you make a seven out of ten, that’s what you make. All
right? It’s a daily grade always” (A. Adams, classroom observation, August 22, 2012).
“You understand why you got it wrong? Anybody?” (A. Adams classroom observation,
August 22, 2012). The test anxiety factor was actual and problematic for many students.
You’re sitting there second-guessing yourself over and over and over again. All
right? You’ve got to go through it. When you’re taking a multiple-choice test
and you’re getting in those things, usually your first answer is the best way to go
most of the time. Okay, but especially if you get somewhat lost or something like
that, and that can happen guys. See the different wording in these things. I want
you to know why you missed it or why you got it right. Okay? (A. Adams,
During one observation, Andy suggested specific strategies for controlling text anxiety.
He said, “. . . when you’re taking a multiple-choice test and you’re getting in those
things, usually your first answer is the best way to go most of the time” (A. Adams,
classroom observation, August 22, 2012). Assessments and testing were normal protocol
for students and workers in the marketplace. Andy stated, “You’re gonna be tested from
107
here on out. ‘Til eternity. Okay? No matter what job you’re in or whatever. But, it’s just
In reference to the CCSS, Andy compared the traditional class instruction that
culminated with an EOCT to the CCSS national curriculum. He wanted to know how
deeply the students understood the differences between the two systems. He asked, “If
you have a nationalized curriculum, what does that mean? . . . All of the curriculums are
going to be the same” (A. Adams classroom observation, August 29, 2012). His question
suggested that Andy believed similar test anxieties would arise regardless of the
curriculum design.
I wanted to know if Andy saw a connection between “critical thinking skills” and
“test- taking skills”. During the stimulated recall interview (SRI), I said, “You teach test-
taking skills to your students in the next three short clips. Is this part of critical thinking?
If so, help me understand how you try to teach critical thinking?” (A. Adams, personal
. . . You’re actively reading questions. You’re saying, ‘What’s the most important
thing here? What is the key information that they are looking for in the
question?’ You can underline those things. That is a skill that we have to work
on all the time” (A. Adams personal communication, September 13, 2012).
Andy demonstrated his sense of urgency and personal responsibility for preparing his
students to test well. He suggested that some students had been improperly prepared for
testing by other teachers. As a result, Andy felt a strong need to teach test-taking skills
that would arm his students for scoring well on class tests and ultimately on the EOCT.
108
I have a lot of students, unfortunately sometimes they’ve been, you know, spoon
fed . . . They don’t know how to take a test . . . Teachers give ‘em a practice test
one day, and then give ‘em the same test again. And that doesn’t teach ‘em
September 4, 2012).
During the SRI, Andy made three references to testing-taking skills. He established
himself as an expert teacher. He stated, “I know what they’re gonna have to do in the
end. They’re gonna have to take a standardized test”. Second, Andy referenced the test
design. He stated, “They have to be able to know how most tests are set up . . . What are
the key things I can do? I can look for key words” (A. Adams personal communication,
September 13, 2012). Third, Andy disciplined his students in test-taking skills. He
stated, “. . . You’re gonna be made to take the, uh, standardized test. So they have to
know how to do it. So every day we do a little bit of practice on, all right, “How do you
eliminate? How do you find these things?” (A. Adams, personal communication,
descriptor was synonymous with “responsibility” when analyzing the data. During one
early morning class, Andy clearly defined the fact that his students were responsible for
knowing and understanding the information he had taught them. The sound of closing
doors in other classrooms reverberated in the hallway, because the door to Andy’s room
was left open. This was important because the hall noise seemed to serve as a distractor.
During the SRI, Andy confirmed this idea when he said, “Also, one of the biggest things
109
I look for . . . I don’t want anybody to be distracted” (A. Adams, personal
During an observation, as students prepared for a quiz, Andy read from several
sheets of notebook paper. On three separate occasions, Andy sat, stood up then slowly
paced a well-beaten path across the front of the classroom. Andy’s pacing reminded me
of a slow, placing lion. His gate reflected strength and full control of his domain. His
demeanor suggested that his students were held accountable for their every action.
Andy communicated this idea in various ways. During his SRI, I asked Andy to
explain a hand-written quote he had long before written on the whiteboard. The letters
were only half visible. The sentence stated, “Cows never stay milked and the grass never
There’s always gonna be something to do. Look for work. Don’t just sit there
and say ‘Well, I . . . I’m done. It’s over. Can we waste the next five minutes?
There’s always something to do. You can always improve. And education is life-
Andy reiterated the fact that students in his class would be held highly responsible for
Write that down. Nobody buys a ticket in here to sit and do nothing. You come
in here. You work. I work-You work. We all work . . . We learn. And we’re
fine. But you have to put forth the effort (A. Adams, personal communication,
Andy demanded that his students set aside learning distractors during class. He
proclaimed, “If y’all are playing Donkey Kong or not, listen to me! Or, I’m gonna kick
110
you out of here. Does that make sense? Make sure you have the notes . . . I want you
paying attention to everything that goes on” (A. Adams, classroom observation, August
29, 2012). As a way to engage his students, Andy was humorous and slightly sarcastic.
He said,
You gotta stay with me, son. Okay? We’re not going to school in Haiti or
anything like that. We’re okay. We’re gonna make it. You got “air condition” . .
. I know we should be jumping and down and doing some kinda lesson where
everybody’s coloring and doing all this. Okay? But right here, you gotta
Andy wanted his students to deeply value the opportunity to earn a free, public education.
He challenged his students to assess their own perspectives about learning. He stated,
This is what scares me sometimes. You know used to people would risk death or
education. I’ll do anything. I’ll risk dying to learn how to read”. Okay? Now
days, here’s the tragedy. Watch. It’s very spooky. It’s happened to us. Here’s
what’s happened to us. Now we’re dying not to read. You understand? All those
things that people fought for . . . to give you a chance and me a chance to do it . . .
In one instance, he sarcastically paralleled the students’ learning engagement level to that
of preschool students’ levels. He exclaimed, “We can’t ‘Barney World’ it right now!”
(A. Adams, classroom observation, August 28, 2012). Andy had clearly explicated
various reasons for learning the Economics curriculum and the students’ personal
111
defined the acceptable boundaries for learning engagement in his classroom.
that the right to vote was both a freedom and a personal responsibility. He suggested that
students must demonstrate personal responsibility for the good of the nation, a cause
greater than themselves. He noted, “You’ve got a choice to make. All right? Remember
I’m not one side or the other. I don’t like either political party. I encourage you to vote
for the best person. Who makes that decision? You do!” (A. Adams, classroom
Those are things that you have to answer as individuals. Okay? But this is what
happens. Eventually it creeps this way . . . I told you, “You gotta stand up and
fight!” All these people from other countries are trying to “get in your nation and
ruin your nation and make it like France”! Hello? . . . We gotta make sure we
watch all this. ‘Cause, if we don’t, our country’s going what? Up? Or down?
Andy had directly correlated the freedom to understand American politics with the
Andy repeatedly suggested that students were responsible for their own learning.
He explained that his students complained to him about fatigue, hunger and their home
lives. Some stated that the content “. . . doesn’t mean anything to me. Why am I
It’s your obligation! . . . You can’t blame the politicians if we don’t know how
they got there, because it’s our responsibility to be an educated electorate and to,
you know, put these people in there to make the best decisions. Do you think this
112
is good? Do you think it is bad? Uh, would you vote for this stuff again? So
that’s what I’m trying to do (A. Adams, personal communication, September 13,
2012).
goes on” (A. Adams, classroom observation, August 29, 2012). Andy vigorously
preached the idea that seeking out a quality education was critically important to living
effectively in the 21st century world. He purported that earning an education was vital to
the livelihood of every individual in the classroom. From Andy’s perspective, each
“You gotta educate thy brain! . . . An uneducated electorate, all right, leads to the
You can get a Harvard education for a dollar fifty in library fines! Hello? . . . Is
there an armed guard up in front of the public library? Or, Mrs. Holmes out there
with a machine gun saying, “Don’t you come in here!”? Is she doing that? I’ll
tell you, “It’s the ticket. You gotta educate thy brain!” . . . This is your founding
have a democracy. That’s why some people argue today, ‘We don’t have a
democracy’. Okay? ‘Cause there’s only a few people that participate in the
The literature supported the view that student assessment was an essential
learning component. A unified viewpoint did not exist regarding the most effective
113
instructional and assessment methods (Drouin, 2010). Some suggested that alternative
Tinmaz, 2006). The voluntary adoption of the CCSS by most states attempted to bring
learning outcomes. Although complete uniformity had not been reached regarding the
learning occured based on students’ learning styles (Dieterle et al.-, 2008; Gardner &
Moran, 2006). Though the results were inconclusive regarding testing practices, learning
code “understanding” was presented and discussed as a minor theme in a later segment.
Another important theme emerged from the data. It reflected that when teachers
held students accountable for learning, it was reflected in assessment practices. After
analyzing the voluminous data, commonly occurring codes emerged from Dana’s data
set. Both the “theoretical underpinnings” and the “21st century learning” code groups
contained an equal number of codes, ranking them equally as the first most commonly
occurring code groups. Although the code group assessment ranked third among her
main codes, this single area was coded 43 times in the data set. Four coded areas were
understanding;
test-taking;
114
accountability; and,
The parent code “understanding” was presented and discussed as a minor theme in a later
segment.
Test-taking. Dana’s students were quizzed during the first class observation.
Once the students were seated, she almost immediately interjected, “Here’s your quiz. It
shouldn’t take you more than, I’m thinking, 10 to 15 minutes!” (D. Dunn, classroom
Dana addressed the fact that A. P. students felt very nervous about testing, especially the
final AP exam that would happen at the end of the semester. Regarding test anxiety,
Dana inquired,
How many of you go into a test like this and you have to answer everything in
order or it just kinda freaks you out? You’ll have to get over that . . . and not
questions that are considered . . . a level five difficulty question. They’re just
really hard, and you might not see the answers right off the bat (D. Dunn,
She discussed the idea that some students were emotional when they were unable
to answer questions in nominal order. She stated, “. . . everything in order or it just kinda
freaks you out? You’ll have to get over that!” (D. Dunn, classroom observation, August
21, 2012). Dana acknowledged the students’ concerns about high stress levels. The test
anxiety factor was actual and problematic for many students. Dana addressed this idea
by stating,
115
With A. P. exams, one part of doing well on the exam is to learn how to take a
test. And there are some strategies that you can practice that will help you
regardless of whether it’s prose or poetry . . . your strength or your weakness (D.
Developing test-taking skills was significant, especially for the A. P. students. Dana
suggested,
And sometimes, more often than not, you’re gonna be left with two . . . answer
choices that you’re gonna have to determine between. And we’ll talk about today
how you can go about making some of that determination. Sometimes there are
just little tricks that you can use that will help. Now most of it is gonna come
down to help well you can effectively analyze the passages. But, you know a
point here or there just by learning some test taking strategies (D. Dunn,
scores (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Olsen, 2010). Dana required her students to accept
personal responsibility for their own learning. She expressed the idea by saying, “I’m
trying to break out of that and have my classes be more student facilitated, put more of
the learning responsibility on the student while giving them what they need to be able to
do that . . . ” (D. Dunn, personal observation, September 17, 2012). Students were
I want us to go back through and look at the correct answers. And I want you to
kinda be able to justify why the right answer is the right answer or why your
116
answer didn’t work. That’s all a part of doing well on this test is figuring out the
“whys” of the correct answers (D. Dunn, classroom observation, August 17,
2012).
accountable by local and state boards of education for engaging students in effective
learning. During her SRI, she said, “You know, the job that we do is difficult. There is a
Rigor and repetition. The standard protocol was practice then test. Dana told
her twelfth grade English students, “So you need to make sure that your syntax is
maturing as you do. So that’s what this is all about. It’s practice . . . Well, we’re gonna
just continue . . . We’ll do it a little at the time” (D. Dunn, classroom observation, August
24, 2012). She clarified the practice protocol when she said, “I’d like for you to work on
this grammar all along, so that by the end of the week next week I’d like for us to be able
to go back over it all and just recheck it all” (D. Dunn, classroom observation, August 24,
2012). During the SRI Dana reiterated, “So I’m trying to guide them toward practicing
the way they take these practice tests, so they’re ready for that” (D. Dunn, personal
Dana reiterated the drill etiquette by noting, “We’re gonna do a lot of these . . .
And you will see improvement. I promise you. Come tomorrow prepared for us to really
examine those rough drafts” (D. Dunn, classroom observation, August 23, 2012). Rigor
reigned paramount for those students taking the A.P. class. According to Dana,
117
“Students dropped like flies when they figured out the amount of rigor that is required for
taking this class!” (D. Dunn, personal communication, August 21, 2012).
A second important theme emerged from the data. It reflected that when teachers
“Assessment” emerged as Kate’s largest parent code group with 70 codes. The four
understanding;
accountability;
number of designations. Kate went to great instructional lengths to deeply embed the
content knowledge. She reinforced the notion that students who understood the content
and could apply it would score well on assessments. During the SRI, Kate said,
. . . from now on you need to make sure you pay attention to all these things I
marked, because you’re going to get whatever grade you get. And I just think
that’s important because they don’t know me and how I grade and what I think is
She reiterated the notion that students gained greater depth of understanding by
learning to communicate orally. Kate suggested that a connection existed between deep
understanding and the students’ learning styles. This idea coincided with LS research.
Those students who preferred auditory learning excelled when they were engaged in
118
auditory learning environments (Coffield et al.,, 2004b). Kate said, “But saying it out
loud helps them to realize what they understand, what they don’t understand” (K. King,
personal communication, September 12, 2012). Allen (2008) found that when students
engaged in talking about learning, they comprehended it more fully. Kate asked
questions that caused students to think and be certain that they had a full understanding of
the tasks at hand. During a test preparation quiz, Kate stood quietly as her students
completed their assessment. Kate stated, “Remember thinking is important!” (K. King,
Students sought ways to get definite answers to their questions. Kate provided
cues and prompts that caused the students to engage deeply in inquiry. She stated, “Try
to figure out how you know what subscripts to use. It has to do with oxidation numbers
. . . on each element . . .” (K. King, classroom observation, August 29, 2012). She looked
at her students reassuringly to reaffirm their understanding of prior learning. Yet, Kate
wanted her students to learn independently. Within seconds, Kate moved from one
student to another to help those who were struggling or needed clarification. Kate fed her
students’ knowledge at a rate that they were able to digest it. She interjected,
Knowing where those are located will be very, very helpful to you in the next unit
times you’re putting together a metal and a nonmetal. And instead of searching
all over the periodic table if you know something is a nonmetal, where’s it gonna
She innately understood when her students needed to ruminate on the content to gain
deeper comprehension and when to add content to the mix. She said,
119
So we’re gonna spend the first part of class looking at those you’ve been working
on, talking about it, making sure you understand how to do it, and get your
experiences. Kate structured the students’ learning experiences. She assured her students
that she wanted them to fully know, understand and comprehend the content. Kate
Everybody think they’re good? All right (K. King, classroom observation, August 23,
2012). Kate wanted to know that her students were confident in their understanding. She
inquired, “Does that make sense?” (K. King, classroom observation, August 29, 2012).
Kate attempted through drill to deeply embed the curricular content thoroughly into the
Accountability. Kate maintained the idea that students were responsible for their
learning only when they had been taught effectively what to learn and how to learn it.
During the SRI, I said, “There never seemed to be a moment in any of the four
observations where students were unsure what they were to be doing. How does
structure like this clip impact student learning?” After observing the instructional clip,
Kate stated, “I think it’s important to let them know what’s coming up, what they can
expect when they come in class, what they need to be prepared for” (K. King, personal
120
She effectively engaged students in the formative assessment journey. She inquired. “So
tell me why are you thinking you need to do that?” (K. King, classroom observation,
August 21, 2012). By understanding the student’s line of thought, Kate guided the
individual into using effective learning strategies. All students understood Kate’s
them questions. Students were responsible for keeping pace with the class. The lecture
and review typically happened with a quick pace and displayed Kate’s high expectations
of her students. She taught “up” to her students rather than “down” to them. Kate
I’m gonna give you about five minutes or so. We’re gonna go over it. I’ll call on
people . . . Then we’ll probably move into working on your research and stuff for
your book. I’m gonna tell you four of these that you can omit for today. But
we’ll come back to those tomorrow; so it’s not that we’re not gonna do them.
We’re just not doing them today (K. King, classroom observation, August 29,
2012).
Kate defined the workflow and held individuals responsible for focused learning. She
asked, “. . . Now is there any part of that question that we have not talked about? (K.
King, classroom observation, August 21, 2012). Her question was designed to engage
the students in analyzing the learning components and benchmarks. Rather than stating
what they had learned, Kate asked the students to measure their own learning. Kate set
high learning expectations and prepared her students for them. She noted,
Tomorrow when you come in, soon as I check roll, I’ll say, “You got two minutes
to get your uh, composition book turned in”. And if it’s 2:15 when you turn it in,
121
that’s gonna be a minus ten. So you need to be sure you have it ready and you’re
Kate required students to understand the grading scale. By reviewing, she focused them
on each assignment’s point value. This process kept the students aware of their grades.
And we talked about that being like your tests are 50%, the book you’re reading is
25%, and everything else is 25%. So what do I factor in more heavily when I
average your grade? Your tests . . . I’ll keep up with your points even if . . . even
if I change you around or you sit with somebody new at some point, I keep up
with your points individually. So it won’t be any big deal . . . (K. King,
manner suggested that her students were to accept the guidelines without a challenge for
that particular activity. A male student’s voice emerged from the classroom asking, “Did
we not get it?” Kate responded firmly, “No. You yelled out the right answer” (K. King,
classroom observation, August 23, 2012). Upon further discussion, Kate stated that she
was primarily talking about atomic mass during the instruction versus grading.
The workflow and assessment strategies seemed to ebb effortlessly for Kate.
With the timing skills of a comedic actor, Kate closed one learning part and segued
gracefully into the next segment. She challenged her students to focus on the upcoming
classroom agendas. These prompts directly impacted the students’ learning quality and
ultimately their grades. Those who listened and learned potentially outperformed those
who were unfocused. At times, Kate offered several steps in the learning sequence in a
122
single cue. She put forth a detailed plan by stating,
We’re going to watch Bill Nye. Have you answered your questions? . . . We’re
gonna go over the whole thing after we watch all three parts. We will talk about
these up until . . . we take tests. And I’ll probably be calling people up to the
board up until we take the test (K. King, classroom observation, September 7,
2012).
Kate’s “no non-sense strictness” (K. King, personal communication, September 12, 2012)
suggested that her students understood Kate’s intentions. Furthermore, she showed the
students how deeply she was willing to work with them to help them attain their learning
goals. Kate's tone of voice and caring demeanor were encased with an authoritative
directness. She effectively managed a delicate balance between caring for the students
She worked diligently with her students to prepare them for various types of quizzes and
tests. During the SRI, I stated, “You teach test-taking skills to your students. Is this part
of critical thinking? If so, help me understand how you try to teach this skill”. Kate
answered, “I do test-taking skills almost every day . . . and they know most days when
they come in, they’re gonna have a test prep” (K. King, personal communication,
September 12, 2012). Kate worked to help her students understand how test questions
were generally designed. She said, “So really that’s what this question is asking you. If
there’s one part of a question that you’re not sure about, can you leave that out and work
with the parts you do understand?” (K. King, classroom observation, August 21, 2012).
Kate taught them the skills that they needed for taking standardized tests. She
123
cited a test-taking issue that students normally did not know how to manage. She
hypothesized, “. . . So when you’re taking a standardized test and you get four B’s in a
row for your answer, should you be concerned? (K. King, classroom observation, August
People on tests . . . five answers in a row D or make most of the answers on the
test D. I don’t do it on purpose. It just works out that way . . . I’ll see students do
this . . . “Well, I’ve got four B’s in a row. One of these has to be something else”
Kate engaged students in the process of elimination, a strategic testing skill. She noted,
So you know it has something to do with where they’re located on the periodic
table. So if you read the first part, “Which two elements have similar chemical
properties?” And you really had no idea from that. Then you could use the
second part as a clue to something you need to look for to figure out the answer
. . . I might give you a multiple question where I say, “Which of the following is
the correct Bohr model for potassium?” And you’d need to be able to look at this,
and figure out which one is the correct one (K. King, classroom observation,
Repetition and rigor. Kate embedded learning skills deeply in her students’
minds through repetition. Kate challenged her young students’ minds to think uniquely
and unconventionally about specific learning components. She suggested, “I told you
there are no actual rules for balancing equations. It’s a lot of trial and error. But you do
figure out what works out easiest for you as you’re practicing them” (K. King, classroom
124
determine the answers to the problems she posed. Her overarching goals were to develop
What I would like for you to do now is to complete the periodic table that you
started yesterday. And as you complete that and bring it up here to me, I will give
you your practice work that goes along with what we’ve talking about that you
Kate added further rationale for engaging in repetition, practice and drill. She noted,
Practice is what makes you good at balancing equations . . . Just the more you do
it, the easier it gets . . . But balancing equations is a little bit different, so we do a
lot practice with those . . . you’re gonna do quite a bit of practice with them,
balancing them, and telling what kind of reactions they are (K. King, classroom
This important theme suggested that when teachers held students accountable for
determined to understand the teachers’ attitudes toward instructing 21st century learning
skills. The first theme was very highly pertinent to research question one.
Andy. Andy’s third most prominent code in the code set was “assessment” and
was coded 77 times in the data set. Four key factors emerged. The data suggested that
Andy often engaged his students in academic rigor and used repetition as an instructional
tool. Another key factor was “test-taking skills”. Students were taught these skills to
effectively pass the EOCT. Andy consistently discussed student accountability for
125
learning. The most significant factor in “assessment” was the subcode group
strongly suggested that the second theme was highly relevant to the first research
question.
Dana. The fourth highest ranking parent code set was “assessment”. The
Kate. Kate’s highest ranking parent code group was “assessment”. The subcode
“understanding” was the foremost subcode group and was analyzed as a minor code. She
engaged students often in “accountability” and “test-taking skills” factors. The data
suggested that “assessment” was a critical learning component in Kate’s classroom. The
findings across all three participant databases strongly proposed that the second theme
This major theme maintained that when teachers held students accountable for
sought to determine the extent to which teachers engaged their students in creativity and
essential 21st century learning skills. These factors were highly important and relevant to
Andy. In the pre-observation survey, Andy did not provide an answer regarding
his confidence in teaching “creativity and innovation”. I sought to understand the extent
to which Andy taught creativity skills. During the SRI, Andy noted that students were
126
creativity existed only when students felt safe and secure so as to take risks. The survey
and observational data reflected that Andy presented and discussed “creativity and
innovation”. The implication was that students were to be engaged in creativity and
innovative productivity. The data did not suggest that the students were engaged in
creative processes that led to end products during the observations. Based on this
assumption, the second theme was relevant to the “creativity and innovation” factor in the
Dana. The ten subcodes placed “creativity and innovation” as the second highest
ranking factor in “21st century learning” in Dana’s code set. The fact that slightly over
suggested that Dana valued and regularly engaged students in creative thought. Student’s
writing assignments were not analyzed during the observations, nor were they directly
discussed. The implication was that the students’ writing assignments were to include
creative components. Admittedly, Dana found this factor difficult to “nail down” (D.
Dunn, personal communication, September 17, 2012). Dana believed that creativity was
closely tied to NLS. Creative elements were embedded in the learning environment and
learning culture. The data suggested that Dana modeled the factors more than she
Kate. Kate felt mostly unconfident about her ability to teach creatively. She
offered students creative options for demonstrating content mastery. Kate expressed the
notion that both the teacher and the students played important roles in producing creative
and innovative products. During the observational period, Kate encouraged her students
to design colorful periodic charts. The main goal in the assignment centered on
127
demonstrating content knowledge versus showing creative and innovative abilities. This
was substantiated by her reference to the grading scale. Kate suggested that creative
processes resulted in the derivation of new ideas or the exploration of problems. She
sought to model creative instructional practices as well. The data suggested that Kate
problematic and challenging to assess. The implication was that Andy’s students were to
be engaged in creative and innovative productivity. Yet, the data did not suggest that
students were highly engaged in creative processes that led to end products during the
observations. The lecture format was not designed to deeply engage students in creative
and innovative productivity. Andy suggested that students were to creatively explain
The second theme was relevant to the “creativity and innovation” factor in the
second research question. The data suggested that the participants modeled these factors
more than they assessed them during the observational period. Yet, the framework
The third research question determined to understand the degree that teachers
instructed their students in NLS. This relevant question was addressed in the section
measured their own self-efficacy in teaching 21st century learning skills within the core
curriculum. This theme was highly pertinent to the second theme. Instruction and
128
learning was comprised of learning factors and assessment factors. Student assessment
measurement in teaching 21st century skills within the core curriculum was determined by
various factors.
Andy. Andy’s self-efficacy was primarily assessed through his students’ EOCT
scores, the students’ levels of learning engagement and real-world relevance of the
curriculum. Each of these factors suggested a strong connection between the fourth
research question and the participant’s self-efficacy in teaching 21st century learning
Dana. The code group “21st century learning” skills was ranked first among
Dana’s total code groups. Dana focused on teaching essential skills, i.e., “test-taking”
and problem-solving skills. The factors “accountability”, “rigor and repetition” and “test-
taking skills” were well-aligned with the fourth research question. Dana’s self-efficacy
was directly related to the students’ “understanding” levels as evidenced by their EOCT
scores.
within the core curriculum were linked to student assessments. Kate’s “21st century
technical writing. Her self-efficacy was framed on her belief in the ability to teach the
The second major theme was specifically related to research questions one, two,
three and four. The third research question determined to understand the degree that
129
teachers instructed their students in NLS as shown in Table 2. This relevant question was
Table 2
Accountability 22 9 18
Assessment 2 0 1
Responsibility 0 0 5
Rigor/Repetition 11 9 9
Test-taking skills 12 11 15
Understanding 30 14 22
The data reflects each participant’s active instruction in teaching learning accountability.
The data analysis reflected a clearly defined third theme. It suggested that when
teachers created an effective learning culture, they sought to engage learners. The data
set revealed 74 coded segments in the area of “learning culture”, Andy’s fourth most
brain-compatible learning;
“learning culture” code set was “brain-compatible learning” with 36 coded segments. It
130
was presented and discussed as a minor theme in a later segment.
Learning environment. This code occurred 74 times in the data analysis. Andy
worked to develop a rapport with his students so that they would understand the learning
ethos and culture. Andy wanted his students to understand how to best interact with him
physical components and the cultural aspects of the learning environment. The physical
learning environment provided little incentive for students to highly engage in 21st
century learning.
Twenty-three students sat compactly at brown tabletops while facing the front of
the room. Sixteen tables in all were aligned in this commonly-designed rectangular
classroom. At the narrow end of the room, a whiteboard stretched nearly the width of the
room. Near the center of the whiteboard, a Promethean board loomed. One long wall
had windows that stretched eighty percent of the distance from the whiteboard to the rear
of the room. The faded metal window blinds were closed and allowed little light to
emerge. The whiteboard served to hold the date and a brief bulleted list of items to cover
that today. Various quotes hung ruggedly from the typical brown shelves that had served
Andy’s room was the first room that most students passed as they entered school
through the “lower hall”. The main school building, constructed in the 1960’s, consisted
of three parallel main halls – the upper hall, the middle hall and the lower hall. The tile
floors in the hallway served to enhance the sound of a delicate pin drop. The hard
concrete block walls were uneventfully painted with a standard off-white and light gray.
The two colors were separated nearly equidistant from one another. Near the single
131
entrance to Andy’s classroom hung a well-used black telephone that amplified accented
voices from the office – an extreme thorn in Andy’s psyche. Andy’s extreme bias against
this instrument was uncontained. Though only a small contraption, this black box
wielded cumbersome and mostly abysmal interruptions. This distraction served mostly
as a diversion catalyst for many of Andy’s students who contended with faltering
attentions.
Culture. Andy was a well-constructed man who extended approximately six feet
tall and was not a small built man. Andy’s physicality demanded one’s attention.
developed the learning culture. A pleasant and professionally dressed man, undaunted by
a neck tie, Andy invoked a business-like atmosphere in his dealings with his students.
Andy’s vocation required that he teach Economics. Actually, his greatest calling led him
to teach his students critical life skills of all sorts. His worldview centered on a point
where zero disconnection existed between his praxis and real living.
Despite his physicality, Andy’s zealous mannerisms could have intimidated some,
if not all, of his students. His raspy proclamations of the good news—the gospel of
the words “Mayberry” provided descriptive décor for a train trestle near the high school.
Amidst the sundry overt qualities that separated him from his students, Andy connected
magnetically with his students. Only when most all the students presented positive
contributions did the ferromagnetic capacities within him become fully engaged. This
combined magnetism and connection to his students sometimes fueled Andy’s passion to
a roaring rage. His passion could engage students in tossing ideas back and forth to one
132
another. This reciprocal energy resembled the cantering call and response chants of early
America. This passionate intersection of the old and new painted a distinctive coffer.
Modernity, in all its incomparable elaborateness, was adorned with the contrite
simplicities of age-old, principled values. This complex learning ethos, though a single
worlds. Interpreting the learning culture was a key for students to understand how to
succeed.
Andy’s persona and demeanor were central factors in understanding the learning
culture. Andy promoted passionate engagement with his students. He appeared to want
his students to often engage in deep interaction, a type of Socratic dialogue, wherein
students could present opposing ideas with both other students and the teacher. To Andy,
passing or failing was somewhat irrelevant. Andy wanted to know what his students
understood and their cognitive processes. The early morning hour wielded its cyclical
sultry fog and created a haziness that would challenge the best academicians to engage
knowledge into these adolescent minds, although it seemed difficult for Andy to fully
high cognition from his students and accepted only the students’ best efforts. For the
most part, acceptable thinking levels weren’t merely an inch deep and a mile wide.
Rather, Andy wanted his students to analyze, synthesize and present arguments during
Andy believed that his students learned concepts more holistically when concepts were
133
presented independently. He said, “I told you I can’t put all this on a piece of paper. All
right? And say, ‘Look! Here it is’, because it wouldn’t do it justice” (A. Adams,
classroom observation, August 28, 2012). He reiterated the idea that students needed to
It’s a theory. Okay? And you’re gonna hear plenty of debate on which one will
win. It’s not my job to decide. It’s my job to educate you so you can make a
The local culture distinctively impacted the classroom’s learning culture. Andy
maintained, “You live in a very conservative town”. Andy wanted his students to
understand their own local culture in relation to their school’s learning culture. Andy
proclaimed loudly, “This won’t be in the books. You’ve gotta understand this!” (A.
Adams, classroom observation, August 28, 2012). Andy presented the following
But what they do here is they’ll . . . I mean in this little bitty town if you’re down
singing the national anthem or something like that. Somebody might just tell you
to what? “Be still. Take your hat off. Put your hand over your heart”. You ever
seen anybody do that around here? They do it all the time (A. Adams, classroom
Ethics and values. The “ethics and values” codes occurred 15 times in the
“learning culture” parent code group. The learning environment was influenced by the
134
ethics and values of the embedded local community. Andy posed various scenarios that
invoked discussion about ethics and values. He asked his students make qualitative
decisions regarding political practices they had observed during the political conventions.
He asked, “Is that right or wrong? You gotta get this. This sells!” (A. Adams, classroom
Westtown was once a clothing hub of the South. As the industry declined, many
of the cultural values remained. Although many people became wealthy, others were not
as fortunate. Andy and his family struggled financially during his school years. He
encouraged his students to rid themselves of excuses for failure to achieve at a high level.
He stated, “It doesn’t matter whether you are poor or rich” (A. Adams, classroom
observation, August 28, 2012). During the SRI, Andy confirmed his viewpoint. He said,
“You know what? I’ve got some very smart poor kids, you know. Some poor kids . . .
Andy suggested that local cultural and political values were deeply ingrained in
the culture. Those who had opposing views could find themselves ostracized by the
“Sometimes we don’t even want industry to come in here, because we’re afraid it will do
what? It’ll change us. We’re very skeptical” (A. Adams, personal observation, August
28, 2012). He challenged a cultural issue that transient students faced. Andy added,
Pretty hard to fit around here, isn’t it? Hello? . . . It’s very cliquish. Isn’t it? All
right. They don’t like change . . . They’re very weary of strangers. Does that
make sense? All right. You can’t just come in and “be somebody”. You gotta fit
into “the clique” (A. Adams, classroom observation, August 28. 2012).
135
He continued by asking, “Do you see any of that happening with adults?” (A. Adams,
What happened the last time somebody even mentioned liquor by the drink or
freaked out! Everybody had a sign in their yard. People quit going to churches
and everything else (A. Adams, classroom observation, August 28, 2012).
challenged to evaluate their own ethical positions. Andy attempted to avoid stating his
personal biases by clarifying the notion that he wanted to present multiple views on the
issues. Not all issues had negative connotations. Conversely, Andy identified positive,
stated,
And that was his belief system — that you took your hat off. That comes out of
that Southern idea, you know [of] “showing respect” and all those things like that.
If you’re right here, for these folks when you say the pledge of allegiance, you do
what? Do you keep walking or do you stop? You stop. You say the pledge of
allegiance. You live in a little town that’s very conservative. Understand? (A.
Andy connected with his students by identifying with the inherent challenges he
has faced. He continued to live in the same town where he was reared and identified
136
potential struggles that some students could have similarly faced. Andy posed a
hypothetical situation where students were challenged to evaluate their social ethics and
values. He said, “Now if you were to go into Atlanta . . . they’re not bad people or
anything like . . . not saying that. But it’s a different group of people, different values,
different systems” (A. Adams, classroom observation, August 28, 2012). He challenged
his students to understand the local culture in relation to different cultures. He stated,
. . . You can agree or disagree with illegal immigration . . . We’re gonna talk
about a group of people like they don’t even exist. “Just get rid of them!” Right?
Now whether they’re breaking the law or not that’s up to you to decide all that.
But the way we talk about people like they’re not really people! (A. Adams,
The learning culture was significantly defined by Andy’s set of ethics and values.
Christian heritage with the political viewpoints of some speakers at the convention. He
stated,
Right there uh, they’re gonna really push God. You’re gonna hear it in every one
of the speeches. You’ll hear it tonight. Oh, you’ll hear it from the Democrats too,
all over the place. They’re really gonna do it, Democrats and Republicans,
especially Republicans in the deep South because . . . you live in the “Bible Belt”,
ladies and gentlemen. Okay? (A. Adams, classroom observation, August 28,
2012).
During an observation, Andy boldly challenged the racial views of the Southern
137
Caucasians who had lived during the 1960’s. He presented the idea that Christians
should maintain similar values, ethics and cultural standards regardless of their cultural
identify. Andy said, “If you went to a white Christian church . . . “they” were going to
“their” church . . . who believed in the same God. (pause). Does that make sense?” He
added, “Does persecution occur today over ethnicity?” (A. Adams, classroom
constructed reality and overtly performed behaviors based on their personal values and
expectations. The social learning theory espoused that human behaviors occurred as the
result of environmental influences and interpersonal factors that included the mind,
emotions and physical processes. Andy maintained the idea that excellence was an
essential skill and could be exemplified in the learning culture. Andy worked hard to
equally positioned between personal responsibility for learning and holding high ethical
standards.
Andy sought to engage students in viewing politics through an ethical and values
lens. He suggested that students needed to understand the problems and issues through
the economic lens or social lens. Both lenses contained ethical factors. He said, “If they
can’t get you to vote on economics, they’ll get you to vote on the social issue” (A.
Andy suggested, “They are also very quick to tell you, ‘Our guy . . . even though he got
into a moral mess . . . Bill Clinton, cut the welfare rolls more than almost any other
138
President, Republican or Democrat’” (A. Adams, classroom observation, August 28,
2012).
Based on his demeanor, Andy suggested that he believed one’s morality was more
an essential leadership quality than his ability to engage culture. He wanted both things
to occur, but he showed little respect for leaders who had failed morally. Andy’s
personal values and ethics emerged as an important factor in defining the “learning
culture”.
The cultural framework was uniquely constructed with many components. Andy
sought to construct and support an interactive environment. Sometimes the interplay was
between teacher and student; whereas, at other times the interaction occurred only
between the students. During an observation Andy pressed his students to interact more
fully. He stated, “Make sure you’re talkin’. If there’s something you don’t understand,
I’m goin’ to ask you in a minute!” (A. Adams, classroom observation, August 28, 2012).
The literature suggested a connection between the learning environment and one’s
organic proclivities and contextual distribution within the learning environment culture
(Beliavsky, 2006; Gardner, 1993). Engaging students in learning (Carini, Kuh & Klein,
2006; Lambert & Cuper, 2008; Partnership for 21st century skills for 21st Century Skills,
2006; Rocca, 2010) and designing learning environments (Partnership for 21st century
The data suggested that a third theme existed. It reflected that when teachers
139
Learning culture. Dana’s third most commonly occurring code was the area of
“learning culture” with 38 codes. The learning culture was comprised of two subcode
groups. The “brain compatibility” codes occurred 26 times while the “learning
minor theme in a later section. The parent code, “theoretical underpinnings”, was
A coding challenge included accurately interpreting both the environment and the
(Merriam, 2009). This factor was alleviated by using a member check to counter the
“crisis of representation” (Marcus & Fischer, 1986, 15) and verisimilitude in reflecting
the appropriate viewpoint of the participant (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). The participants
served as a sounding board. Their analysis of the data analysis helped me to securely
component in the “learning culture” code group with 11 codes. This subgroup contained
two specific factors. The general “learning environment” code contained eight code
instances, while the area of “life-long learning” had three code references. Designing
effective learning environments and engaging students in learning were identified as two
keys to effective 21st century praxis (Partnership for 21 century skills, 2007).
Understanding the physical ethos helped me to understand a great deal about the
learning ethos and culture. Dana put much effort into designing the layout of her
classroom, the bulletin boards and virtually every aspect of the room. This neomillennial
nimbus resonated with an alarming aura of idyllic idealism and cruel complexities. A
140
silent CD player rested near the window, while small figurines were bunched together on
a lower shelf. Just above the CD player, Van Gogh’s “Starry Night” painting sang its
song of serenity. Conceivably the mix of blues – the navy curtains and van Gogh’s night
deafening tranquility quieted the room – a placid and pastoral refuge. Each
During the SRI, I asked Dana, “How have your personal experiences in engaging
students in learning made you feel more or less confident in effectively engaging the
learner”? Dana reflected on how she created the environment. She said,
. . . As you saw with my senior class, with the maturity that they bring to the class
. . . it’s easy for me to be more myself with them . . . to loosen up a little bit. As a
teacher for, you know, probably, I don’t know, over 20 of the 26 years or so that
I’ve taught, I’ve probably been um, more structured. I guess I’ve been more in
control . . . in charge, more teacher-facilitated. But I’m trying to break out of that
and have my classes be more student facilitated, put more of the learning
responsibility on the student while giving them what they need to be able to do
that, but then step back away from it (D. Dunn, personal communication,
The classroom ethos depicted an environment of curricular diversity and positivity mixed
with an undaunted cry for excellence. Alongside a positive and engaging quote was a
boldly written cry for excellence. On the outermost wall, four colorful posters quickly
141
writing process, using worn-out words, writing résumés and ways to write more
descriptively. These reminders insinuated that Dana did not reteach what her students
should already know. I presumed that her students were expected to apply what they
Dana worked to develop a rapport with her students so that they would understand
the learning ethos and culture. Much of the learning environment reflected Dana’s
viewpoints toward her students. Regarding her A. P. students, she said, “You’re just
dealing with um, an intellect and . . . and motivation and self-discipline that makes
teaching so much fun!” (D. Dunn, personal communication, September 17, 2012).
Dana wrestled with the degree of classroom control she assumed over the course
of her teaching career. She stated, “Control is a big thing for me in every aspect of my
life. So control in my classroom is a big thing for me” (D. Dunn, personal
communication, September 17, 2012). On the one hand, she valued her sense of control.
Conversely, she innately understood that the 21st century learners needed more control
than she had previously offered students in the past. She confirmed this when she said,
“As a teacher for, you know, probably, I don’t know, over 20 of the 26 years or so that
I’ve taught, I’ve probably been um, more structured” (D. Dunn, personal communication,
As the sole investigator, I observed how the Dana, the actor, created meaning
during instruction for her students through the explicit and implicit images and symbols.
more fully realize Dana’s classroom ambiance and milieu. Blumer (1969) suggested that
one’s overt behaviors were directly impacted by the behavior of other persons within
142
their environment. Such behaviors were “constructed by the actor on the basis of what he
Life-long learning. Dana highly valued being a life-long learner. During the
SRI, I showed Dana a video of her silently, yet intently, reading while her students were
reading an assignment. I asked Dana, “What is happening in your mind at this point?
How does non-verbal language play a role in your teaching? Do you try to convey
It’s part of who I am . . . As far as, you know, sitting there and reading while they
were working, uh, I try to model what I want them to do. And it was important
assignment . . . I guess that’s what you saw me doing (D. Dunn, personal
Dana correlated her life-long learning to its potential impact on her students. “It keeps
me sharp. It . . . lets me know that I can’t stagnate because these kids won’t let me . . .
They will get bored, or . . . they will leave me behind” (D. Dunn, personal
communication, September 17, 2012). Dana’s classroom vividly helped define the
learning environment. Several boxes were neatly stacked in tandem just beneath the
small single sink. I never dared to open them. The boxes were perfectly aligned, very
nearly as neat as a carpenter’s chalk line. Dana maintained order and a clear sense of
priority. Everything had its place and purpose. Frivolous clutter was nonexistent.
Dana’s classroom was dressed with character and creativity. Amidst the
academic challenges were enticing metallic letters of every imaginable color. The black
143
the bulletin board had a white background on which Dana had posted items of interest for
the students. These items included various school schedules and events. There were a
few metallic stars and character-like pencils that were used to draw attention to items of
special significance. The bulletin board was very organized. Most every schedule had a
different color background. The contrast between the stark white printer paper with black
letters and the background was appealing. The entire bulletin board had a metallic, navy
blue scalloped board that encased the display. Everything was so neat. The busy room
was not crowded. Rather, it allured wandering minds to gain greater perspectives on the
essentials.
This main code group contained three subcodes. The most often identified codes within
“constructivism” contained 25 codes. Essentially these two code groups were near
equally balanced, while the subcode “situated learning” was noted only once.
included:
metacognition;
confidence.
only four codes in the area of “confidence”. The subjective nature of data collection
144
required that I delve deeply and ponder over theoretical aspects before, during and after
the data collection. I wanted to be certain that I understood Dana’s intentions and
meanings rather than interjecting my opinions or biases into the data analysis.
various things. I was concerned about how these subjective meanings were acquired and
Metacognition. Dana stated in her pre-observational survey that she felt very
strongly about her higher-order thinking and cognition. According to Sternberg (2006),
to Goleman (2008), the concept of mindsight existed as a metacognitive function that was
messages that Dana communicated and those that she received from the students could
not be pragmatically determined. These factors were primarily perceived and interpreted.
Dana communicated symbolically with students through her physical cues like
posture, gaze and expressions. Her postures and poses served as prompts and cues for
her students. Typical cues included a postural tempo change, slouching, and sitting
erectly. Dana used non-verbal cues to communicate desired student behaviors that
145
Verbal communications were a predominant SI element. Inflection, syllabic
analyzing the data, I used a member check process with Dana to confirm my interpretive
meanings and the significance that these objects held for the individual. Second,
meaning was obtained by social interaction with others that provided a foundation for
developing meaning towards others. Third, meanings were processed and modified by
with others. Blumer said, “To ignore the meaning of the things toward which people act
is seen as falsifying the behavior under study” (p. 3). For the purposes of this study, I
interpreted the ways that Dana handled and modified meanings that she signified toward
things. This study did not seek to understand symbolic interactionism from the students’
perspectives. Therefore, from this purview, I sought to understand how Dana interacted
with her students toward the explicit and implicit classroom objectives.
At WHS, all teachers were required to provide a course syllabus to each student.
The syllabus provided very explicit directions and expectations for students during the
course. The explicit objectives were expressed without any type vagueness or ambiguity.
146
interpretation. Specifically, these goals were objective and did not contain subjective
Dana’s heart, goals and aspirations for her students. Dana provided ample examples of
her explicit assumptions. These were provided through handouts, i.e., assignments,
The implicit objectives were by nature more subjective and interpretive. The
coding of these objectives required that I look beyond the obvious and read between the
lines for implied meanings. Nosek and Banaji (2009) defined implicit attitudes. They
purported,
Implicit attitudes were not accessed by introspection, and may exist outside of
conscious awareness. Implicit attitudes were derived from the basic mental
experience and accumulating those associations into summary assessments (p. 3).
and engaged her students in understanding her intended goals (Nosek & Banaji, 2009).
These factors were identified by noting non-verbal communications like physical posture,
communicate had the potential to influence how her students grasped the attitudes, values
and beliefs that she wanted them to ascertain. These views were derived from the
accumulated lifetime experiences and wisdom she had gained from those experiences.
Another symbolic interactionism facet included the role that individuals played in
147
1969). Dana modeled her love and passion for learning to her students. During the SRI,
I asked Dana, “How does non-verbal language play a role in your teaching?” She
replied, “It’s part of who I am . . . As far as, you know, sitting there and . . . and reading
while they were working, uh, I try to model what I want them to do” (D. Dunn, personal
communication, September 17, 2012). Goleman & Boyatzis (2008) suggested that
people modeled the behaviors of their mentors. As mentors, teachers were to require
curricular rigor and high expectations of their students while simultaneously fostering a
communications included the idea that all individuals must develop skills needed to
accurately perceive human interaction symbols (Charon, 2009). I presumed that students
applied to those perceptions and the meanings were perceived with respect to their social
Dana communicated richly with her students through various avenues. Art
clearly than a sonnet. I initially imagined that holistic learning occurred in this
reached past mere written words– the logos, the dried ink. Artistry was contextualized
148
and gave meaning to still life photos through the tools of color and symmetry. The
unknown hovered here. For example, the naiveté of “The Looming Tiger”, an original
poem and painting penned by a 2008 graduate, housed a haunting appeal (Appendix G).
Assessing the students’ perceptions and apperceptions was not an easy process for
Dana. Her soulful values that she communicated through implicit and explicit
interactions and the students’ perception of those values were unquantifiable. Time and
experience acquired those findings. Dana yearned to help individuals grasp gestalt,
The dissention point was relegated to the youthful perceptions and comprehensions of her
students’ abilities to know, understand and accurately interpret their teacher. She
engaged in a reciprocal trust with her students thus signifying a unique learning culture.
As supported by the EOCT data, Dana effectively communicated with her students at a
high degree. Her previous students had scored above the 90% level, a predetermined
criteria for participation in this case study (Georgia Department of Education, 2012).
Dana stated during her SRI, “I feel most confident teaching, I think, is guiding students to
149
(Goleman & Boyatzis, 2008). Dana exemplified both interpersonal intelligence and
social intelligence during her instruction. She used implicit instructions to convey her
goals and embedded meanings to her students. According to Goleman (1998), social
intelligence during the SRI. She stated, “I walked over to that group that I feel like is
maybe kinda getting off task, wandering a little bit, getting a little, you know, irrelevant,
and try to bring them back to why they’re doing it” (D. Dunn, personal communication,
September 17, 2012). Conversely, during an A. P. class, one student’s cell phone rang.
Dana viewed the incident as merely a failure to turn the phone off. She stated, “Real
world here. Sorry”. Dana did not view the ringing of the cell phone as a willful breaking
of the rules. Rather, she perceived the incident as an error, an oversight that she too
overlooked. Her social intelligence helped Dana to ethically manage the situation. She
demonstrated her value for learning above merely keeping the rules and demonstrated a
clearly posted explicit goals throughout the classroom. Although Dana never verbally
referenced these goals and expectations during the observations, they were prominently
posted in the learning environment. They interjected intentional meanings. Dana posted
a motto above the whiteboard just to the right of the inevitable instructional determinant,
the clock. The second hand tick tocked silently but consistently. The formidable mantra,
“You are who you choose to be”, shouted its lofty refrain from the dusty white walls just
above the whiteboard. White was so stark and cold. Yet, the language was hauntingly
hot. This learning smorgasbord offered students delicacies unrequired by the curriculum
150
guides. The learning culture suggested that hard work often was rewarded with high
Dana modeled her social intelligence by suggesting that she understood her
Dana deeply engaged her students in the concept of literary characterization, as she
dramatized the book’s dried ink. She ardently asked, “What about the woman? . . .
‘Fadingly pretty’. How sad! ‘Fadingly pretty?!’ Think about the connotations. Was she
once prettier than she is now? Um, does she maybe seem to sort of fade into the
background?” (D. Dunn, classroom observation, August 27, 2012). Dana stressed the
words “fadingly pretty” while dramatizing the phrase through her expression and posture.
Her raised shoulders and sorrowful demur demonstrated her implicit repudiation for the
skills (Gardner, 2007) prompted her to remember her thoughts and perceptions as a
student. She had masterfully blended brittle literary facts with beauty, a bombastic and
unavoidable facet of teenage lifestyle. During the SRI, I said, “You often use different
emotions when teaching. In this clip, help me understand what you seek to impart to
your students. Later on you add the sentence, ‘We know how it felt’” (D. Dunn, personal
She replied,
151
I guess I was trying through um, expressing how that would make me feel so that
they could actually see a picture of how that . . . I perceived it to feel so that they
could more fully understand it. Because they’re young, their prettiness hasn’t
started to fade yet (D. Dunn, personal communication, September 17, 2012).
Dana, the actress, reenacted the author’s centric intention and highlighted some of her
students’ deepest social and emotional issues that were emergently embedded within their
teenage hearts.
and cultural relevance. The old and the new were embedded in a continuum. The
students. The formidable mantra, “You are who you choose to be”, shouted its refrain
from the dusty white walls just above the whiteboard. Then, a message embossed in
bright shiny colors glared its challenge across the bulletin board stating, “Unless you try
to do something beyond what you have already mastered, you will never grow.” Its
“Assume nothing”, peeled its inaudible proclamation from the bland block walls. These
152
intentions and collaborative capabilities. Dana suggested that she struggled with teaching
outside her comfort zone. Students were allowed to work together when they
demonstrated the capacity for effective collaboration. During the SRI, Dana noted,
My task for myself this year was to try to have my class be a more student-
facilitated class, less rigid, less structured . . . allow the students opportunity to,
you know, become more self-disciplined, and . . . um, and allow them to
Cultural factors held important consequences for human interactions and learning.
Dana sought to help her senior class mature. Her students were to demonstrate maturity
by accurately interpreting her implicit cues and assumptions. Dana stated in the pre-
observational survey that she “agreed”, versus stating that she “highly agreed”, that her
teaching habits aided her students in participatory engagement in learning. The students
were required to intently focus on her intended meanings to effectively interpret Dana’s
teaching and whether or not I really feel like I know and I’m prepared . . . I have
experiences or things that I can bring to the lesson that helps students see why it’s
important for them (D. Dunn, personal communication, September 17, 2012).
Yet, Dana disowned full control of the interpretations and the applications of her intended
learning goals for the students. When students failed to accurately interpret implicit
153
goals, Dana may have assumed that the students’ failure was caused by her inability to
effectively engage them in learning. Thus, her feelings about her self-efficacy could have
capacities for understanding Dana’s intended meanings and those that extended beyond
Dana worked diligently to be highly organized. She hoped that her preparation
would allow her to control her own instructional practices and her students’ learning
behaviors. Yet, she could not control her student’s personal willingness and motivation
to engage in the learning process. Rather, the social interactions in the classroom were
controlled by multiple human factors outside the management of the teacher. This
controlled. Rather the interactions occurred based on the relationships between the
Dana’s intolerance for the spontaneous and unplanned activities had admittedly
been problematic for her until recent years. Recently, she attempted to provide students
Dana currently maintained stronger self-trust than in previous years. During the SRI,
I guess I’ve been more in control . . . in charge, more teacher-facilitated. But I’m
trying to break out of that and have my classes be more student facilitated . . . Put
more of the learning responsibility on the student while giving them what they
need to be able to do that, but then step back away from it . . . when that really
154
comes together in a class is when I feel really confident that, “Okay, that worked
. . . It didn’t all blow up . . . Things didn’t fall apart, just because I wasn’t in
charge every single step of the way” (D. Dunn, personal communication,
intelligence, whereby individuals were able to accurately self-assess and predict their
that critical thinking skills and philosophical tendencies were common among those
competencies.
learning culture. Dana delicately kept her sense of confidence in balance. She was
overtly shy, sheepishly short and bombastically bashful to the core. Yet Dana’s strength
instructional habits suggested that Dana remained centered on preparing her students for
reaching their maximum potential. Dana viewed teaching through a glass more than
through a mirror. Her personal reflections prompted Dana to make effective instructional
changes when they were needed. A calm disquietedness that was overshadowed by her
kindnesses signified Dana’s disdain for mediocrity. This unpenned quality was implied
155
Gardner (2006) suggested that intrapersonal intelligence helped an individual to
more self-productive. One’s sense of self was thus constructed by both interpersonal and
intrapersonal factors. The notion that the individual constructed a sense of reality was
was an interaction between one’s life experiences and his thoughts (Vygotsky, 1978).
meanings (Vygotsky, 1978) through authentic problem solving (21st Century Learning
Environments, 2007; Danielson, 2007; Dewey, 1938; Marzano, 2007). Dana knew from
personal experiences that teaching a man to fish was the right way to instruct learners.
The third major theme reflected that when teachers created an effective learning
culture, they sought to engage learners. Kate’s data set revealed 56 coded segments in
“learning culture” and was Kate’s third most commonly occurring subcode. Significant
subcodes emerged from an analysis of the “learning culture” data set. The “learning
environment” codes emerged 22 times in the data set. “Brain-compatible learning” codes
insulated place where students felt protected. She said, “I like to make it a very safe
environment so they don’t feel like anybody’s going to say something to them” (K. King,
personal observation, September 12, 2012). The literature purported that students were
156
best engaged in learning when they felt safe and unthreatened (Durlak & Weissberg,
2007).
Her management style helped to dictate the expected behaviors of the students.
Kate suggested that her expectations for individuals provided a way to differentiate
instruction for her students. Kate differentiated instruction because she had quickly
learned specific learning characteristics about each student. She said, “It’s really more
their behavior I think because, you know, for one person I might say, ‘That is totally
unacceptable. You cannot do that. I want to see you after class’” (K. King, personal
observation, September 12, 2012). Kate explained how she defined the learning ethos
based on each individual student’s personality and lifestyle. She explained, “And for
another person it might be, “I know you’ve had a rough morning . . . but you know you
can’t do that. So why don’t you get your stuff together and let’s move on” (K. King,
She noted that the learning environment was socially created based upon her
perception of what each student needed rather than what he deserved (Kouzes & Posner,
of a student’s qualities rather than the absence of specific attributes. Such a viewpoint
provided Kate many options for creating, defining and reimaging the learning ethos
moment by moment. Sousa (2011) suggested that joyful interactions helped students
learn. Effective teachers engaged in “positive forces for a climate conducive to learning”
(p. 68). Kate said, “So it just . . . it just depends on the student and the situation” (K.
157
Kate described specific learning moments where an “epiphany” occurred (K.
King, classroom observation, August 29, 2012). Such insight into the essential meaning
spiritual insight. Kate allowed a student who had an epiphany to present her findings to
the class, a group of her peers. She placed significant importance on the moment by
stating, “Alexia is going to explain to us, because she had the epiphany and figured it
out” (K. King, classroom observation, August 29, 2012). Kate then stepped aside and
provided opportunity for this student to join the ranks of the master teacher. The
manifestation in the moment emanated from the student’s ability to have figured it.
Kate’s actions suggested that Alexia could demonstrate to her cohorts how she
determined this answer to be correct. The prestigious opportunity allowed this student to
instruct her peers for a brief moment that lingered deeply in the student’s soul. As a
result, the students acquiesced. Kate displayed an instructional giftedness that was not
present in many teachers with whom I had met. The ethos reflected a pleasurable and
Once Kate helped her students conceptually understand the scientific concept
flames. Sometimes you’ll have explosions, but not always. If we’re talking about
fire, explosions, what kind of energy does it produce? Heat. Usually in the form
of heat and what else? Flame. Yeah! (K. King, classroom observation,
September 7, 2012).
158
Whereas Kate potentially engaged female students when she suggested that everyone had
swallowed bugs, she probably engaged the young male minds by mentioning fire.
During the observation Kate did not specifically state that she intentionally wanted to
engage the genders by using the bug and fire examples. Using a member check, Kate
confirmed that she had not intentionally differentiated for genders (K. King, personal
can observe. You can see light from it. You can feel heat from it, but not always.
But generally the ones that we notice and are impressed by are the ones that give
off a lot of heat and light” (K. King, classroom observation, September 7, 2012).
Using the words “we notice” and “are impressed by” provided emotional prompts for her
students. This suggested that Kate viewed combustion, a physical science term, in a
novel way to engage the imaginations of her young learners. Allen (2008) notated that
engaging the imagination was highly effective way to embed learning in the mind.
The third major theme reflected that when teachers created an effective learning
culture, they sought to engage learners. The first research question determined to
understand the teachers’ attitudes toward instructing 21st century learning skills. The
Andy. Andy’s fourth strongest data set was “learning culture”. The most
suggested that he highly desired to engage students in 21st century learning. His ability to
159
present brain-compatible learning strategies created a way to teach important skills like
“critical thinking” and the ability to “access and analyze information”. The fourth theme
Dana. The third strongest theme in Dana’s data set was “learning culture”.
Important factors in the culture were “brain-compatible learning” and the general
“learning environment”. Other key factors were “innovation and creativity” and
“accessing and analyzing information”. These factors formulated the framework for 21st
century skills instruction. Dana’s unique ability to define the learning culture uniquely
provided a pathway for preparing students with pertinent global skills needed in the
workplace.
Kate. The parent code group “learning culture” contained only two codes less
than the “21st century learning” code group. Essentially, they were nearly equal. The
third theme was indelibly connected to Kate’s attitude towards instructing 21st century
skills development. It was plausible that Kate displayed a greater connection between the
third theme and the first research question than any other participant.
The third major theme suggested that when teachers created an effective learning
culture, they sought to engage learners. The second research question sought to
determine the extent to which teachers engaged their students in creativity and
innovation.
Andy. The “learning culture” existed as Andy’s fourth most important parent
code group. Critical factors like the “learning environment” and “brain-compatible
learning” created a cultural foundation for learning activities. Although “creativity and
innovation” were coded a minimal number of times, the factors suggested that Andy
160
constructed a foundation during the observations for implementing creative and
innovative ways of learning in the future. A relatively firm connection existed between
the fourth theme and the second research question with potential for futuristic growth
connections.
Dana. Dana’s third most commonly occurring code was the area of “learning
culture” and was comprised of two main subcode groups, “brain-compatible learning”
and “learning environment” codes. The “learning culture” was impacted by the physical
aspects of the classroom and the academic ethos. She related experiential learning
Kate. The “learning culture” in Kate’s classroom was highly designed for student
environmental factors aided her ability to engage students in learning. Kate offered ways
for her students to present their understanding and knowledge mastery in creative and
innovate ways. As identified, Kate questioned her prowess at teaching creativity and she
suggested a need for improvement in teaching creativity. The data suggested that her
students were engaged in creative expression of their knowledge and had been exposed to
The third research question determined to understand the degree that teachers
instructed their students in NLS. This relevant question was addressed in the section
measured their own self-efficacy in teaching 21st century learning skills within the core
161
curriculum. This theme was highly pertinent to the third major theme regarding the
participant’s self-efficacy measurement in teaching 21st century skills within the core
curriculum was determined by various factors. Instruction and learning was comprised of
both learning factors and assessment factors. Student assessment was a central
Andy. Andy’s self-efficacy in teaching the 21st century learning skills was
connection existed between the fourth research question and the participant’s ability to
Dana. The self-efficacy in teaching “21st century learning” skills was well-
aligned with the fourth research question for Dana. She found a magnetic connection
between her self-efficacy and the “learning culture”. The data suggested that the
environment and “brain-compatible learning” strategies aided her ability to teach “21st
within the core curriculum were partially founded upon test scores. Kate’s “21st century
learning” codes suggested a correlation between teaching skills and the environmental
factors. Her student management skills provided a foundation for implementing effective
The third major theme was uniquely related to research questions one, two, three
and four across all three participants. The third research question determined to
162
understand the degree that teachers instructed their students in NLS. This relevant
question was addressed in the section regarding the fourth major theme.
Table 3
Brain compatibility 36 26 33
Ethics/Values 15 0 0
Learning environment 23 11 23
The data reflects each participant’s instruction in factors regarding engagement in the
learning culture.
The fourth theme emerged: When teachers focused on student learning styles, it
was evidenced in their instructional habits. The first most often occurring code was
learning styles (LS) with 102 coded segments. The two most often identified codes were
NLS and “self-regulation”. The NLS area was coded 85 times and “self-regulation” was
coded 13 times. The NLS subcode group contained the subcode group “RWL” which
was coded 83 times. “Real-world” learning will be presented and discussed later as a
minor code. The subcode group “media fluency” was coded only twice and was
essentially a non-factor.
2007; Zima, 2007) specific to K-12 learning and empirical studies (Evans & Cools,
2011). The area of LS had been exhaustively researched (Coffield et al., 2004; Li, 2008).
It suggested that individuals possessed unique learning preferences that impacted their
163
learning (Evans & Cools, 2011; Kozhevnikov, 2007; Li, 2008; Zhang & Sternberg, 2006)
and that learners used many cognitive styles (Coffield, Moseley, Hall, & Ecclestone,
2004b; Li, 2008; Rayner & Cools, 2011; Sadler-Smith, 2009). Significant recent
neuroscience research also investigated LS (Pashler et al., 2009; Sims & Sims, 2006;
existed in the literature (Coffield, et al., 2004b; Cools, 2009). Nonetheless, 21st century
was centric to designing effective instruction. The 21st century learner, or digital native
(Prensky, 2001a, Palfrey & Gasser, 2008), was uniquely hardwired (Buckingham, 2007)
and engaged in learning in fundamentally different ways than previous generations. The
literature suggested the need for a paradigmatic shift in instructional strategies and
practices (Dieterle et al., 2008; Jenkins et al., 2006; Salaway et al., 2007). The literature
cited the need to produce an integrated model of NLS (Dieterle et al., 2008;
Kozhevnikov, 2007) that met the individual student’s LS preferences (Li, 2008; Evans &
Cools, 2011; Zhang & Sternberg, 2006). Neomillenials learned best when they were
rigorously challenged and engaged in shared learning experiences (Dieterle et al., 2008;
styles literature, the field of cognitive styles lacked a coherent mutually accepted theory.
There existed a need to close the gap between evidential LS theory and instructional
practices (Rayner 2011; Kozhevnikov, 2007; Zima, 2007) that particularly embodied K-
164
statements were related to items based on students’ LS. Part C contained four attitudinal
statements related to items based on the students’ LS. Andy agreed that he understood
the meaning of student LS and that his professional development experiences have helped
instructional strategies and techniques reflected an effective use of the LS of his students,
and that his personal experiences helped him to use LS more effectively. Andy noted that
he felt strongest about using LS and blending personal experiences with effective LS to
use cognitive LS during instruction. The fourth question asked, “What learning styles
strategies or techniques are you most and least confident in using when instructing
students? Why?” Andy wrote “Auditory” in the margin outside the question. He then
wrote, “visual, tactil” in the margin on the right side of the page. Andy later explained
that he felt most confident using auditory instruction (lecture) and least confident using
visual and tactile instructional strategies (A. Adams, personal communication, August 22,
2012).
Andy’s technology. The subcode area of media fluency was noted only twice.
Although the subcodes for media fluency were minimal, the data did not suggest an
that 21st century media fluency involved an evaluative use of digital information and
participatory analysis and problem-solving (Dede, 2005; Dieterle, Dede & Schrier, 2007;
165
In regard to 21st century learning styles, the NLS showed preference towards
desktop interface, augmented realities, multi-user virtual environments and various types
of multimedia (Dieterle, Dede & Schrier, 2007). The case study learning environment
did not contain the technology tools that were needed for students to be highly engaged in
various 21st century learning skills necessary for successfully learning and working in the
21st century educational and global workplace (Partnership for 21st century skills, 2011;
Wagner, 2008).
Andy often related the curriculum to his own upbringing. He stated that he grew
up on the "poor side of town” (Andy Adams, personal communication, September 21,
2012). Andy passionately related the economic struggles that he experienced growing up
to the struggles of today’s students. He believed that they shared similar conditions that
were separated only by time. When discussing 21st century learning, Andy addressed the
fact that outside the school day many students struggled with access to technology,
Did you know a large percentage of the people in your county do not have
Internet access? Anybody live out where you can’t get high speed Internet?
Boom. Coach Adams makes all this stuff up. Okay? What do y’all use?
Satellite? . . . And that’s the way it was for everyone. I was growing up without
During the SRI, I asked Andy about how technology impacted his instructional
practices. I asked the question, “To what extent does your use of technology impact
166
I have a Promethean board . . . I’ll pull in video clips . . . It’s a much more visual
world, and they’re stimulated by that. But I can talk to ‘em all day long . . . If I
can incorporate music and video . . . all of a sudden there’s a different student in
Andy noted that his students used mobile lab computers during instruction. I did not
focus on the students’ use of technology during this case study. From his perspective,
I let them do just several things with . . . the mobile labs in our room . . . Right
now we’re in a stock market game . . . It’s got feedback . . . The USA test preps
already gone over the concepts . . . It’s like reeling in a big fish (A. Adams,
The Promethean board was Andy’s strongest technology weapon. It wielded the
power to inflict assessment. Yet, it provided the potential for students to gain life-
changing information. During instruction, Andy often wrote electronically with the
While browsing the CNN website, he stated, “If you come up here, and go ‘issues’ . . .
everything’s slow this morning” (A. Adams, classroom observation, August 29, 2012).
The teacher’s use of technology did not substantiate reasons for coding it as “media
fluency”. Rather, the participant’s use of technology for instructional purposes was
multimedia” reflected the times that the participant engaged the students in using specific
167
types of technology. In the final analysis, the codes did not identify “technology” skills
A fourth theme reflected that when teachers focused on student LS, it was
evidenced in their instructional habits. The fourth most often occurring code was LS
with 26 coded segments. The most two often identified codes were “NLS” and “self-
regulation”. The “NLS” area was coded 19 times and “self-regulation” was coded 7
times. The subcode group “RWL”, a component of NLS, was coded 10 times. “Real-
statements related to items based on students’ LS. Dana was very confident that she
understood the meaning of LS and that her instructional techniques reflected effective use
of it. She also agreed that she felt confident that her personal and professional
development experiences helped her to instruct her students. In part D, four attitudinal
statements related to items based on the CCSS were presented. Dana agreed to each
statement. She felt confident that she knew how to instruct the CCSS and that her
instructional strategies aided the instruction of the CCSS. She stated that her personal
experiences helped her to instruct the CCSS more successfully and that her professional
development experiences have helped her to effectively teach the CCSS. Dana wrote the
Now that I have attempted to complete this, I feel less than confident about all of
coursework. I truly don’t take issue with the 25-year-cycle of paradigm shifting
168
that occurs in education. The world changes; and, we need to be certain that we
are making changes to help our students be prepared for these changes. I do not,
however, keep up the new jargon. So I don’t know that I can answer your
easier for students to think less critically– the answers are so readily available.
Some things don’t change – we still need to figure out how to make the
connection for students between hard work and success (D. Dunn, personal
Question four focused on Dana’s understanding and perception of her ability to use
cognitive LS during instruction. The fourth question asked, “What learning styles
strategies or techniques are you most and least confident in using when instructing
students? Why?”. Dana wrote, “most –visual” and “least– kinetic” (D. Dunn, personal
communication, August 20, 2012). This reflected a traditional view of using LS in the
During the SRI, I said, “Describe how you use cognitive learning styles in
here as far as an educator . . . I’m a very visual learner . . . I’m not one who learns
so much just by listening. But if I write down what I’m listening to, then I learn
it. If I can see it done, if you can give me examples that I can look at, then I can
learn. And I know it’s that way for students (D. Dunn, personal communication,
169
Dana understood professionally and as a parent that individuals showed learning
preferences. She shared a personal story of how her son demonstrated an auditory
And it . . . it became very clear to me with my younger son, because it was not
until he was grown and out of school that I realized that he’s an auditory learner.
That’s why he never wrote anything down in school. And I thought it was just
parent and translate that to the classroom (D. Dunn, personal communication,
Dana expressed her attitudes about letting students make personal LS choices. Her
viewpoint was fully aligned with the findings in the literature review. NLS showed
preferences towards various LS and succeeded when they were allowed to learn in those
modalities (Dede, 2009a; Dieterle, Dede, Perkins, & Russell, 2008). Dana reflected,
There are some kids who don’t have to write things down; and, I have to get over
the fact that it looks like they’re not participating or they’re not engaged . . .
They’re listening, and that’s just the way they get it. Um, so I try to be more
understanding and not take offense, because they’re not engaged in doing it the
way I think it oughta be done. I have to let them do it the way it works for them.
And as long as I see that it’s working for them . . . then it’s fine (D. Dunn,
Dana encouraged her students to use visual engagement to learn the information. “If you
have a highlighter you’re welcome to get it out; or you can use one of mine” (D. Dunn,
170
A research study examined the relationship between LS and test-taking behaviors
when students were given a multiple-choice exam. The study suggested that an
association existed between LS and test-taking strategies (McNulty, Espiritu, Halsey &
exam that her students had taken the prior year. She said, “Ask anybody who took the
class last year. They said doing all the multiple choice really, really helped!” (D. Dunn,
classroom observation, August 24, 2012). Dana understood the need to differentiate
students’ LS and to allow them to use what worked best for them.
parent code group “learning styles” and appeared seven times in the data. General LS
codes were minimal and appeared only five times. Dana suggested that students would
adapt and grow as they matured in life through the process of repeated self-regulated
I was raised by a very strict family in a rural environment . . . I share that with my
students sometimes because I want them to see that, you know, the way you are in
high school does not necessarily mean that’s the way you’re gonna be the rest of
your life. You have opportunity to grow and to change things that you, you know,
don’t really like or they’re not really working for you (D. Dunn, personal
Dana reminded her students to be self-regulated learners and to be prepared for class the
next day. She stated, “Add to your A. P. multiple-choice log what you did today. And
we’ll just keep a running record of how you’re doing. Come tomorrow prepared for us to
really examine those rough drafts” (D. Dunn, classroom observation, August 23, 2012).
171
During the SRI, Dana pointed out, “Little things count. You know, your effort counts.
The pride that you take . . . in your work is important” (D. Dunn, personal observation,
The literature identified a gap in the area of “self-regulation” research (Evans &
Waring, 2009). Self-regulation was aligned with the idea of personal responsibility.
Responsibility factors were coded as “self-regulation”. This study did not seek to know
the extent that the learners implemented the instruction in their learning practices. As a
result, the data analysis did not examine the attitudes or actions of the students.
The final major theme reflected that when teachers focused on student LS, it was
evidenced in their instructional habits. The parent code group “LS” was coded 33 times.
Within the parent code group, the subcode NLS appeared 20 times and general “LS”
emerged ten times. “Self-regulation” was coded twice and “contextual and situational
Within the NLS subcode group, “RWL” was coded 13 times. This significant
subcode will be presented and discussed later as a minor theme. As a result, the
remaining NLS codes were minimal. The subcode group “individual preferences”
appeared only five times and “collaborative learning” appeared only twice.
In the survey, Kate stated that she was very confident that she understood the
meaning of student LS. She strongly agreed her instructional strategies and techniques
reflected an effective use of the LS. Kate agreed that her professional learning
experiences had helped her to effectively implement LS during instruction. Kate noted
that she felt that her students enjoyed using hands-on learning activities and she felt
172
confident using that learning style. Kate suggested that hands-on learning helped
individual students who “do not like sharing out loud to share and show what they are
capable of in other ways” (K. King, personal communication, September 12, 2012).
Kate generally implemented her students in auditory, visual and kinesthetic LS.
She referenced the fact that her students would observe Bill Nye. This suggested that the
students would be engaged in audio-visual learning. During the SRI, Kate referenced the
We just finished watching “October Sky” and we talked a lot about the
applications to everyday life in that. Uh, we probably will watch “Apollo 13”
later and, you know, talk about how the things they discovered then gave us some
of the things that we have now that we’re accustomed to using” (K. King,
various times.
By design, Kate’s lectures were highly auditory. She highly employed auditory
learning during lecture and often framed the lecture around a visual, i.e., a handout, a
drawing on the whiteboard, or the Promethean board. Kate engaged her students in
interactive visual aid. During a lesson, Kate diagrammed concepts on the whiteboard and
placed electrons and neutrons on the appropriate circles. She used different visuals to
demonstrate the same concept. She drew Lewis dot structures and a circular diagram on
the whiteboard as a visual. Kate understood the need to differentiate her instruction in
173
small ways like diagramming.
I wanted to understand Kate’s self-efficacy with LS. In her survey, Kate wrote, “I
King, personal communication, September 12, 2012). Kate’s learning design did not lend
students engaged in traditional learning. Yet, Kate noted that she designed the learning
I do let them talk for some things. It depends on what it is. If it’s something that
I really feel that they are not gonna be able to do it unless they are not talking and
thinking about it on their own, then I make them be silent (K. King, personal
Kate offered students various ways to implement learning preferences. She suggested
that some students used headsets to listen to music as a way of focusing while reading.
Kate provided students optional ways kinesthetic learning. She stated, “You can shade
‘em in, draw a line through them, just indicate them in some way” (K. King, classroom
The final major theme suggested that when teachers focused on student learning
styles, it was evidenced in their instructional habits. The first research question
determined to understand the teachers’ attitudes toward instructing 21st century learning
skills. This theme was very highly pertinent to research question one.
Andy. Andy’s most prominent code in the code set was “LS”. The most
prominent subcodes suggested that “NLS”, “self-regulated learning” and “general LS”
174
were key factors. These factors suggested that Andy showed a very positive attitude
Dana. The subcodes that emerged most often were “NLS”, “self-regulated
learning” and “general LS”. These key factors suggested that Dana had a very positive
Kate. The most emergent subcodes were “NLS”, “self-regulated learning” and
“general LS”. All three factors suggested that Kate displayed a most positive attitude
towards teaching “21st century learning” skills. The findings across all three participant
code sets strongly suggested that the fourth theme was highly relevant to the first research
question.
The final major theme suggested that when teachers focused on student learning
styles, it was evidenced in their instructional habits as shown in Table 4. The second
research question endeavored to understand the extent to which the participants engaged
Table 4
Contextual/Situational learning 0 0 1
Learning styles 4 5 10
The data reflects each participant’s praxis based on students’ learning styles.
Andy. The “LS” subcodes suggested that Andy centered LS instruction mostly
175
regulated learning” and “general LS”. The “creativity and innovation” factor was mildly
represented in the data set. The observational data suggested that Andy planned to
Dana. The ten subcodes placed “creativity and innovation” as the second highest
ranking factor in “21st century learning” in Dana’s code set. The data suggested that
Dana modeled these factors more than she assessed them during the observational period.
The “LS” subcode sets, i.e., “LS” and “self-regulation” were mildly represented in the
code database. Dana suggested that her students made personal LS choices. The data
suggested that providing students learning choices was aligned with allowing students to
Kate. The “LS” data reflected that Kate mildly engaged students in learning
based on their preferences for general LS. The data suggested that NLS was the strongest
teaching “creativity and innovation” skills in conjunction with the LS data suggested a
mild connection between the two factors. While the observations suggested a less than
strong confidence in teaching “creativity and innovation”, Kate commented that other
people believed that she was a creative person. This subjugation to personal perceptions
and other’s opinions created a disharmonious connection between her focus on student
LS and the extent to which she engaged her students in creativity and innovation.
The final major theme’s relevance to the second research question regarding
“creativity and innovation” was evident. Yet, the data did not suggest as strong a
176
The last major theme noted that when teachers focused on student LS, it was
evidenced in their instructional habits. The third research question determined to know
the degree to which teachers implemented NLS. This question was analyzed as a minor
their own self-efficacy in teaching 21st century learning skills within the core curriculum.
This theme was highly pertinent to the fourth theme. Instruction and learning were
21st century skills within the core curriculum was determined by various factors.
Andy. The most prominent parent code group was “LS”. The largest factor was
NLS and was discussed as a minor theme. The first research question determined to
understand the teachers’ attitudes toward instructing “21st century learning” skills. Andy
engaged his students in 21st century skills development by teaching critical thinking skills
and acquiring and analyzing information. These two parent code groups ranked first and
second in the data set. The data suggested LS was a key factor and was highly connected
Dana. The data suggested that Dana moderately engaged students in learning
development were centric to her instructional practices. This theme was highly
Kate. The data reflected that Kate engaged her students in learning based on LS
to a moderate degree. The most significant factor was NLS and was discussed as a minor
177
theme. Kate instructed her students to think critically and to use other 21st century skills.
Table 5
Collaborative learning 0 0 2
Individual preferences 0 3 5
Real-world learning 83 10 13
Self-regulation 13 7 2
The data reflects each participant’s instruction based on neomillennial learning styles.
The last major theme was specifically related to research questions one, two, three and
four. The third research question determined to understand the degree that teachers
instructed their students in NLS. This relevant question was addressed in the section
regarding the fourth major theme. As noted in Figure 3, the major themes showed varying
relative significance to the four research questions that guided this study.
178
Figure 3. The four major themes’ relevance to the research questions.
The first minor theme stated that critical thinking was an indispensable part of
second most commonly occurring minor theme was: Critical thinking is an indispensable
Bernard, Borokhovski, Wade, Surkes, Tamim, & Zhang, 2008), when critical thinking
skills were taught as “an independent track within a specific content course”, the greatest
learning effects occurred; but, critical thinking maintained the smallest effect when it was
thinking instruction was recognized as the single strongest method for teaching students
to use this vital skill. The literature review supported a strong need for 21st century
learners to develop critical thinking skills (Common Core State Standards, 2010;
179
During an emotional and engaging moment, Andy and his students discussed how
Adolf Hitler was empowered and tyrannically misled his own people. Andy suggested
that Americans could learn from the World War II Germans. By thinking critically about
the holocaust scenarios and issues, these students could learn how to avoid a similar
problem in the U. S. A short segment of the discussion provided insight into the heart of
You will listen to crazy things when you can’t eat, ladies and gentlemen! You
understand? So he says, “Hey! You know why you’re starving? You know why
your babies don’t have enough food to eat? These Jews have polluted the way
our society… They have ruined what made us great. We must get rid of them!”
And all of a sudden you bought into it! (A. Adams, classroom observation,
He implied that students could experience similar life events during their lives.
Therefore, they were to comprehend and correctly interpret how leaders like Hitler had
misled the people. By implementing critical thinking skills, students could develop
higher reasoning skills and may potentially avoid similar circumstances. He interjected
the notion that recent political decisions had placed U. S. citizens’ personal freedoms in
You give up a little bit of this freedom. You know, we had that debate after 9/11,
didn’t we? Talk to me. They were saying. “Look, if you’ll give up your freedom.
You’re gonna have to give up a little bit of your freedom so we can make sure we
don’t have another what?” Terrorist attack. And some people said, “Yes, we’ll
give up some of our freedom”. And some people said what? “No! We don’t
180
wanna live like that”. Those are things that you have to answer as individuals (A.
Andy wanted his students to think deeply about the political issues and the implications
Andy sought to engage his students in critical thinking by posing various ways for
them to view ideas and theories. In one observation, Andy addressed his students by
stating, “These two theories are behind everything that they’re arguing about. Okay? It’s
not the social issues, but the economic issues. Behind all of ‘em are these two theories”
(A. Adams, classroom observation, September 4, 2012). This practice was aligned with
the research on critical thinking. According to Sumner (1940), critical thinking involved
examining and testing of ideas in order to determine whether or not they conformed to
Andy posed a cause and effect scenario that required students to think critically.
Initially, he created a fictional scenario where newly enacted laws and regulations had
caused someone to not receive governmental support. Andy proposed that negative
Andy wanted his students to challenge the status quo on Wall Street. He said, “I didn’t
make a bad decision. But you’re telling me the market’s gonna punish me for a bad
decision when I didn’t make it. Does that make sense? Some of you are getting
collective marketplace outcomes to the decisions made by only a few people as a “cause
181
political party over the other based on that party’s viewpoints and perspectives.
They don’t really like social programs. Therefore, they don’t really like welfare.
They’ve even gone as far as calling President Obama “The Welfare President”
and different things like that to show their disdain for it. They don’t really like
public schools. Okay? One of the reasons they don’t like public schools is taxes
. . . It’s the idea that “I’m gonna pay for a school that does not work” . . . Now if
the school works, they don’t mind paying taxes for it (A. Adams, classroom
Students were challenged to wrestle with the issues, to challenge one another’s
decision. Andy did not press his students to demonstrate a political party preference. He
was deeply concerned that each student was prepared to justify his belief system based on
the facts. By using well-formulated, fact-driven theses and arguments, students were
encouraged to vote and to make a difference in public policy. These juniors and seniors
were near the voting age. Andy expected that the student’s political decisions were based
The initial minor theme reflected that critical thinking was an indispensable part
of instruction. The foremost subcode area, “critical thinking”, was coded 20 times as part
of the “21st century learning skills” code group. Critical thinking was the highest
“innovation and creativity” and “accessing and analyzing information”. The “innovation
182
and creativity” and “accessing and analyzing information” subcodes each contained 10
codes. The area of “curiosity and imagination” appeared nine times in the data.
The literature noted that the 21st century learning skills, critical thinking, and
problem-solving were important factors (Partnership for 21st century learning, 2007;
Wagner, 2008). Critical thinking was correlated with the ability to solve problems.
During the SRI, I asked Dana, “What 21st century skills are you teaching at this time?”
She said,
With regard to 21st century skills . . . I’m trying to teach them how to be prepared
for a specific kind of test. I’m also trying to teach them some problem-solving
skills. Um, when they . . . you know, they have to look at what information
they’re given, they have to figure out what they are actually being asked (D.
She noted, “I’m also trying to teach them some problem-solving skills” (D. Dunn,
personal communication, September 17, 2012). Dana never asked for a definition of 21st
century learning skills at any point during the data collection process. Yet, she seemed
unclear about knowing specific factors that constituted 21st century learning skills. Dana
authentically admitted,
Whether that’s officially called a “21st century skill”, I don’t know. I do know
that . . . more and more students are going to be asked to be able to solve
problems, figure out solutions . . . So I think just in helping them figure out
solutions about how to take this test is probably helping them get better at that (D.
183
examine the literature through various theoretical lenses. Using analogy as a learning
Another thing that can determine the significance of a literary work is through
which critical lens we are viewing it. So if you think about just putting on a pair
of glasses and those glasses are gonna make you see that literary work in a
According to Sumner (1940), critical thinkers examined and tested their ideas to
discern whether or not their viewpoints conformed to truth and actuality (Sumner, 1940).
This crucial statement summarized Dana’s short and long term goals wherein her students
assumed the liberty to develop mature thinking skills. When asked how to proceed with
an assignment, Dana replied, “You have to decide, and what format it should take.
Everything. It’s up to you. Do what you think” (D. Dunn, classroom observation,
August 24, 2012). Dana stressed the phrase, “you think” by lifting her pitch and slowing
her syllabic meter and tempo. During the SRI, Dana supported this viewpoint. She
noted, “With great literary works and with literary works that are more appropriate to an
A. P. setting . . . will come subjects and themes . . . that are more mature um, and more
complex” (D. Dunn, personal communication, September 17, 2012). Dana reiterated the
notion that critical thinking skills helped students to understand the author’s underlying
meaning and intention. Dana suggested, “And that’s when I have to teach them to use all
of . . . the stylistic elements that the author does use to try to lead us to his meaning and
not just stop at the significance for ourselves” (D. Dunn, personal communication,
Dana taught specific critical thinking techniques like how to uncover the obscure
184
and imperceptible factors found in writing examples. She instructed,
And under “unity” it is important to consider what has been omitted from a piece
and examine the writer’s intent in doing so. Sometimes it’s not only what the
writer says, it’s what the writer didn’t say that’s important that we need to
She explained how to determine the author’s implications and nuances by associating
subjective ideas relative to the literal denotation. Applying textual understanding, its
inherent symbolism and associated meanings suggested that Dana engaged her students
She said,
Connotation involves all the emotional responses and things that a word . . . can
cause us to have. . . We can use “house” or we can use “home”. It depends on our
meaning and what we want the reader to get–what emotional response we want to
evoke. And under “unity”, it is important to consider what has been omitted from
a piece, and examine the writer’s intent in doing so. Sometimes it’s not only what
the writers says. It’s what the writer didn’t say that’s important – that we need to
Dana taught her students to use a theoretical lens as an avenue for critical
Remember you have to suspend your own . . . prejudices . . . Only look at that
literary work through that particular lens . . . We see a common thread which
leads us to think. So we can look at everything that we’ve talked about here today
185
The ability to view from another’s perspective created a highly engaging and cognitive
atmosphere. The instructional process displayed ways by which she taught critical
thinking skills. Dana stated, “Your questions will contain the clues. And we need to
learn how to find those clues . . . So you see the logic that I would use in putting them in
order? . . . Make some educated guesses” (D. Dunn, classroom observation, August 23,
2012).
At times Dana specified the author’s intent and explained the literary concepts for
her students. Later the students applied their personal skills to determine the author’s
intent. “Now there’s something implicit in this prompt–something that the writer of this
prompt is expecting you to figure out that’s not given to you. And what is that?” (D.
Dunn, classroom observation, August 24, 2012). Dana stated, “Suspend your own
prejudices . . .” (D. Dunn, classroom observation, August 24, 2012). Higher order
questioning lifted the students’ inquiry levels and pressed them deeper into contemplative
analysis.
began this case study with the assumption that effective 21st century learning was
centered on technology engagement. This case study learning environment did not
contain the technology tools required for achieving high engagement in multimedia. The
technology parent subcode group was coded only five times and did not emerge as a
major or minor code group. Although the subcodes for media fluency were minimal, the
data did not suggest a complete absence of technology in the classroom. During the pre-
observational survey, Dana stated that she believed technology allowed students to think
less critically. She believed that the answers were easy to access and did not require
186
them to delve deeply to acquire substantive information.
The learning environment was important. Dana’s classroom was almost as new
as it was old. Just inside the door and to the left the Promethean board assumed a large
portion of the whiteboard. A DVD player hid beneath the black telephone, a consistent
feature found throughout each classroom in the school. A prominent computer cart,
holding several laptop computers for students to use, patiently waited with its lid shut.
user virtual environments and multimedia tool when learning (Dieterle, Dede & Schrier,
2007). This electric environment centered less on the digital and more on synaptic brain
impulses.
The initial minor theme reflected that critical thinking was an indispensable part
of instruction. The physical science curriculum required students to use critical thinking
strategies. The “critical thinking” code appeared 22 times in the data set as subset of the
parent code group “21st century learning”. Kate believed that her critical thinking
model critical thinking every day, and expect my students to not only know the
correct answer, but be able to explain why it is the correct answer (K. King,
I try and model the critical thinking, the pathway they would need to follow to
187
tests, well all of my tests. And typically at the beginning of the semester, they’re
the most missed questions. But by the end of the semester they . . . they do a little
bit better with them (K. King, personal communication, September 12, 2012).
During the SRI, Kate expounded on the application of knowledge in relation to critical
thinking. She stated, “. . . and so being able to apply those facts is what the critical
Kate offered suggestions for her students to think critically about the management
of their own learning. At the end of a lecture, Kate provided her students eight learning
options. This prompt provided them personal power to decide what to learn and how
. . . for the remainder of the class period you can read . . . work on written
assignment . . . we’ll just look at your tables . . . you can finish reading Chapter 2
writing assignment which goes into your composition book . . . you can get a
netbook and you can work on your research . . . you’re either doing an essay or a
timeline . . . You’ve got plenty of things that you can do (K. King, August 29,
2012).
Kate taught ionic stability, a scientific concept. She led her students through a cognitive
During the SRI, she said, “I was attempting to get them to think through . . . to take
various pieces of information and put it together and use some critical thinking to figure
out the answer” (K. King, personal communication, September 12, 2012). Kate
188
If there’s one part of a question that you’re not sure about, can you leave that out
and work with the parts you do understand? . . . If there’s a word in a question
that you don’t know what it means, you can’t figure out what it means by
breaking it down and looking at context clues. Just leave that word out. It’s not
helping you anyway (K. King, personal communication, September 12, 2012).
Kate suggested that critical thinking helped scientists discover atomic particles and how
they reacted. She said, “. . . they figured most of this stuff out . . . and they figured out
how . . . That’s a pretty big deal being able to think like that and do that sort of thing” (K.
King, classroom observation, August 21, 2012). Kate esteemed the skills that individuals
used to figure things out, to analyze and to think deeply. She suggested that these factors
Kate used Socratic learning strategies to engage her students in critical thinking
skills. She said, “It has to do with the oxidation numbers. But what are you trying to do
with the subscripts and the oxidation numbers?” She answered a student’s initial
question with another question to stimulate his thinking process. Kate reaffirmed that
engaging questions stimulated critical thinking and potentially produced deep thinking.
She said, “And occasionally one person will ask a question and it will actually lead to a
really good discussion. Because then a lot of other people start asking questions about
other things” (K. King, personal communication, September 12, 2012). Kate assumed
the responsibility for guiding the students’ questions so that they remained focused on the
lesson’s goals. This study did not seek to specifically measure the effectiveness of
Socratic learning in relationship to critical thinking. It was noted that this type
189
Kate asked her students to analyze the reasons for specific test answers. She
helped her students critically evaluate the validity of their test answers. She noted,
But some of you put that you would put it with the alkaline metals for what
reason? ‘Cause it has the valance electron like the alkaline metals. Some of you
said you would put it with the halogens because it’s a gas. And some of you said
you put it with the noble gases, because it’s a gas (K. King, classroom
The first minor theme suggested that critical thinking was an indispensable part of
instruction. The first research question determined to understand the attitudes that
Andy. The “21st century learning” parent code group was the second ranking
code group. Sixty-five “critical thinking” codes emerged from the “21st century learning”
parent code. The data suggested that “critical thinking” was the second most
predominant individual factor in Andy’s subcode data. The data suggested that Andy’s
attitude towards teaching critical thinking skills as a component of 21st century skills
Dana. The “21st century learning” parent code group was Dana’s highest ranking
parent code group. Twenty “critical thinking” subcodes emerged from the “21st century
learning” parent code. This suggested that Dana’s attitude towards teaching critical
thinking skills as a component of 21st century skills development was very strong.
190
Kate. The “21st century learning” parent code group was Kate’s second highest
ranking parent code group. Twenty-two “critical thinking” subcodes evidenced from the
“21st century learning” parent code. This suggested that Kate’s attitude towards teaching
critical thinking skills as a component of 21st century skills development was very strong.
The first minor theme was very highly pertinent to research question one.
The first minor theme suggested that critical thinking was an indispensable part of
instruction. The second research question determined to understand the extent to which
Andy. The “21st century learning” parent code group was the second ranking
code group. Sixty-five “critical thinking codes emerged from the “21st century learning”
parent code. Just four “creativity and innovation” codes were present. The data showed
that “critical thinking” was the second most predominant individual factor in Andy’s total
subcode data set. This factor was a very strong factor and suggested that Andy had
deeply engaged his students in creative and thinking critically. The data suggested that
Andy showed strong intentions towards teaching with “creativity and innovation” in the
future.
Dana. The “21st century learning” parent code group was Dana’s highest ranking
parent code group. Twenty “critical thinking” subcodes emerged from the “21st century
learning” parent code. The subcode group “creativity and innovation” emerged 10 times
and reflected that Dana’s attitude toward teaching 21st century learning skills was very
strong.
Kate. The “21st century learning” parent code group was Kate’s second highest
ranking parent code group. Twenty-two “critical thinking” subcodes evidenced from the
191
“21st century learning” parent code. The subcode group “creativity and innovation”
showed nine subcodes and reflected that Kate’s attitude toward teaching 21st century
learning skills was quite strong. The first minor theme was very highly pertinent to
The “critical thinking” factor was the second highest ranking combined code
across all three participants. The data suggested that teachers engaged their students in
“creativity and innovation” on a mild level. The first minor theme was moderately
The first minor theme noted that critical thinking was an indispensable part of
instruction. The third research question sought to know the degree that teachers
Andy. The data showed that “critical thinking” was the second most predominant
individual factor in Andy’s total subcode data set. This was a very strong factor and
suggested that Andy had deeply engaged his students in thinking critically. The “LS”
parent code group was the most often coded group. The data suggested that Andy very
Dana. The “21st century learning” parent code group was Dana’s highest ranking
parent code group, where 20 “critical thinking” subcodes existed. The NLS subcode
group emerged 14 times and was Dana’s fourth ranking parent code group. The data
Kate. Twenty-two “critical thinking” subcodes emerged from the “21st century
learning” parent code. The “LS” parent code ranked fifth in Kate’s code set while 20
NLS subcodes were identified in the data. Kate showed a strong preference towards
192
engaging her students in thinking critically. Although “LS” appeared less often than any
parent code group, the NLS subcode group ranked moderately high in comparison to
other subcodes in Kate’s total data set. The first minor theme was highly pertinent to the
The “critical thinking” factor was the second highest ranking combined code
across all three participants. The data suggested that teachers engaged their students in
“creativity and innovation” on a mild level. The first minor theme was pertinent to
research question two. The initial minor theme noted that critical thinking was an
The fourth research question sought to know how the participants measured their
own self-efficacy in teaching 21st century learning skills within the core curriculum.
Andy. The subcode “critical thinking” was the second most predominant
individual factor in Andy’s total subcode data set. This was a very strong factor and
suggested that Andy had deeply engaged his students in thinking critically. Andy’s self-
efficacy was primarily assessed through his students’ EOCT scores, the students’ levels
of learning engagement and real-world relevance of the curriculum. Each of these factors
suggested a strong connection between the fourth research question and the participant’s
self-efficacy in teaching 21st century learning skills within the core curriculum.
Dana. Dana’s highest ranking “21st century learning” parent code group where
century skills” instruction in the core curriculum was moderately high. Each of these
factors suggested a strong connection between the fourth research question and Dana’s
self-efficacy in teaching 21st century learning skills within the core curriculum.
193
Kate. Kate highly engaged her students in “critical thinking” as evidenced by the
22 subcodes. Kate showed a strong preference towards engaging her students in thinking
critically. Kate’s second highest parent code group was “21st century learning” skills.
The first minor theme was highly pertinent to the third research question for Kate. The
first minor theme was very highly pertinent to research question four.
Table 6
Critical thinking
Critical thinking 65 20 22
The data reflects each participant’s instruction regarding critical thinking skills.
A second minor theme emerged from the data set. It reflected RWL was essential
component of effective teaching. In the pre-observational survey, Andy said that he felt
very strongly that his personal experiences helped him to instruct 21st century learning
skills. It helped engage students in active learning. This coincided with his views that
learning was directly related to the real-world. The coding showed that RWL appeared
The RWL application was fully supported in the NLS literature. According to
Dede (2005), the third of four NLS factors suggested that “RWL” was an important
component in learning (Dede, 2005; Dieterle, Dede & Schrier, 2007). Andy encapsulated
the notion that the Economics content was evidenced in the actual world. He stated, “So
you say, ‘Dang, coach! This stuff we’re talking about in here, it really happens?’ Yes.
In this class if you walk out the door, it’s happening (A. Adams, classroom observation,
194
August 22, 2012). After observing a video clip during the SRI, Andy supported this idea
as he stated, “I don’t want them . . . just to pass the test. I want them to understand the
information and being able to use it in the real world!” (A. Adams, personal
communication, September 13, 2012). Andy’s belief that “RWL” was important
coincided with the literature. Andy’s code sets suggested that “RWL” appeared as a
possible. Andy posed as an actor, but not a pretender. Andy was reared in the poor part
of town where a meager economy inched along. He personally understood how real-life
youth. The personal references to Andy’s own experiences sometimes upstaged the
demand to instruct the core content. The core content was centric to learning, but did not
surpass Andy’s greatest inner desires. The economics core content was potentially a
platform that he used to help students learn how to succeed in life. Andy wasn’t overly
concerned that his students felt emotionally attached to him, although he wouldn’t have
resented it. Rather, he demanded that they listened and respected him.
pinpoint. Andy grew up in Westtown. There was a sense of longevity in Andy. He liked
to discuss the past but only if possessed the potential to positively affect his students’
lives. All of life seemed interconnected versus being independently constructed. His
learning. Isolating curricular elements did not make sense in relation to the real world.
His actions suggested that once the students had learned the foundational elements of the
195
content, only then could they experience real learning. Unless learning was life-
The RWL codes were signified when the curriculum had direct bearing on the
students’ lives. Andy made multiple references to RWL and suggested that political
decisions impacted the students’ education. He noted that one political party was
responsible for instigating massive testing measures. He said, “They support No Child
Left Behind which is really no longer an act. I mean, it’s taking place right now. And
that’s why you’re taking what? EOCT. CRCT.” (A. Adams, classroom observation,
August 28, 2012). Andy urged his students to be involved in learning at home. He
proposed, “We have to turn off ‘The Bachelorette’ and pay attention to what’s going on
with the political process. That makes sense? (A. Adams, classroom observation, August
22, 2012).
WHS teachers, like Andy, prepared students for college where possible. These
That’s what it feels like when you don’t have a voice and you don’t pay attention
you. That has affected your family. That’s gonna affect how much food goes on
the table. And here, if that doesn’t bother you, that affects whether you stay at
home with mama all four years of college or not! (A. Adams, classroom
The economy directly affected each student and their families. He suggested, “The
number one issue that will be voted on in this presidential election will be the economy,
196
because the economy is in bad shape right now (A. Adams, classroom observation,
And that’s the question that is being asked to you right now, the American people
. . . September the 4th . . . the national debt for your country just today hit what?
Tell me the number. Sixteen trillion dollars, today! (A. Adams, classroom
He stated that the national massive debt negatively impacted his life. He said, “Debt is a
big issue for these people . . . But they glorify the past . . . tradition, back in ‘50s, ‘good
ol’ days’ (classroom observation, August 28, 2012). He moaned and growled, “I don’t
wanna look at the price of my house. I don’t wanna be sick at my stomach . . . ‘cause it’s
not anywhere near worth what I paid for it right now (A. Adams, classroom observation,
September 4, 2012).
into their learning. He noted, “the Democrats are gonna say, ‘. . . Wanna go back to good
ol’ days when women had basically no rights? When schools were segregated because of
the color of your skin? Is that what you’re calling the good ol’ days?’” (classroom
observation, August 28, 2012). Andy suggested that political worldviews had negatively
affected individuals within various countries. He noted, “Totalitarian states are where
individuals lose their ‘rights’” (A. Adams, classroom observation, September 4, 2012).
Andy heated the amber arguments by interjecting racial tensions from previous decades.
He said,
It was during this time period that, you know, if you went to a white Christian
church– Hey, some people were going over and blowing up, you know, little
197
black girls in Sunday School that were going to their church who believed in the
same God! Does that make sense? (A. Adams, classroom observation, August 28,
2012).
projected his mantra by stating, “. . . We gotta make this stuff real. Okay?” (A. Adams,
classroom observation, August 28, 2012). He engaged students in discussing tough topic
discussions. Andy presented the facts by posing at times almost as a court lawyer. The
students, as jurors of the classroom, were required to sort through the data and come to a
conclusion based on the evidence. Students analyzed how opposing political perspectives
experiences.
Always remember this. This is what these far right, far left . . . Both of these
things are gonna turn into dictatorships of some type. Complete government
control, totalitarian state, military heavily involved, and you lose your what? You
lose your rights on both sides (A. Adams, classroom observation, August 28,
2012).
Andy was authentic. He suggested that some students disbelieved his ideologies and
curricular accuracy. He purported, “They think Coach Adams is making it up. Do you
not see that? . . . They’re playing politics with our future, with your future. Understand?
And all of it has to do with your future (A. Adams, classroom observation, August 29,
2012).
engagement. He stated, “You guys are gonna be able to vote either in this election or the
198
next one . . . Your tuition is going through the roof! College costs are going through the
roof. And they have a lot to deal with decisions made here and decisions made at the
state level. Do you understand that?” (A. Adams, classroom observation, August 28,
2012).
Andy had rationalized the ramifications of the local culture’s influence on the
students’ mindsets. The students’ home lives and other influences outside school directly
affected the students’ perspectives on reality. The “real-world”, those outside influences,
possessed the potential to down-play his deepest goals for the students. Andy faced
reality. During the SRI, he purported, “Just because I’m ‘the teacher’ doesn’t fly in 2012,
because there may be somebody at home telling ‘em, ‘You know, he’s . . . he’s not really
important’. And I have to value that and realize what my students are going through and
say, ‘Okay. Why am I gonna go in there and listen to this guy?’ . . . You have to be on
your toes 24/7 . . . because they will turn you off (A. Adams, personal communication,
September 13, 2012). Andy suggested that in reality, the students were ultimately in
A second minor theme emerged from the data set and suggested that RWL was
essential component of effective teaching. During the SRI, I asked Dana, “To what
extent would you say your instruction is real-world relevant?” She replied,
I guess, like a lot of teachers, I try to think that . . . that I’m preparing kids for
what they’re gonna face in the real world all the way from, you know, making
sure that their punctuation and spelling is correct in what they write to giving their
199
Dana connected collaboration and RWL. The ability to work with another person was
viewed as a critical 21st century learning skill and was effectuated in the real world based
to do it for them to be able to develop the skills to do it well (D. Dunn, personal
Essentially teachers were responsible for creating RWL rning opportunities that engaged
students in using those skills. The teacher’s personal experiences helped students
teaching and whether or not I really feel like I know and I’m prepared . . . I have
experiences or things that I can bring to the lesson that helps students see why it’s
important for them (D. Dunn, personal communication, September 17, 2012).
Dana suggested that a problem existed in that students misunderstood the connection
between one’s work ethic and motivation in the classroom and that relationship to job
students between the importance of doing a good job and being proud of what you
do in your school work and how that’s gonna translate to the real world in being
proud of what you do every day in your job . . . It . . . doesn’t seem to transfer for
them. Now I know that part of it is just a lack of maturity . . . they’re kids (D.
200
Dana was driven to make her teaching real-world relevant. During the SRI, Dana said,
I spent a day and a half grading essays this weekend . . . I began to get really
frustrated because some of the work that was turned in was just so below what I
know that they’re capable of . . . I felt that it wasn’t taken seriously enough . . .
That final product didn’t really seem to hold enough relevance for them (D. Dunn,
Dana felt responsible for showing her students the connection between learning and
technical-writing center. It was a place of actuality and real-life events. Mature real-
world experience had not yet been manifested, a key factor that most students had yet to
fully understand. She believed that understanding another person’s intent was directly
Sometimes the significance for us might be a little different, because we bring our
own experiences into what we read. Sometime if we’ve not had the same
experiences as the characters that we’re reading about . . . we miss a little bit of
the subtleties maybe of the theme . . . That just changes as we grow and
Her forthcoming gall bladder surgery had prompted Dana to search online for quality
health supplements. Dana projected the website and asked her students to identify the
glaring grammatical errors. Poor punctuation had changed the company’s original
intention. She stated that repeated errors lowered her confidence in the company’s
credibility. Dana then added, “And I called my son who is a programmer and I said,
201
‘Eden, please make sure that you check your grammar, because it can cost your company
business’” (D. Dunn, classroom observation, August 24, 2012). The notion that
individuals lost money because they had failed to master grammar and writing skills
A second minor theme reflected that RWL was an essential factor in teaching.
“RWL” was coded 13 times as a subcode of NLS. Existing as the largest subcode group
in the “learning styles” parent code group, “RWL” emerged as a significant factor.
During her SRI, I asked, “To what extent do you try to make learning physical
science connected to the real world that’s beyond the classroom?” Kate responded, “I
don’t have a formal approach to it. It’s just any time that we are studying something or
talking about something that I could apply to something I think they would be familiar
with, I do” (K. King, personal communication, September 12, 2012). Her students had
read “The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind”. The book demonstrated real-world
application that stemmed from the boy’s education. Kate connected real-world
The discovery of chemical elements in the periodic table resulted from the
application of scientific learning. She taught that Technetium was created rather than
discovered and suggested a real-world connection with the curriculum. Kate explained,
“. . . Technetium . . . we’ve never found that one in nature. It probably does occur since
everything else, 92 and below, does occur in nature. We’ve just never found it. But
everything above 92 is man-made. And we call that ‘synthetic’” (K. King, classroom
202
Kate connected the physical science curriculum with actual scientific world
discoveries. She noted that the study of metals was directly linked to the human body’s
need for metals. Kate said, “. . . If you look on . . . food products, selenium . . . they’re
metals. And . . . iron for your blood. So there are trace metals that we have to have” (K.
King, classroom observation, August 21, 2012). Kate suggested, “But all of the rest of
those are alkaline metals. They’re not found in nature as elements, because they’re so
reactive” (K. King, classroom observation, August 21, 2012). The inability to locate
connection to the real world. The absence of the alkaline metals validated the importance
of the real-world discovery and use of metals in the environment. Iron, silver and gold
were functionally used in the students’ daily lives. Iron was required for producing
guitar strings and batteries. Chromium was commonly used in stainless steel products.
Kate described the flexible metals as “shiny” and “lustrous” and stated that they were
formed into wires (K. King, personal observation, August 21, 2012). This vivid
One student wondered why chlorine in pool water was not toxicly harmful to
humans. She noted, “When it’s dissolved in water, it’s not in the gaseous form. So it’s
not harmful . . . But the chlorine, like is in pool water or in water we drink any amount
that’s in, there’s not gonna hurt you” (K. King, classroom observation, August 21, 2012).
She made learning real and explained that chlorine gas inhalation could damage a
human’s lungs. Kate connected the student’s point of interest to the curriculum.
203
In a seemingly unrelated tangential moment, she authentically answered a
student’s personal question about Kate’s required high school required English reading.
Kate pointed out, “The worst book I read in my opinion . . . English teachers probably
wouldn’t like me saying. But when I was in high school had to read ‘The Sun [Also]
Rises’ by Ernest Hemingway. I did not enjoy it. I read it!” (K. King, classroom
observation, August 29, 2012). Her commentary evidenced cross-curricular learning and
authenticity showed students that all learning may not be enjoyable but it was inherently
useful. RWL was further evidenced by assignments that included observing movies that
were relevant to learning physical science, reading fictional literature that showed a
connection to real living, and general relationships to the human body and its
surroundings.
The second minor theme suggested that RWL was an essential component of
effective teaching. The first research question determined to understand the attitudes that
Andy. “RWL”, a NLS component, was the single strongest factor in the total
subcode database and emerged 83 times. “21st century learning” skills ranked as the
second largest parent code group. The RWL theme was very strongly relevant to the first
research question.
Dana. “RWL” occurred 10 times as a NLS factor. “21st century learning” skills
was the most predominant parent code group in Dana’s code sets. Therefore, the RWL
204
Kate. The “RWL” subcode occurred 13 times in the NLS codes. “21st century
learning” skills was the second predominant parent code group in Kate’s code data. As a
result, the RWL theme was strongly relevant to the first research question for Kate. The
second minor theme was very highly pertinent to the first research question.
The second minor theme stated that RWL was an essential factor in teaching. The
second research question determined to understand the extent to which teachers sought to
Andy. “RWL”, a NLS component, was the single strongest factor in the total
subcode database and emerged 83 times. “21st century learning” skills ranked as the
second largest parent code group. Although “creativity and innovation” were coded a
minimal number of times, it was suggested that Andy constructed a foundation during the
observations for implementing creative and innovative ways of learning in the future.
The RWL theme was relevant to the first research question for Andy.
Dana. The “RWL” factor was the most predominant subcode group in NLS.
Although “LS” ranked fourth in the parent code groups, the RWL factor was one of the
most often occurring subcode groups within the total subcode data. The “creativity and
learning” subcode set and was coded 10 times. Therefore, the RWL theme was very
Kate. The “RWL” subcode comprised one-third of the “LS” data. “Creativity
and innovation” skills emerged 10 times in Kate’s code data. As a result, the RWL theme
was highly relevant to the first research question for Kate. The second minor theme was
205
The second minor theme stated that RWL was an essential component of effective
teaching. The third research question sought to know the degree that teachers NLS.
Andy. “RWL”, a NLS component, was the single strongest factor in the total
subcode database and emerged 83 times. This was potentially Andy’s strongest
connection between the four minor themes and the four research questions.
Dana. The “RWL” factor was the most predominant subcode group in NLS.
Although “LS” was the fourth ranking parent code group, the “RWL” codes occurred
often in the total subcode set. The NLS subcodes comprised nearly two-thirds of the LS
category. The data suggested that RWL and NLS were strongly connected for Dana.
Kate. The “RWL” subcode represented one-third of the “LS” data and the NLS
comprised nearly two-thirds of the LS category. The LS parent category ranked fourth.
The “RWL” subcode group emerged moderately often across the total subcodes.
The second minor theme was very highly pertinent to the third research question.
The second minor theme was stated that RWL was an essential factor in teaching as
shown in Table 7. The fourth research question sought to know how the participants
measured their own self-efficacy in teaching 21st century learning skills within the core
curriculum.
Andy. “RWL” was the single strongest factor in Andy’s total subcode database.
The “21st century learning” parent code group was the second ranking code group. The
data suggested that Andy’s attitude towards teaching “21st century learning skills”
Dana. The “RWL” factor was the most predominant subcode group in NLS.
Although “LS” was the fourth ranking parent code group, the “RWL” codes occurred
206
often in the total subcode set. The “21st century learning” parent code group was Dana’s
highest ranking parent code group and suggested that Dana possessed a strong self-
efficacy towards instruction 21st century learning skills within the core curriculum.
Kate. The NLS comprised almost two-thirds of the LS category. The LS parent
category ranked fourth. The “real-world learning” represented one-third of the “learning
styles” data. The “21st century learning” parent code group was Kate’s second highest
ranking parent code group. The data suggested that a Kate reflected a moderately strong
sense of self-efficacy towards “21st century learning” skills instruction. The second
minor theme was very highly pertinent to the fourth research question.
Table 7
Real-world learning
Real-world learning 83 11 13
The third minor theme reflected that brain-compatible learning was an important
research gained significant attention in the literature in recent years (Allen, 2008). The
neuroscience research suggested that strengthening the nerve impulses and synapses for
forming neural circuitry over a course of time aided in memory retention and critical
thinking (Freeberg, 2006; Garrett, 2008). Rigor and repetition strengthened the neural
circuitry for long-term memory. Memorization and mastery learning factor (Garrett,
207
compatible learning was well-documented in the literature (Jensen, 2008; Laster, 2008;
Tate, 2010; Zull, 2010), but it was not evidenced without its neuroscience challengers
Some suggested that instructional practices were primarily derived from brain scan
founded upon what had been learned directly from neuroscience. Conversely,
instruction. Zull (2010), a neuroscience researcher, suggested that the human brain
formed synapses in various ways. Synaptic firing occurred in one of two effective ways,
i.e., analogies or metaphors. These ideas correlated to the concept of designing brain-
compatible learning environments (Partnership for 21st century skills, 2007; Shaheen,
environments that coincided with an effective use of cognitive LS. These characteristics
were derived from over 200 pieces of brain-compatible learning strategies research (M.
In light of the continued neuroscience debate, I analyzed the data set based on
learning. In an effort to bring balance to this case study, I centered the data analysis on
208
the areas where neuroscience concurred with educational best practices.
“Brain-compatible learning” was Andy’s third most common theme. This code
appeared 36 times in the data analysis. Uniquely, the data set ranked third and supported
the concept that brain-compatible learning was an important factor in learning. During
the SRI, I stated, “You often asked questions of your students that emphasized
understanding the ‘purpose’ and ‘why’ things happen. Help me understand your goals
with that”. Andy replied, “That’s why I want the critical thinking . . . and the creativity.
I wanna know ‘why’. I want their brains to click on a different level” (A. Adams,
personal communication, September 13, 2012). Andy wanted his students to engage in
compatible traits and factors (Tate, 2010). Four specific traits were predominant in the
code sets:
storytelling;
cooperative groups
Knowing the purpose and objective. This subcode occurred five times in the
The reason we need to know this thing is because . . . it ties into the economics of
things. The number one issue that will be voted on in this presidential election
will be the economy, because the economy is in bad shape right now (A. Adams,
209
Storytelling. On more than one occasion he used storytelling to deepen the
My granddaddy is probably in-between a Republican and this. I’m not telling you
what I am, but I remember he used to tell me all these things, you know. You say,
‘Yes, sir’ and ‘No, sir’. You take your hat off in the building . . . If you sat down
at the dinner table with a hat on, you took your hat off. That comes out of that
Southern idea, you know, showing respect . . .When you say the pledge of
allegiance, you do what? Do you keep walking or do you stop? You stop. You
say the pledge of allegiance. You live in a little town that’s very conservative.
In an effort to clarify his position, Andy used storytelling to create a fictional account of a
What do you do when you ride by somebody’s house and their grass is all nice
and neat and everything? What happens? ‘Boy! That must be a goof up. Look
how he keeps his grass’. Um, you know, he could be a serial killer. But you ride
by . . . look at (his) nice yard. And you could ride by, you know, St. Peter’s yard,
and it could be all grown up. And you’re like, ‘Look at that scum bag. He
doesn’t even cut his grass’. Is that right or wrong? But does that happen? Yeah.
We do it all the time. We have preconceived notions. You gotta get this. This
learning factors (Tate, 2010). Andy created a fictitious, humorous story that potentially
reverberated with some of the female students in the classroom. His storytelling was
210
designed to invoke cognitive engagement. He stated,
Prince Charming is walking down the hall. He’s the best thing you’ve ever seen
in your whole life! Okay? Woo-wee! Matter of fact, don’t do that, ladies.
Okay? But anyway, he’s walking down the hall and you say, ‘Why get an
education? I’m just gonna marry him, because I believe in . . . hey, my husband’s
going to work. And I’m gonna stay home. And I’m gonna raise bambinos. And
everything’s gonna be wonderful! And he’s gonna be a good man’ (A. Adams,
on the edge of his student’s perceptions of cultural understanding. His humor was
I’ve never killed anyone. Okay? Here’s the other thing. The teacher is not
always right . . . And you gotta get comfortable to do that. You’re not all the way
used to me yet, but look. Do it. Don’t sit there and blindly accept and say, “Well,
hey, I guess he’s right. He’s the teacher” (classroom observation, August 22,
2012).
In an effort to regain social balance with his students, Andy humorously suggested that a
discussion should move forward. He said, “. . . Let’s go on. Let’s just have a good day.
We’ll get to eat breakfast. All right? Make sure right there, you question me. And then,
we’ll talk about it (A. Adams, classroom observation, August 22, 2012). He implied that
offenses he had caused were to be corrected by eating a meal with his students. By
211
fostering a positive environment, relationships were to be rekindled. His suggestion was
some students. Research supported the notion that sarcasm was not a brain-compatible
learning trait. It had “the exact opposite effect on the brains of students” and hindered
strategies like forming cooperative learning groups and discussing the content. He said,
Get with two or three people, no more than three . . . Go back to the front of your
notes . . . read your notes to each other. Quiz each other right quick . . . I wanna
see you talking to each other groups of three or two . . . preferably two . . . I want
you to go over the notes you got right there . . . Make sure you’re talking! (A.
Andy sought to create a brain-compatible learning environment where his students felt
safe and unthreatened (Jensen, 2008). He wanted students engaged in deep cognitive
thinking, regardless of his daunting size and intimidating façade. Andy was not offended
when students corrected him because he was wrong. The school year was young and the
Socratic learning ethos was undeveloped. Drawing from previous experiences, Andy
wanted his students to be knowledgeable and confident enough to challenge and debate
him. Furthermore, Andy wanted his students to use brain-compatible strategies to make
quality decisions. He stated, “. . . It’s not my job to decide. It’s my job to educate you so
you can make a decision. Okay? ‘Cause it is extremely important” (A. Adams,
classroom observation, August 28. 2012). He offered, “You can disagree with me . . . I
want you to disagree with me. That’s fine. And I’m not gonna get mad at you” (A.
212
Adams, personal communication, September 13, 2012).
the classroom. Andy interjected a story about Adolph Hitler’s political power. He said,
“Hitler’s most powerful thing. When did he talk to ‘em? When Germany was doing well
economically or bad economically? They did it when they were terrible economically”
granddaddy is probably in between a Republican and this. I’m not telling you what I am.
But, I remember he used to tell me all these things, you know” (A. Adams, classroom
The third minor theme noted that brain-compatible learning was an important
213
Knowing the purpose. When students understood the purpose and objectives for
learning, their brains were more fully engaged in the learning process (Tate, 2010).
During the SRI, I wanted to understand more about this concept. I said, “You discuss
‘test-taking strategies’ in this clip. Help me understand the take away for the students”.
Dana explained,
That is a specific practice for the A. P. exam, and there are test-taking strategies
that will help them do better on the test. And if they understand why a right
answer is the right answer, why their answer was the incorrect answer, then they
come closer to be able to analyze the questions themselves (D. Dunn, personal
When students understood the purpose for their learning, they were more highly
Humor and smiling. Second, students’ minds were more engaged in learning
when humor was incorporated in the learning process. During a jovial moment, Dana
stated, “Oh, I have a fun one today! I think you’ll like it. If you haven’t already read it,
just wait”. Later in the observation Dana added, “I’m so happy to see that all of you
happy well-adjusted lives. None of you have had terrible dysfunctional relationships
obviously. Very good (D. Dunn, classroom observation, August 24, 2012). She highly
connected spelling and punctuation skills to a billboard advertisement that she projected
on the Promethean board. It read, ‘Ho made soup’. As the students laughed heartily,
Dana remarked, “I think they wanted us to know that was ‘homemade’ soup. But you see
214
what happens when you leave out these little details” (D. Dunn, classroom observation,
Dana projected a “Dear John” letter and asked the students to punctuate it. After
a few moments, she presented two punctuation styles that clearly presented opposing
I’m so happy to see that all of you happy well-adjusted lives. None of you . . .
that none of you have had terrible dysfunctional relationships obviously. Very
good. So this is the way most of you responded, pretty closely. ‘Dear John, I
want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind,
thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You
have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever
when we’re apart. I can be forever happy. Will you let me be yours? And it was
just signed simply, Jane’ (D. Dunn, classroom observation, August 24, 2012).
Dana used humor to effectively engage her students in learning. She continued,
But look at the difference the punctuation marks make. ‘Dear John, I want a man
who knows what love is. All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people
who are not like you. Admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me.
For other men I yearn. For you I have no feelings whatsoever. When we’re apart
I can be forever happy. Will you let me be? Yours, Jane’ (D. Dunn, classroom
215
I wanted to more fully understand Dana’s perspective on employing humor during her
instruction. During the SRI, I asked, “Why do you incorporate humor into your
Well, for me humor is a matter of survival. You know, the job that we do is
learning by placing “positive and high expectations” on her students. The data reflected
that this code was closely connected to “accountability and responsibility” in learning,
which was an “assessment” parent code. Reflecting on the A. P. class, Dana noted that
With . . . great literary works and with literary works that are more appropriate to
an A. P. setting . . . will come subjects and themes . . . that are more mature
. . . and more complex. And many times students might not actually get it,
because they haven’t had those experiences. And I wanted them to realize that
High challenge and low stress. Fourth, Dana presented high challenge with low
stress levels. She offered her students opportunities to engage in high level learning
without the pressure of being graded on the exercises. She stated, “Well, we need to start
looking for those errors before we turn in those essays. So, this is to help you find those
mistakes!” (D. Dunn, classroom observation, August 24, 2012). This gesture helped
216
students to learn the necessary skills and to identify errors without receiving a lower
assignment grade.
The third minor theme reflected that brain-compatible learning was an important
factor in teaching. “Brain-compatible learning” was coded 33 times in Kate’s data set as
a subset of “learning culture”. In this case study, the “brain-compatible learning” subset
was coded 11 times more than the “learning environment” subset. Four important brain-
required her students to perform at a high level while she simultaneously remained
positive. The physical science students were typically ninth graders, the youngest
students at WHS. When students struggled to answer questions correctly, Kate helped
them to successfully provide proper answers. Kate politely offered a question. She
asked, “What are the three criteria it’s asking you for in that question? What are the
criteria? You’re right. But you’re saying more than you need to” (K. King, classroom
observation, August 21, 2012). When a student had an unusually difficult time, Kate
politely prompted him. After a lengthy period of assisting another student to work an
equation at the whiteboard, Kate only offered gentle, kind words. She stated, “Very
217
close. Good job!” (K. King, classroom observation, August 29, 2012). Students
applauded. Kate disallowed the student to make self-defacing remarks. She suggested,
“You had it correct . . . correct on your paper. You just didn’t write it up on the board
correctly. No you’re not. It’s not allowed. All right” (K. King, classroom observation,
September 7, 2012).
Kate managed the students’ behaviors in a nearly effortless way. Kate easily
communicated the content and confidently provided answers and test-taking techniques
designed to increase test scores. She wasted few seconds, especially between activities.
Kate often used positive prompts, during which her vocal tone was atypically inviting and
mildly pleasant. Her tempo was quite rapid and indicated high expectations for student
learning. During a memorable transition, she provided clear directions then paused. In
midstream, she said, “I’ll wait ‘til you finish putting things away. Finish quickly” (K.
King, classroom observation, August 29, 2012). Her demeanor and vocal tone suggested
that her comments were important for the students to hear. She pleasantly redirected the
students.
Although it was still the first month of school, her expectations seemed to be
firmly grounded and understood by her students. Kate was consistent as day and night as
were her expectations and poise. This master teacher knew how to communicate her
demands for self-discipline and structure in a most positive and inviting way. Kate used
diffusers on several occasions to redirect her students’ behaviors. She asserted, “Raise
your hand if you’d like to answer” (K. King, classroom observation, August 29, 2012).
It was crucial to hear Kate’s vocal tone so as not to assume her persona. Kate
seemed to proactively design in real time how a specific dialogue would work. Her vocal
218
tone was firm and inviting, but not degrading. Kate did not complain to her students
about their interrupting her teaching. Rather, Kate thought critically and proactively how
she wanted her students to behave. She told them how to perform and guided them into a
positive learning environment. Emphasizing the aspirates, she hurled three words,
“Hush. Hush. Hush” in rapid-fire style. In a pleasant tone she suggested, “Be nice” (K.
King, classroom observation, August 29, 2012). Lastly, she ended the moment by
saying, “Pay attention”. The overriding goal was to effectuate learning. By setting a
positive and sometimes humorous tone at times, Kate created an ethos that was conducive
for joyful learning. She mastered the ability to set the tone for her students and reminded
During a transition, Kate addressed her student talking. She stated, “Having a
rash of whispering while I’m talking. Any questions?” (K. King, classroom observation,
August 29, 2012). She turned a potentially negative moment into a positive situation by
suggesting that the whispering was centered on the curricular content. Once, Kate
overtly led her students in clapping for a student’s accomplishments. Kate’s elevated
hands that were positioned just in front of her chin prompted the students’ applause. She
demonstrated high value for the student’s effort and knowledge. Conversely, Kate also
offered a round of applause for those students who struggled. She asserted, “Dale had a
hard time writing that up there. But, she knows how to do it. All right. Let’s give
everyone who volunteered today a round of applause!” (K. King, classroom observation,
September 7, 2012).
Humor and smiling. Kate innately understood the power of positivity. She
demonstrated this factor by smiling and being appropriately humorous. Her positive
219
demeanor was highlighted with an effervescent authentic smile on most occasions.
During the SRI, Kate stated, “I think humor is a very, very, very important tool. I always
have . . . It gets your students’ attention. It makes them listen to you, because they don’t
know what you might say next…” (K. King, personal communication, September 12,
2012). Sousa (2011) determined that the human brain produced endorphins in response
to positive learning. Kate found ways to lightly chuckle or to simply offer a reassuring
Kate added, “It gives a safe environment as long as the humor, of course, is good
clean humor and it’s not . . . insulting to anyone. And I just think it makes for a good
happy environment in general, not just a learning environment . . .” (K. King, personal
communication, September 12, 2012). The safe environment included the sense that
students felt safe and provided answers without being ridiculed by others. She noted,
“And I don’t let other students comment if they make what they think is a ‘not good
Students were determining periodic table words by guessing the next letter in the
sequence. The word “potassium” was being spelled letter by letter. As fate would have
it, the first two letters chosen were “A” and “S”. Realizing that the word “ass” would
appear on the screen, Kate determined to be humorous so that her students would not be
offended. She hesitated. Then she stated with a smile, “Y’all don’t laugh”. After a brief
220
pause, the word “ass” appeared on the Promethean board for all to see. Kate smiled very
big and the students laughed effervescently. Soon the completed word emerged as the
students guessed the remaining letters. Her humorous approach to the situation was
During a lecture, Kate apparently inhaled a bug. She calmly said, “I think I just
inhaled a bug. Yes . . . may have swallowed it . . . I think I did actually. I may have to
go outside here in a second . . . (K. King, classroom observation, August 23, 2012).
Kate’s calmness kept the students under control. She suggested that swallowing bugs
was somewhat a normal protocol for humans. She noted, “That’s okay. We all swallow
lots of bugs in our lifetime!” (K. King, classroom observation, August 23, 2012). The
mere suggestion that every student had ingested various type bugs seemed to invoke a
powerful response, especially from the female students. By stressing the word “all”, she
implied that each student had been and would be futuristic bug recipients during their
lives. Kate seemed to enjoy using humor as a way of normalizing the audience and
bringing relevance to their learning. She made learning fun but not trivial.
experience. New learning opportunities were considered novel only when students were
engaged in the learning process (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). Ascertaining novel learning
personal creativity and higher-level thinking skills, like thinking with expectations about
novel situations. Without knowing the students’ previous learning experiences, I was
challenged to know whether specific experiences were novel to some students or to none
of the students. The data were coded when the instructional practices suggested that Kate
221
believed she had engaged students in novel learning experiences. Kate intentionally
As stated in her survey, she felt less than confident using technology during instruction.
with the internet, DVDs, video tapes, and the occasional game. I am nowhere near where
I need to be with the use of technology in my classroom” (K. King, personal observation,
September 12, 2012). During the SRI, I asked Kate to specifically address how she used
ritualistic constant in the learning environment. Kate suggested that her students
preferred learning with technology on a few occasions, rather than using it every day.
Kate explained,
But I think with my class relying on it too much, they would . . . it would just
become old hat. And they would rather not do it . . . I think it engages them pretty
well to do something like this every so often. And then, they get to where they
come in and say, ‘Can we play hangman today?’ (K. King, personal observation,
The interactive game required a few seconds to download between the different hangman
games. Despite having a single computer in the classroom, neither Kate nor the students
seemed to be frustrated with having just one computer. Rather, this whole group ritual
222
convince her students to view learning from her perspective suggested that she had
group of students (Wagner, 2008), appeared content to learn without digital devices –
This study did not seek to gain understanding from the students’ perspectives.
Kate managed to engage learners in a whole-group online game with minimal behavioral
issues or student complaints during the observation period. This factor must be attributed
experiences, Kate maintained, “I think it engages them pretty well to do something like
this every so often” (K. King, personal communication, September 12, 2012).
Knowing the purpose. Kate wanted her students to succeed in learning. This
learning goals through the learning environment, a daily agenda and her demeanor. At no
point in the data set did a student ask “why” they were learning specific concepts. Kate
provided a rationale for learning in a variety of ways. She showed them the reasons, the
“why”, for knowing the content. Namely, students were held responsible for
The students understood that Kate could ask them at any time to explain or to
demonstrate their understanding. This occurred in the forms of public discourse or open
writing at the whiteboard. She presented the serious and eerie idea that any student could
be called to the head of the class and be held academically accountable before his fellow
223
constituents. With eyebrows raised, she slowly stated, “Be kind. ‘Cause next time, it’ll
insinuated that nothing should take precedence over learning physical science, at least
when they were in her class. Her relentless efforts to engage students spoke loudly.
Learning was to occur from bell to bell. Following the resonating tardy bell’s
Today we’re going to practice naming. Naming is easy for ionic compounds,
because as you just figured out it’s the exact same as it was for covalent that you
did yesterday and that you did for your homework. Except you’re not doing
Kate implied that high achievement was expected. Deep learning was the norm. Her
ability to implicitly and explicitly control learning in her classroom specified reasons and
purposes for gaining knowledge. In Kate’s classroom, few extraneous activities survived
The third minor theme reflected that brain-compatible learning was an important
factor in teaching. The first research question determined to understand the attitudes that
Andy. Andy’s second most prominent code in the “learning culture” code set was
fifty percent of the “learning culture” parent code. Andy stated, “You gotta educate thy
brain!” (A. Adams, classroom observation, August 29, 2012). Andy’s second most
224
prominent code was “21st century learning”. In the pre-observation survey, Andy
confirmed his confidence about teaching engaged learning in a 21st century participatory
environment. Codes for “critical thinking” comprised nearly 70% of the subcodes.
Dana. Dana’s third most commonly occurring code was the area of “learning
culture” and was comprised of “brain compatibility” and “learning environment” codes.
Dana’s number one ranking code set was 21st century learning. During the SRI, Dana
said that she taught test-taking and problem-solving skills. Both skills were pertinent to
“learning culture” data set. Kate’s second ranking parent code group was “21st century
learning”. Based on the data set, the third minor theme was highly relevant to the first
research question. This code appeared nine times in the data set. Kate expressed concern
about her ability to teach creativity skills. She stated, “I don’t feel that I’m horribly
creative. But, other people tell me I am” (K. King, personal communication, September
12, 2012).
The third minor theme noted that brain-compatible learning was an important
factor in teaching. The data confirmed the minor theme. The second research question
Andy. Andy’s second most prominent code in the “learning culture” code set was
fifty percent of the “learning culture” parent code. Andy suggested that creativity was a
225
learning environment factor. Creativity occurred when students felt safe and secure. He
stated, “You have to have some faith in that teacher before I think you get creative,
because you’re taking a risk” (A. Adams, personal communication, September 13, 2012).
Dana. Dana’s third most commonly occurring code was the area of “learning
culture” and was comprised of “brain compatibility” and “learning environment” codes.
Dana suggested that creativity was a way of expressing one’s perceptions about things
that were meaningful and were formatted in significant ways (D. Dunn, personal
communication, September 17, 2012). Creativity codes comprised about twenty percent
Kate’s “learning culture” data set. Kate suggested that she and her students needed to
develop greater creativity and innovation in her classroom. The third minor theme was
The third minor theme suggested that brain-compatible learning was an important
factor in teaching as shown in Table 8. The data reflected the minor theme. The third
research question sought to know the degree that teachers implemented NLS.
Andy. Andy’s second most prominent code in the “learning culture” code set was
percent of LS codes were derived from NLS factors. This reflected NLS’s significance.
Dana. Dana’s third most commonly occurring code was the area of “learning
226
Kate. The “brain-compatible learning” comprised sixty percent of Kate’s
“learning culture” data set and was a significant factor. Approximately two-thirds of the
LS factors were derived from NLS codes. The third minor theme was very highly
The third minor theme was reflected that brain-compatible learning was an
important factor in teaching. The fourth research question sought to know how the
participants measured their own self-efficacy in teaching 21st century learning skills
Andy. Andy’s second most prominent code in the “learning culture” code set was
culture” parent code. Andy measured his self-efficacy in teaching 21st century learning
skills within the core curriculum through the EOCT scores, student engagement and real-
world relevance.
Dana. Dana’s third most commonly occurring code was the area of “learning
culture” and was comprised of “brain compatibility” and “learning environment” codes.
Twenty-first century learning skills ranked as Dana’s number one parent code.
Specifically, Dana instructed her students to be innovative and creative, to access and
analyze information, and to use curiosity and imagination. These three factors were
Kate’s “learning culture” data set. The “21st century learning” parent code ranked second
and highlighted factors like thinking critically and communicating. The “brain-
227
compatible learning” factors were more predominant than the “critical thinking” factors.
The third minor theme was very highly pertinent to the fourth research question.
Table 8
Brain-compatible learning
Cooperative groups 2 1 0
Games 0 0 1
Humor 2 8 6
Positive expectations 33 3 11
Purpose 14 9 5
Ritual/Novelty 2 2 5
Role Playing 2 1 2
Storytelling 9 0 0
228
Minor Theme Four: Deep Understanding – Andy Adams
A fourth minor theme emerged from the data set and suggested that deep
understanding was a key component in learning praxis. The code “understanding” was
key factors were evidenced. Understanding the curriculum deeply allowed students to
not only pass the test but to reach peak levels on the EOCT. Knowledge must be
applicable to real-world and actual life experiences outside the classroom. Andy
asserted,
What we’ll do is we’ll do that a million times. We will not forget that.
over and over again. We don’t leave something. We just leave it for a little bit
and come right back to it . . . Make sure you understand what’s going on. All
The research literature suggested that students should learn the curricular content
He exclaimed,
It’s your obligation! . . . You can’t blame the politicians if we don’t know how
they got there, because it’s our responsibility to be an educated electorate and to,
you know, put these people in there to make the best decisions. Do you think this
is good? Do you think it is bad? Uh, would you vote for this stuff again? So
that’s what I’m trying to do (A. Adams, personal communication, September 13,
2012).
229
Andy held students personally accountable for deep learning. During one observation he
proclaimed, “Make sure you have the notes . . . I want you paying attention to everything
that goes on” (A. Adams, classroom observation, August 29, 2012). Each student was
expected to take responsibility for becoming an educated person. He stated, “You gotta
educate thy brain! . . . An uneducated electorate, all right, leads to the downfall of our
his students. He queried, “You understand why you got it wrong?” (A. Adams,
classroom observation, August 22, 2012). Andy astutely asserted, “And I’m begging you
not to just pass a test, but to be able to walk out of here and say, ‘This is why I support
The synchronous nature of testing and assessments was designed to help students.
well on all types of assessments. Andy protected his students from events that he could
monitor and control, so that they could acquire the depth of learning he desired. He
believed that assessments very most important. On several occasions, he paced the room
during a quiz. I asked Andy during the SRI to explain his pacing behaviors. He
highlighted the notion that broad-based learning was essential to comprehending issues
that extended past the required curriculum. He stated that he felt passionate about
learning and why shallow understanding led to faulty conclusions in the real world. He
wanted his students to have a thorough understanding of problems and issues that they
230
would find in life such as the power of electing the next President of the United States of
America. Andy proclaimed, “You have got to understand this!” (A. Adams, classroom
something that affects you . . . You got to wrap your brain around it, and understand what
goes on. This will greatly affect your life!” (A. Adams, classroom observation,
September 4, 2012). He showed how current local and national issues were centric to the
and evidenced by deeply understanding the underlying issues. He hoped that students
“assessment” and appeared 30 times in the data set. Andy sought to help his students
understand the curricular content so that they could successfully pass the EOCT.
would have multiple opportunities to acquire the required knowledge through scaffolding
What we’ll do is we’ll do that a million times. We will not forget that.
over and over again. We don’t leave something, we just leave it for a little bit and
come right back to it . . . Make sure you understand what’s going on. All right?
Students were diverse. They learned at different speeds and at various levels.
Andy wanted to know what his students comprehended and where they needed help. He
231
asked, “How many of you guys have it right? Okay. You understand why you got it
wrong?” (A. Adams, classroom observation, August 22, 2012). Andy wanted is students
And I’m begging you not to just pass a test, but to be able to walk out of here and
say, ‘I’m gonna vote for this candidate because of these economic reasons or this
economic reason. This is why I support this candidate’ (A. Adams, classroom
From Andy’s perspective, assessing and testing worked in synchrony. Students needed
deep understanding in order to perform well on the forthcoming quizzes, tests and EOCT.
Andy monitored the learning environment. He paced the room during quizzes. I
asked Andy during the SRI to explain his pacing behaviors. He stated,
The message I’m sending here is ‘I wanna make sure that we’re on task . . . I
wanna get finished, you know, within a certain time frame and with
don’t wanna make it seem like, you know, ‘This is not a big deal. It’s just a quiz’.
I don’t want anybody to be distracted. I don’t want another student to stop and
talk with another student. So I have to be, you know, kinda prowling to use ‘the
Andy deeply believed that the curriculum could be life-changing for those
students who wanted to learn. He accentuated the fact that learning content was broad-
based and required knowledge acquisition that surpassed the required state curriculum
mandates. He proclaimed,
232
I get passionate about these things, ‘cause I want you to learn it. And, also we’re
book right there that you can explain it . . . Do you think it’s back there? Half this
stuff right here . . . You are a regular economics class, and we’re going over stuff
that most people say, “You shouldn’t go over” (A. Adams, classroom observation,
September 4, 2012).
Andy suggested that the shallow understanding of the curriculum could be misleading
It is important that . . . I pour myself out to you so you can make sure you
understand it . . . If you don’t believe me that people don’t understand this, come
to the barber shop. Okay? Just come to the barber shop on Saturday and sit with
me, and keep your mouth shut and listen to what is said (A. Adams, classroom
Andy suggested that the students’ political decisions directly impacted their
personal lives. Regarding the potential election of Governor Romney to the presidency,
he suggested, “If he’s elected he will work to repeal Obama what? Obamacare. That’s
exactly what’s going on . . . You have got to understand this!” (A. Adams, classroom
understanding and to aid them during academic tests and real-world tests. During the
SRI, Andy substantiated his position on curricular real-world relevance by stating, “What
I’m telling ‘em overall is that, once again, ‘this is something that affects you’” (A.
233
“Why are we talking about this in here? Because, it’s the most important issue. And you
are taking this class. You understand?” (A. Adams, classroom observation, August 29,
2012).
Andy taught that problem solving must be founded upon rational decision-making
skills. During the SRI, I asked Andy, “How do you try to teach decision-making skills,
Andy?” He replied,
What I’m trying to do is to make sure that they understand the consequences of
those decisions, and what is a “good decision”. You know, you have a decision
. . . What’s the consequence of the decision of not voting? Not paying attention to
the political process? Not being involved in it? (A. Adams, personal
understanding the curricular content. The 21st century and CCSS outcomes were
The 4Cs were aligned with the P21 learning and innovation skills (Partnership for 21st
century skills, 2006). The literature suggested that instructional and assessment practices
recommended that alternative assessments were more effective than traditional standards-
based assessments (Gülbahar & Tinmaz, 2006). Essentially, teachers were required to
assess the 21st century learning outcomes that they believed mattered most (Silva, 2009).
234
Minor Theme Four: Deep Understanding – Dana Dunn
A fourth minor theme reflected that deep understanding was a key component in
learning practice. During the SRI, Dana reflected on the various literary concepts that her
students needed to understand. She pondered the students’ cognitive processes used to
gain knowledge in rigorous courses. She said, “I think about how students go about
understanding, comprehending, you know, what they’re learning” (D. Dana, personal
observation, September 17, 2012). Dana was keenly aware that she was responsible for
teaching the necessary skills. Reaching minimal benchmarks were insufficient standards
for producing high-level writings to Dana. Quality writing resulted from a fully operative
understanding of the writing rules. Dana taught that the misapplication of common
punctuation rules altered the writer’s intentions. She demonstrated how shallow
understanding of punctuation rules had completely changed the connotation and meaning
“. . . Look at the difference the punctuation marks make!” (D. Dunn, classroom
Dana hoped to increase the students’ depth of understanding by learning how to apply a
theoretical lens when reading a literary work. Their interpretive skills were predicated on
And so I wanted them to understand that in literature there are critical theories or
critical lenses through which they can read and interpret. And it depends on
235
which one of those that they are using at the time [as to] how they will interpret
what they read (D. Dunn, personal observation, September 17, 2012).
The ability to recognize literary terms gave students advanced tools for understanding
and interpreting writings. She noted that a single conjunction evoked emotions when
Think about childlike exuberance that’s created by repeating that “and”. And it
moves us along faster. It accelerates the pace right there, which also changes the
mood a little bit. So there’s excitement right there, and maybe a little
apprehension. And there’s a literary term for that. It’s . . . called a polysyndeton,
viewing the work through various interpretive lenses. She dramatically discussed a
Puritan literary work through a naturalistic lens. This perspective allowed the students to
think about literary writings from an earth science viewpoint. She said, “That’s kinda
like the life cycle of plants. And like, when the devil touched the staff and . . . the leaves
died, like withered up instantly. And I don’t know. It was like representative life cycle”
suggested that the students would need her knowledge base and expertise; otherwise,
students would not need her intellect if they already understood every literary concept.
She demonstrated this by analyzing a writing sample. Dana stated, “It’s not wrong. It’s
just not well developed” (D. Dunn, classroom observation, August 23, 2012). Her deep
236
understanding demonstrated to students how to think beyond a novice level. Thus,
students were challenged to read the unwritten and to ascertain the unstated ideas. Dana
observation, August 23, 2012). This notion suggested that students were to delve into the
specific challenge for Dana. During the SRI, she noted, “I still grapple with…trying . . .
to teach students to be better writers, because writing is so complex (D. Dunn, personal
observation, September 17, 2012). Teaching students to recognize writing styles was
also problematic. She noted, “Hemingway writes like a journalist. Faulkner writes very,
very descriptively with lots and lots of imagery and very long, complex sentences” (D.
Dunn, classroom observation, August 23, 2012). Dana though that the students’ ability to
Mature writing skills stemmed from multifarious skills. Deep understanding and the
application of those skills were acquired through repeated analytical experiences with
The fourth minor theme noted that deep understanding was a key component in
learning praxis. The subcode “understanding” appeared 22 times in the code set as a
various ways. She asked questions that caused students to think and to be certain that
237
they had a full understanding of the tasks at hand. During the SRI, Kate suggested that
when students orally communicated their knowledge, it helped them to evaluate “what
they understand… what they don’t understand” (K. King, personal communication,
September 12, 2012). During observations, she used this tool as a type of formative
assessment.
She used various strategies to aid their focus. During a quiet moment, Kate lingered near
the front of the class. While the students completed their test preps, Kate stated,
“Remember thinking is important!” During one observation she redirected the students’
attention by asking them to focus on her. “Okay. This way please” (K. King, classroom
observation, August 29, 2012). By focusing the students’ eyes on Kate, she was
positioned to examine their expressions. This brief encounter potentially helped Kate to
Kate focused the students on specific learning strategies as a way to engage them
learning and inquiry as strategies for engaging students in deep learning. Furthermore,
when students were learning the periodic table, Kate provided strategies for
comprehending its layout and functionality. Regarding a group of specific elements she
stated, “Knowing where those are located will be very, very helpful to you” (K. King,
classroom observation, August 29, 2012). Learning was framed upon previous
So you know it has something to do with where they’re located on the periodic
238
table. So if you read the first part . . . and you really had no idea from that, then
you could use the second part as a clue to something you need to look for to
figure out the answer (K. King, classroom observation, August 23, 2012).
She strategically asked, “Does that make sense?” (K. King, classroom observation,
August 29). Kate reaffirmed this notion by interjecting, “So we’re gonna spend the first
part of class looking at those you’ve been working on, talking about it, making sure you
understand how to do it, and get your questions answered . . . be prepared to answer
Kate often used higher order questioning and inquiry to measure the students’
knowledge. She probed, “If it’s a synthesis reaction, what do you think is happening in
it?” (K. King, classroom observation, September 7, 2012). Students were required to
synthesize their understanding. Kate asked, “But from the other two . . . should you be
able to answer the question?” (K. King, classroom observation, August 21, 2012).
Interestingly, Kate wanted every student to engage in deep learning, not just the higher
achieving students. She added, “Somebody else weigh in. What do you think?” (K.
Kate discussed her expectations with the students. She expressed the need for
offered, “I hope you’ll start seeing the trends more without me actually having to point
them out to you” (K. King, classroom observation, August 21, 2012). Later she stated,
“You’re gonna hopefully discover some of that for yourself today” (K. King, classroom
observation, September 7, 2012). During the SRI, Kate explained how she helped the
students to learn more deeply. She said, “I give them time to think about it, and answer,
239
and not rush (K. King, personal communication, September 12, 2012). Kate’s historical
record in teaching physical science and her students’ high EOCT scores suggested that
her students did comprehend and apply what they learned at a high level.
The fourth minor theme stated that deep understanding was a key component in
learning practice. The first research question determined to understand the attitudes that
Andy. The code “understanding” was the strongest factor in the “assessment”
parent code group and emerged 30 times in the data set. Andy’s attitude towards
instructing “21st century learning” was very positive. The fourth theme was highly
Dana. The parent group “assessment” ranked second in Dana’s code set. One-
third of the “assessment” code group was comprised of “understanding” codes. The data
suggested a strong thematic relevance between the fourth theme and the first research
question.
“understanding” subcodes. Since “21st century learning” emerged as the dominant parent
code group, the fourth theme was highly relevant to the first research question. Based on
the data, the fourth theme showed very strong relevance to the first research question.
The fourth minor theme purported that deep understanding was a key component
in learning. The second research question determined to understand the extent to which
240
Andy. The “understanding” factor existed as the strongest factor in the
“assessment” parent code group having emerged 30 times in the data set. Although
“creativity and innovation” were coded a minimal number of times, it was suggested that
Andy constructed a foundation during the observations for implementing creative and
Dana. The “assessment” parent code group ranked second in the code set. One-
third of the “assessment” codes were “understanding” subcodes and emerged 14 times.
Dana suggested that creativity was a way expressing one’s perceptions of things that
were meaningful and were formatted in significant ways (D. Dunn, personal
“understanding” subcodes. Kate suggested that she and her students needed to develop
greater creativity and innovation in her classroom. The fourth minor theme showed a
The fourth minor theme showed that understanding was a key component in
learning praxis. The third research question sought to know the degree that teachers
Andy. The code “understanding” was the strongest factor in the “assessment”
parent code group and emerged 30 times in the data set. NLS was the strong “learning
Dana. The parent group “assessment” ranked second in Dana’s code set. One-
241
third of “assessment” codes were comprised of “understanding” codes. The NLS
subcode group emerged 14 times and was Dana’s fourth ranking parent code group. The
data reflected that Dana moderately engaged her students in NLS activities.
from NLS codes. The fourth minor theme was highly pertinent to the third research
question.
The fourth minor theme suggested that deep understanding was a key component
in learning as shown in Table 9. The fourth research question sought to know how the
participants measured their own self-efficacy in teaching 21st century learning skills
Andy. The code “understanding” was the strongest factor in the “assessment”
parent code group and emerged 30 times in the data set. NLS was the strong “learning
culture” subcode set. The “21st century learning” parent code group was the second
ranking code group. Sixty-five “critical thinking” codes emerged from the “21st century
learning” parent code. The data suggested that “critical thinking” was the second most
predominant individual factor in all Andy’s subcode data. The data evinced that Andy’s
attitude towards teaching critical thinking skills as a component of 21st century skills
Dana. The parent group “assessment” ranked second in Dana’s code set. One-
third of the “assessment” code group was comprised of “understanding” codes. The NLS
subcode group emerged 14 times and was Dana’s fourth ranking parent code group. The
data reflected that Dana moderately engaged her students in NLS activities. The “21st
242
century learning” parent code group was Dana’s highest ranking parent code group and
suggested that Dana possessed a strong self-efficacy towards instruction 21st century
from NLS codes. The fourth minor theme was highly pertinent to the fourth research
question. The “21st century learning” code group was the second predominant parent
code group in Kate’s code data. The data suggested that the fourth minor theme was very
Table 9
Understanding
Deep understanding 30 14 22
Cross-Case Analysis
Commonalities that existed across all three cases were analyzed in this section.
The four major themes that existed among the three participants were presented and
compared. Then, the four minor themes that occurred among the three participants were
presented and compared. The four major themes contained common factors that existed
between the three case studies. Both the major and minor themes were comprised of
categories determined by the number of codes that emerged in each subcode. The cross-
case analysis suggested that common factors existed among the three teachers.
The analysis accounted for factors that were present in both the major and minor
243
themes. The minor themes were determined by identifying the most often recurring
subcodes in each parent code group. When analyzing the subcodes across all parent
groups, the largest subcode group factors comprised the minor themes. For example, the
factor “critical thinking” existed as the largest “21st century learning” collective subcode.
It was also the largest independent subcode for all three teachers. In the cross-case
analysis, the minor theme codes, i.e., critical thinking, were discussed independently of
the major themes. Although these codes comprised the largest subcode groups, they were
21st century learning. The first major theme was: When teachers had favorable
attitudes towards 21st century skills instruction, it was reflected in their praxis. The
parent code “21st century learning” was collectively coded 206 times. The largest
subcode group was “critical thinking” and will be discussed as a minor theme. Two
The first common factor was “accessing and analyzing information”. This factor
was the second largest “21st century learning” subcode group with 26 total codes. Andy
had 12 codes and Dana had 10 codes, while Kate had only four codes in this group. This
finding suggested that the students were engaged in accessing information on a minimal
to moderate level. The “accessing and analyzing information” component was closely
related to critical thinking in premise. Therefore, codes emerged only when students both
accessed and analyzed information together. Teachers did not engage their students in
research at any point during the observations. This factor may have been more
substantial if teachers had actively engaged students in online research. The teachers
implied that their students were engaged in research at other times in their classrooms.
244
The second common factor was “innovation and creativity”. This factor was the
third largest 21st century subcode group with 23 total codes. This factor was the third
largest subcode for Kate with nine “innovation and creativity” codes. Andy had four
“innovation and creativity” codes, while Dana had 10 “innovation and creativity” codes.
This major theme was closely related to research question one that determined to
know attitudes that teachers exhibited regarding instruction of 21st century learning skills.
“Critical thinking” was the largest “21st century learning” subcode group. The parent
code “21st century learning” was collectively coded 206 times. Based on the data, all
three case study participants highly valued teaching 21st century learning skills. This
factor was directly related to research question two that sought to understand the extent
that teachers determined to engage students in creativity and innovation. Based on the
research data, all three teachers instructed their students in learning “creativity and
Assessment. The second major theme reflected that when teachers held students
The parent code “assessment” was collectively coded 190 times. The parent code
“assessment” ranked first among Kate’s parent code groups with 70 total codes. The
“assessment” parent code ranked third among Andy’s parent code groups with 77 total
codes. The “assessment” parent code ranked second among Dana’s parent code groups
with 43 total codes. Within the “assessment” parent code group, “understanding” was the
largest collective “assessment” subcode with 66 total codes. This code was significant
Two common factors emerged from the “assessment” data. The first common
245
factor was “accountability” with 49 total codes. The “accountability” factor accounted
for approximately 70% of the combined “assessment” parent code group. This factor was
very significant for Kate with 18 codes. Kate used 25% of her instructional time teaching
the students assessment accountability. This code appeared 22 times in Andy’s data set.
This factor reflected that Andy spent just over 30% of his assessment instruction teaching
the students to be accountable. Dana had nine “accountability” codes and spent
This factor suggested that EOCT teachers felt a strong need to engage students in
The second common factor was “test-taking skills”. This factor was the third
largest “assessment” subcode group with 23 total codes. Kate had 15 “test-taking skills”
codes. This suggested that that approximately 20% of Kate’s assessment instruction
centered on learning skills needed for testing. Andy had 12 “test-taking skills” codes.
developing test-taking skills. Dana had 11 “test-taking skills” codes and indicated that
25% of Dana’s assessment instruction was spent on learning how to test effectively.
Three out of four classroom observations with Dana were held with the A. P. class. This
students needed more instruction in learning advanced test-taking skills than students in
regular EOCT classes. Only those students who possessed advanced academic skills took
the A. P. class. This view was contrasted with the notion that as students increased in
critical thinking, they grew more independent of the teacher and needed less direct
instruction (Owoyemi & Olowofela, 2013). The notion that A. P. students needed more
246
instruction in learning advanced test-taking skills did not suggest that Dana required more
time to teach like or similar skills to those skills that were taught in the other case study
classes. Conversely the application of previously acquired skills and the acquisition of
new skills that were specific to A. P. testing demanded that Dana spend more time
The second major theme was directly related to research question one that
determined to know the attitudes teachers exhibited regarding instruction of 21st century
learning skills. “Critical thinking” was the largest “21st century learning” subcode group.
The parent code “21st century learning” was collectively coded 206 times. Based on the
data, all three case study participants highly valued teaching 21st century learning skills.
student outcomes. Drouin (2010) purported that no single method existed for
determining the best forms of formative and summative assessments. The observations
showed that all three teachers mostly engaged their students in traditional standards-
based assessments. This factor was opposed to the idea that traditional testing was less
effective than alternative forms of testing (Gülbahar & Tinmaz, 2006). A recent study
suggested that students’ assessments must measure those factors that teachers determined
were most important in 21st century learning (Silva, 2009). Therefore, based on the
observations, all three teachers tended towards more traditional assessment methods and
Learning Culture. The third major theme suggested that when teachers created
an effective learning culture, they sought to engage learners. The parent code “learning
culture” was collectively coded 168 times. “Learning culture” ranked first among Kate’s
247
parent code groups with 70 codes, and ranked second among Dana’s parent code groups
with 43 codes. This parent code ranked third among Andy’s parent code groups with 77
codes. Within the “assessment” parent code group, “understanding” was the largest
collective assessment subcode with 66 total codes. The “assessment” code was
Two common factors emerged from the “learning culture” data. The first
common factor was the “learning environment” with 57 total codes. The “learning
environment” parent code group. This factor was very significant for Kate with 23 codes.
Kate used over 40% of “learning culture” instruction teaching the students about the
environment. This code appeared 23 times in Andy’s data set. This reflected that Andy
spent just over 30% of his “learning culture” instruction teaching the students about the
environment where they learned. Dana had nine “learning culture” codes and spent
slightly under 30% of her “learning culture” teaching her students about their learning
environment. This factor reflected that EOCT teachers felt strongly about teaching their
students about the learning environment. Specifically, this factor seemed vital to
understanding the "learning culture”, because the teachers were still developing their
learning environments in August. It appeared that Kate needed to spend more time
defining and developing the “learning environment” with younger students than Andy
Learning Styles. The fourth major theme noted that when teachers focused on
students’ LS, it was evidenced in their instructional habits. Three common factors
emerged from the data. The parent code “LS” was collectively coded 161 times. “LS”
248
ranked first among Andy’s parent code groups with 102 total codes. “LS” ranked third
among Kate’s parent code groups with 56 total codes. “LS” ranked fourth among Dana’s
Two common factors emerged from the “LS” data. The first common factor was
the “NLS”. Within the “LS” parent code group, NLS was the largest collective
assessment subcode group among the participants with 119 total codes. When teachers
incorporating NLS. This substantial factor accounted for approximately 74% of the
The NLS factor was coded 20 codes during Kate’s observations. Approximately
two-thirds of Kate’s LS instruction was centered on NLS. The NLS codes appeared 85
times in Andy’s data set. This reflected that Andy spent just over 80% of his assessment
instruction centered on the NLS framework. Dana had 22 NLS codes and spent
approximately 54% of her assessment instruction teaching her students based on NLS
factors. The NLS factor suggested that EOCT teachers felt a very strong need to engage
students in learning that was framed on the students’ individual LS. The most significant
component in NLS coding was RWL. Furthermore, this subcode emerged as a minor
code construct and was discussed as a minor code. It comprised 119 out of 161 total
“LS” codes. Therefore, the parent code group “LS” was mostly constructed in “RWL”
components.
The second common factor was “self-regulation” and emerged 22 times in the
total coding. The “self-regulation” factor was Kate’s third largest “LS” subcode group
with only two codes. Kate engaged students in “self-regulation” less than 1% of the time
249
during the observation period. The “self-regulation” factor was Andy’s second largest
“learning styles” subcode group with 13 codes. Andy engaged students in “self-
regulation” instruction around 13% of the time during the observation period. This factor
was moderately significant. The factor “self-regulation” was Dana’s second largest
“learning styles” subcode group with seven codes. Dana engaged students in “self-
regulation” instruction slightly less than 27% of the time during the observation period.
This factor was directly related to research question three that determined to
understand the degree that teachers implemented NLS. The research suggested that 21st
century learners needed to receive instruction that was based on their individual LS
(Evans & Cools, 2011; Kozhevnikov, 2007; Li, 2008; Zhang & Sternberg, 2006) and
cognitive LS (Coffield, et al. 2004b; Li, 2008; Rayner & Cools, 2011; Sadler-Smith,
2009). While it was evident that all three teachers sought to engage their students based
on NLS, it was pertinent to note that the students were nominally engaged in learning
with technology. Research also strongly suggested that neomillennial students preferred
learning when they were deeply engaged in participative technological and media-based
construction (Buckingham, 2007; Dede, 2009a; Dieterle, Dede, Perkins, & Russell, 2008;
Jenkins, Clinton, Purushotma, Robinson, & Weigel, 2006; & Salaway, Caruso, Nelson, &
Ellison, 2007).
All three participants’ codes revealed that NLS was the most common “LS” factor
that the teachers implemented during their instruction. The main factor in NLS was
This code appeared only twice with Kate, suggesting that it was not very significant,
250
Minor themes.
Four minor themes occurred among the three participants and contained common
factors that existed across the three case studies. The first minor theme suggested that
critical thinking was an indispensable part of instruction. The parent code “21st century
learning” was collectively coded 206 times. The subcode “critical thinking” was the
most often coded “21st century learning” subcode group among all three participants with
107 total codes. Kate had 22 “critical thinking” subcodes while Andy had 65 codes
“critical thinking” subcodes. Dana had 20 codes “critical thinking” subcodes. All three
participants’ codes revealed that critical thinking was the most common 21st century
The “critical thinking” factor was substantiated in the literature. Critical thinking
skills were required skills for gaining success in the global marketplace (Wagner, 2008).
The fact that Andy was coded 65 times was very significant. His strategies suggested a
3:1 margin over Kate and Dana based on the total number of codes per teacher. The
learning” codes. “Critical thinking” codes comprised about one-third of Kate’s 21st
century learning codes and approximately 60 percent of Dana’s 21st century learning
increased “critical thinking skills” instruction as their students matured. This suggested
that the teachers expected their students to think more independently and to apply their
All three participants’ codes revealed that “critical thinking” was the most
common 21st century learning factor that teachers implemented during their instruction.
251
This factor was aligned with the literature review as one of the most needed skills in the
global marketplace (Wagner, 2008). 21st century learning was defined as the overlap
that occurred between seven 21st century skills frameworks (Lemke et al., 2003;
Critical thinking was identified as a 21st century Learning and Innovation skill
(Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010). This finding was specifically related to
research question one that sought to understand the attitudes that teachers exhibited
regarding instruction of 21st century learning skills. Based on the data, all three teachers
in the case studies exhibited very positive attitudes towards 21st century learning skills.
Specifically, all three teachers displayed very positive attitudes towards instructing
The second minor theme noted that RWL was an essential component of teaching.
The parent code “LS” was comprised of various subcode groups. The most significant
subcode group was NLS. The most often occurring subcodes within NLS were “RWL”
Within “RWL”, Andy was coded 83 times out of 106 total “RWL” code entrees.
Just over 80% of Andy’s NLS instruction was RWL. The RWL factor was Kate’s largest
“LS” subcode group with 13 codes. Slightly less than 40% of Kate’s NLS instruction
was focused on RWL. The RWL factor was Dana’s largest “LS” subcode group with 10
codes. About 38% of Dana’s NLS instruction was focused on RWL. This theme was
directly connected to research question three that determined to understand the degree
that teachers implemented NLS. The data suggested that Kate and Dana strongly
connected their curricula to RWL. It also suggested that Andy very strongly connected
252
the Economics curriculum to RWL. The literature reflected that students who learned in
real-world environments related learning acquisition to the real world and identified,
assessed, and provided alternative solutions to problems (Fazarro, Pannkuk, & Pavelock,
2009).
The third minor theme suggested that brain-compatible learning was an important
factor in learning. When students were engaged in an effective learning culture, teachers
code group, “brain compatibility” was the largest collective assessment subcode group
among the participants with 95 total codes. The factor “brain compatibility” was Kate’s
largest “learning culture” subcode group with 33 codes. This reflected that slightly less
than 60% of Kate’s instruction in the “learning culture” was focused on brain-compatible
factors. The factor “brain compatibility” was Andy’s largest “learning culture” subcode
group with 36 codes. This showed that slightly less than 50% of Andy’s instruction in
factor was Dana’s largest “learning culture” subcode group with 26 codes. This reflected
that slightly less than 70% of Dana’s instruction in “learning culture” was focused on
aided student learning. Beliavsky (2006) and Gardner (1993) noted that intelligences
learning environments to successful learning (Partnership for 21st century skills, 2007;
The final minor theme noted that deep learning was a key component in learning
praxis. When students were assessed, teachers wanted to know the students’ levels of
253
understanding. Within the parent code group, “understanding” was the largest collective
The “understanding” factor was Kate’s largest “assessment” subcode group with
22 codes. This reflected that one-third of Kate’s instruction in “assessment” was focused
was “understanding and was coded 30 times. This reflected that slightly less than 40% of
largest assessment subcode group was “understanding” and emerged 14 times. This
suggested that 1/3 of Dana’s assessment instruction was designed to teach deep
254
CHAPTER FIVE. DISCUSSION
Chapter five consists of five sections: (a) a summary of the findings, (b) a
discussion of the findings and the implications in light of the relevant literature and
instructing 21st century learning skills in a high school core curriculum. The literature
purported that 21st century skills were essential components to one’s effectiveness as a
learner and as a worker. This suggested that today’s educators were responsible for
identifying 21st century skills, mastering specific skills and equipping learners with those
skills (Mullen & Wedwick, 2008). The study contained a literature review of related
factors.
The CCSS essential “learning and innovation” skills 4Cs were identified as:
collaboration;
communication; and,
These skills were designed to engage students in learning and were symmetrical with the
P21 learning and innovation skills (Partnership for the 21st century, 2006). Research
suggested the need for massive school reform (Olsen & Sexton, 2009) and a
content neutral 21st century learning and innovation skills (Partnership for 21st Century
255
Skills, 2007) were effectively taught, assessed and implemented in the core high school
A qualitative, collective instrumental case study method was used to gather and
analyze data. The data were obtained through a pre-observational survey, four classroom
observations and a stimulated recall interview (SRI). This applied research study sought
to help solve a critical and current educational problem (Ary et al., 2006).
research was prevalent in the literature and the CCSS was emergent. While 21st century
learning research and the CCSS research existed separately, salient research was non-
existent when both factors were examined conjunctively. This study sought to evaluate
21st century instructional strategies (Olsen, 2010) and to potentially offer insight into
study may have helped teachers to more effectively instruct the CCSS.
This study was guided by four research questions that were stated in Chapter One
learning styles?
Research Question 4. How will the participants measure their own self-efficacy
256
in teaching 21st century learning skills within the core curriculum?
Methodology
Data were collected from three primary sources during each case study in the
collective study. The data collection and data analysis processes proceeded concurrently.
The participants’ self-efficacy levels were initially ascertained by their responses to the
survey questions. The classroom observations and stimulated recall interviews were
transcribed and coded to further determine the factors that influenced the participants’
sense of self-efficacy.
After reviewing the classroom transcriptions, specific video clips were aggregated
into a single video for each participant’s review during the SRI. According to Morse
(2008), the interviewer’s skills affected the quality of the data collection and the ability to
reach a saturation point. Therefore, I determined to carefully ask pertinent questions that
were relevant to the study and specific to the individual participant. I asked a question
then showed the participant a single video clip of him or her teaching. The participant
was provided ample time to answer the SRI question and to elaborate on each answer.
Each of the participant’s SRI data were later transcribed and analyzed.
Following the data collection, transcriptions of the observations and SRIs were
read and re-read to determine repeating ideas. These repeating ideas were then
categorized. The emergent categories reflected repeating patterns that were conceptually
interrelated. As a result, the categories formulated the emergent themes (Glaser and
Strauss, 1967). These themes reflected implicit ideas that “a group of repeating ideas
have in common” (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003, 62). The themes for this study were
identified through the literature review and codes were filtered through the literature
257
information. According to Auerbach and Silverstein (2003), the literature review
provided a strong framework for deciding which repeating ideas were appropriate as
themes. Once the themes were identified, the data were re-examined to approach the
point of saturation where new codes, categories or themes were non-emergent. The goal
was to deeply examine the data and to accurately interpret the participants’ intended
meanings. Bowen (2008) noted that various qualitative research reports suggested
reaching saturation. Yet, most reports were “without any explanation of what it means
and how it occurred” (p. 137) and often lacked explicit methods for determining the point
of saturation.
well as the participant’s behaviors and instructional strategies. I wrote copious field
notes that included comments about the setting, the participant and my reflective
thoughts. I began interpreting the data using open coding that later emerged into axial
coding. I examined the data and made new connections among the categories and
subcategories.
Themes
The data collection and data analysis suggested four major themes and four minor
When teachers had favorable attitudes towards 21st century skills instruction,
assessment practices;
258
When teachers created an effective learning culture, they sought to engage
learners; and,
instructional habits.
Interpretation
The data were also interpreted through a symbolic interactionism (SI) lens. Using
the SI framework, I analyzed the participant’s communications methods and how the
participants’ ideas were communicated symbolically toward the students. I examined the
exogenous effects. I interpreted the implicit and explicit verbal and nonverbal messages
that the participants sent to their students in the classroom and what I believed were their
intended goals (Blumer, 1969). The subjective nature of interpreting the participant’s
check to counter the “crisis of representation” issue (Marcus & Fischer, 1986, 15) and to
participants (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Richardson & St. Pierre, 2005).
Triangulation
Although multiple investigators were not involved in this case study, I did employ
an “external observer” (Yin, 2009, 122) throughout the study to evaluate the data
259
collection, data analysis and interpretive aspects of the study, i.e., symbolic
interactionism. My goals in triangulating the data were to incorporate case study findings
with respect to their strengths and weaknesses and to acquire evidential convergence. A
I triangulated the data to validate the findings. Flick (2009) stated that data
triangulation afforded researchers the ability to view the data from more than two
Using an a priori perspective, I linked the data and theoretical viewpoints that were
provided information on different levels that would have otherwise not been possible.
Denzin (2009) noted four primary types of triangulation. The three types that I used in
this study were data triangulation, theoretical triangulation and an outside observer who
An audit trail reflected the daily journey that began with data collection and ended
with the written analysis phase. This process showed the comprehensive pathways that I
journeyed throughout the study. A Google spreadsheet was used to store the daily
activities.
emerged earlier in the data analysis process. Those iterations required inductive
reasoning processes that occurred primarily after the data collection, since the goal was to
reach a conclusion. I analyzed the data across all of the cases to identify similarities and
to gain understanding of the issues that were relevant to this study. Furthermore, I built a
260
logical chain of evidence to increase the reliability in this study (Miles & Huberman,
The external observer trailed my derivation of the evidence and retraced the
pathways of the study. This methodology allowed him to examine conclusions based on
the research questions and vice-versa (Yin, 2009). Herein, the content was linked to the
A goal in cross-case analysis was to determine similarities that occurred across all
three case studies. I performed a cross-case comparison and synthesis to present “rival
explanations that might have been alternative reasons for the observed outcomes” (Yin,
2012, 191). Various factors influenced the participants on different levels. The data
suggested that four major themes existed. In the cross-case analysis, the four most
prominent parent code groups emerged. These findings provided the foundation for
determining the themes. They were presented in descending rank order as:
assessment;
learning styles.
Theoretical Perspectives
perspectives. The data for each case study was interpreted using multiple perspectives
that were derived from the literature and were examined in light of different theoretical
261
lenses. Effective learning strategies and twenty-first century learning skills were
1977), reflected that the participants often modeled the desired behaviors in their
students. The social learning theory purported that learning best happened within social
contexts where individuals, i.e., students learned by observing others’ habits (Bandura,
1977). The data suggested that all three participants effectively modeled ways to use the
instruction on learning. Kate observed students during science classes to determine the
degree that students applied the knowledge they had been taught. Dana interacted with
her A. P. students and provided implicit and explicit learning cues during instruction.
Some of the participants questioned whether their instructional practices were accurately
aligned with the current research literature. Dana questioned whether her answers were
accurately aligned with 21st century learning skills. Kate was reticent to affirm her self-
efficacy in teaching creativity skills. Andy suggested that he needed to engage his
students more deeply in creativity and innovation. The data reflected that all three
Constructivism
262
posed Socratic questions and sought to show a vivid and clear connection to RWL. Dana
helped students contextually found knowledge based on the interplay between the
students real-life experiences and the ideas (Vygotsky, 1978) presented by great writers.
Kate led students into new knowledge acquisition by accessing previous knowledge to
construct new meanings. All three participants sought to actively engage their students in
the classroom social environments (Vygotsky, 1978). This study did not examine the
students’ perspectives. Therefore, the data only reflected the participants’ constructivist
instructional behaviors.
The data showed that the participants actively monitored their students as a
catalytic guide for learning engagement. The learning environments were atypically
founded upon constructivist principles. Although all three participants used didactic
pedagogical practices, the lectures were designed to provide foundational, pertinent and
contextualized information. The data did not generally suggest, as explained by Patel &
Yelland (2007), that knowledge was being created versus being acquired. The
dissemination of factual information during the observations seemed pertinent and served
purview of perspectives that I believed most students did not already possess.
The contextualized instructional strategies linked past and present contexts so that
students were rigorously challenged to determine fact from fiction and truth from error in
meaningful ways (Jonassen & Hung, 2008). Dana connected her past learning
experiences to the present and ageless issues, i.e., love and marriage, discovered within
the curriculum. Andy connected his own life-long learning experiences as well as his
263
All three participants exemplified active communication skills development
(Anderman & Sinatra, 2009) in oral and written traditions. Kate engaged students in
appropriate social interactions and provided an emotionally safe community wherein she
formally and informally assessed their learning (Durlak & Weissberg, 2007). All three
The situated learning theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991) stressed social practice
principles founded on socially acquired knowledge and shared knowledge. The pivotal
issue was that the individuals who were involved cooperated virtuously and shared a
common bond of mutual benefits. Their subordination and cooperation created avenues
for the apprentices to eventually become experts. According to Lave and Wenger (1991),
“shared participation is the stage on which the old and the new, the known and the
unknown, the established and the hopeful, act out their differences and discover their
commonalities, manifest their fear for one another, and come to terms with their need for
one another’ their thesis stressed regularity in the outcomes of practice” (p. 116).
these three theoretical perspectives. I assumed that the participants would engage their
errant assumption seemed palpable at the beginning of the study. A discontinuity existed
264
intellectually. The data did not reflect that any of the participants fully engaged learners
While the data did not reflect a disharmonious social atmosphere, the findings suggested
that the participants did not generally determine collaborative learning to be a highly
effective learning tool in their respective instructional settings at the time of this study.
RQ1
The first research question determined to understand the attitudes that teachers
exhibited towards instructing 21st century learning skills. This question was addressed by
determining commonalities that existed between the CCSS and the P21 century learning
skills. These factors helped bound and guide the data analysis process.
21st century learning skills. The 21st century learning literature was imbued
with ideas that defined 21st century learning as the areas of overlap that occurred
between the 21st century skills frameworks (Lemke et al., 2003; Partnership for 21st
century skills, 2007b; Wagner 2008). A plethora of 21st century skills were identified
(Carini, Kuh & Klein, 2006; Lambert & Cuper, 2008; Partnership for 21st Century Skills,
2006; Rocca, 2010). The 21st century learning literature reported that neomillennial
learners needed specific skills (Wagner, 2008; Partnership for 21st century learning,
2007) to find success in the academic arena, the workplace and the global market.
Centric to the findings in the literature were apposite key component factors:
265
initiative and entrepreneurialism;
collaboration; and,
These factors bounded this case study that was framed upon 21st century learning
and sociological theoretical perspectives. The data analysis also centered on key factors
assimilated in the LS literature. The first major theme stated that when teachers had
favorable attitudes towards 21st century skills instruction, it was reflected in their praxis.
The data summary showed that the combined “21st century learning” code group
contained 206 codes. Dana’s subcodes suggested that she placed the highest value on
“21st century learning” skills development. Andy and Kate ranked “21st century
learning” as the second highest code group. Overall, the three participants displayed a
very positive attitude towards instructing the 21st century identified skills.
emerged as the first minor theme. It stated that critical thinking was an indispensable part
of learning. “Critical thinking” codes appeared 107 times in the aggregated data and
reflected that all three participants highly valued this learning factor.
of 21st century learning. The research recommended the use of informal learning
assessments designed to improve learning (Durlak & Weissberg, 2007). Adams (2005)
noted creativity and innovation were often destroyed by traditional pedagogical practices.
266
assessments should be replaced by alternative assessment practices (Gülbahar & Tinmaz,
2006). While widespread disagreement existed regarding the most effective instructional
and assessment methods (Drouin, 2010), the data in this study suggested that the
participants were highly engaged in traditional testing and assessment methods. This was
aligned with the findings of Razzouk & Shute (2012) who suggested that 21st century
assessments were “beyond the capabilities of most traditional assessment formats” (p.
344).
While 21st century instruction was comprised of learning and assessment factors,
“assessment” was a central instructional habits’ component. The second major theme
reflected that when teachers held students accountable for learning, it was demonstrated
in assessment practices. The “assessment” group contained 190 total codes. This
suggested that teachers highly valued assessing student learning. Kate’s codes indicated
that she placed the highest value on student assessment. Dana’s codes showed this parent
code as the second most prominent code group, while Andy’s codes showed this parent
The fourth minor theme purported that deep understanding was a key component
in learning praxis. Assessments helped teachers determine whether their students learned
superficially, moderately or on deeper levels. The data suggested that each of the
instructional practices and why the participants interacted and performed as they did.
Both these factors were byzantine, reciprocal and mutually constituted in nature.
267
Culture. The literature cited engagement in learning as a primary factor in
effective learning (Yazzie-Mintz, 2010). The learning culture greatly impacted the
determined that the teacher’s role significantly defined the learning culture. This was
corroborated by the data in this study. The participants centered primarily on instruction
versus behavior management. This reflected that the each participant had created an
effective learning culture. The third major theme stated that when teachers created an
Recent learning culture research denoted that teachers mediated the students’
academic goals and the learning culture within the school and had a profound impact on
their academic achievement levels (Meece, Anderman, & Anderman, 2006). A Harvard
meta-analysis synthesized the learning goal structures literature and determined that the
learning culture was positively impacted when teachers demonstrated strong emotional,
instructional and social support of their students (Rolland, 2012). The data reflected that
the “learning culture” parent code group ranked third for Kate, third for Dana and fourth
for Andy. The “learning environment” factor emerged 57 times in the combined
participant codes and was situated next in line to “brain-compatible learning”. The data
in this study suggested that the “learning culture” served as pillar in the overall learning
The third major theme stated that when teachers created an effective learning
culture, they sought to engage their learners. “Learning culture” emerged at the third
highest ranking parent code group with 168 combined codes. Although this factor was
quite important in the instructional design, it emerged with 22 codes less than
268
“assessment”. The “learning culture” group ranked as the third highest code group for
Kate and Dana. This code group was ranked as the fourth highest factor for Andy.
Interestingly, “learning culture” codes emerged with only three less codes than the
“assessment” codes for Andy. This suggested that Andy placed less importance on these
two factors than on “21st century learning” skills development and “learning styles”.
“brain-compatible” codes emerged from the data. The third minor theme noted that
regarding cognitive LS, memorization and mastery learning factors (Garrett, 2009;
Freeberg, 2006) were well-documented in the literature (Jensen, 2008; Laster, 2008; Tate,
learning environments (Partnership for 21st century skills, 2007; Shaheen, 2010). In the
words of Andy, “You gotta educate thy brain!” (A. Adams, classroom observation,
August 29, 2012). This phrase was deemed highly pertinent to the noetic goals and
RQ2
The second research question determined to know the extent that teachers sought
to engage students in creativity and innovation. This study examined the impact of three
single measurement was non-existent that specified the degree to which teachers were
269
engaged in creative processes or when they engaged in teaching creativity. All three
participants discussed the need to increase their “innovation and creativity” skills
instruction and practices. The “innovation and creativity” factor was identified as a “21st
century learning” code; yet, the participants interrelated “innovation and creativity” with
the parent code “assessment”. This explained the rationale for interrelating “21st century
using creative presentation methods. Andy and Kate suggested that future instruction and
assessments would include creative and innovative practices. Dana exemplified the
strongest “innovation and creativity” codes among the three participants and reflected a
high level of engagement even during the first weeks of school, especially with the A. P.
students.
in actuality, not only when great historical works are born, but also whenever a person
imagines, combines, alters, and creates something new, no matter how small” (Vygotsky,
2004, p. 10). He noted that creativity was strongly associated with personal and social
1999), an approach that was well-aligned with the constructivist frame of mind.
270
Craft (2008) suggested that multiple issues emerged from the “incommensurate
mix of underpinning perspectives that inform on creativity in education” (p. 6). The
participants generally viewed creativity as the ability to discover new and workable
solutions to everyday problems. The data in this study did not reflect that the participants
were currently highly engaged in “creativity and innovation” skills productivity output.
Yet, the data suggested that the teachers were somewhat engaged in creative thought
processes. This was evinced when Andy engaged his students in thinking creatively
about political ideologies. He challenged the status quo and helped students to formulate
principles and suggested that her students could invalidate their intentions by using
improper punctuation. In general, all three participants maintained a healthy respect for
the creativity factor. They viewed creativity in a positive light, yet without a clear and
1990; Runco, 2007) was conceptually parallel with the 21st century skills framework
(Partnership for 21st century learning, 2008). Brain and cognition research (Tate, 2010;
Zull, 2010) purported scientifically grounded definitions and perceptions regarding best
271
Cognition, metacognition and creativity were closely related. Ascertaining codes
in the area of “metacognition” proved to be difficult, because coding was predicated upon
toward something was determined by the meanings and the significance that these objects
held for an individual. Its meaning was obtained by social interactions with others that
The symbolic interactionism factor was conceptually unified with social learning
theory (Bandura, 1977) perspectives, wherein meanings were processed and modified by
the individual through a process of personal interpretations and interactions with others.
understanding Dana’s instructional practices, the learning processes, and the ethos. The
symbolic interactionism lens reflected that Dana creatively engaged students in critical
verbal communication and confidence factors. Although Andy’s data and Kate’s data did
not suggest a strong theoretical symbolic interactionism tendency, I suggest that future
both classrooms.
RQ3
The third research question determined to know the degree that teachers
implemented NLS. The LS literature was well-founded, whereas the NLS literature was
communication, August 3, 2012) suggested that the term “neomillennial” was not
272
commonly used now as it once was. He suggested that its tenets remained pertinent in
the literature, but they typically were referenced as 21st century learning factors. It
seemed reasonable to assume that NLS factors were proximally related to LS factors.
Learning styles. The fourth major theme suggested that when teachers focused
on students’ LS, it was evidenced in their instructional habits. The “LS” parent code
group emerged as the fourth highest ranking code group with 161 total codes. The data
showed a wide discrepancy among the participants. The codes for both Kate and Dana
reflected that “LS” ranked as the fourth most prominent code group. This demonstrated
that neither Kate nor Dana placed as strong an emphasis on this factor as they did on “21st
century learning” or “assessment”. The codes very strongly showed that “LS” was
Real-world learning. The second minor theme stated that RWL was an essential
component of effective teaching. The single greatest subcode factor for Andy was
“RWL” with 85 codes. The data reflected that Andy was driven to make a connection
between instruction and its real-world relevance. This single factor dominated the NLS
codes. This undeniable factor was evidenced by an average of over 20 references per
Divided camps. With the understanding that all major four themes were vitally
reflected an interesting factor. A set of polyvocal discourses was emergent and presented
a different purview of the data. A deeper analysis of the data suggested that the data
placed the major themes in two distally positioned groups. An analysis of the overall
codes indicated that the participants placed the strongest values on teaching “21st century
273
learning” skills and “assessment” of learning. The data showed only a sixteen-point
spread between the two groups and suggested that the participants placed only a nominal
value difference between the two factors overall. This calculation provided a measurable
A qualitative purview did not suggest that the participants definitively placed
greater importance on one instructional factor over the other. Rather, the proximal data
suggested that both factors were nearly equal in importance. The data reflected that the
“21st century learning” skills were most likely assessed in a cyclic process. Based on the
observational data, it appeared that all three participants used a “teach-test” method of
instruction and assessment. This study did not determine to measure the frequency of
specific instructional practice habits and their interrelated reciprocities. Yet, these two
The third highest ranking code group, “learning culture”, emerged with 168
combined codes. The “LS” parent code group emerged as the fourth highest ranking
code group with 161 total codes. Both code groups were nearly equal in their frequencies
with merely a seven-point difference in their total appearances. The data suggested that
the participants highly valued the “learning culture” and the students’ LS. Yet, these
factors did not hold precedence over “21st century learning “skills development and the
assessment factors. Whereas the codes reflected that the culture and the student’s style of
learning were important factors, they were not equally important to the two most
Assuming the notion that the three participants placed greater importance on “21st
century skills” instruction and “assessment”, it seemed plausible that the classroom
274
“learning culture” and LS factors helped to influence the learners through environmental
factors. The physical environment and the ethos served as frameworks upon which the
participants structured learning. This conveyed that the culture and LS factors may have
had greater importance than the data reflected. Since the data collection occurred
approximately one month into the school year, all three teachers may have placed strong
emphasis on defining the “learning culture” during the preceding weeks. During the
classroom routines and procedures. They focused their instructional times on teaching
the curricular content instead of instructing routine behaviors and standard protocols.
Neomillennial learning styles. The literature purported that the 21st century
digital native (Prensky, 2001a; Palfrey & Gasser, 2008) learner was unique (Buckingham,
2007) and learned very differently from his predecessors. The neomillennial learner
2008; Jenkins et al., 2006; Salaway et al., 2007). Specific research noted that teachers
challenging and shared learning purposes (Dieterle et al., 2008). The research mentioned
that a vast majority of instructional practices did not meet those conditions. Thus, the
research called for a paradigm shift to promote an integrated model of NLS (Dieterle et
designs that were effectively implemented and assessed the neomillennial content neutral
skills required for success in the 21st century (Olsen, 2010). Teachers needed to integrate
core curricula and 21st century learning skills to effectuate maximal learning. Unique
275
neomillennial instructional designs included technology-enhanced learning and PBL as
well as differentiation and collaborative learning. Research supported the view that
learning based on students’ LS (Dieterle et al., 2008; Gardner & Moran, 2006).
While the data suggested that various NLS factors were present during
instruction, Andy’s voluminous RWL codes may have skewed the data. This single
factor may have suggested a stronger engagement in NLS among the collective
participants than actually was evidenced. Dana’s codes reflected 20 NLS codes and
Kate’s data showed only 14 NLS codes. Most importantly, the “LS” parent code group,
of which NLS was included, ranked at the fourth highest parent code group. While the
literature strongly supported the need to engage students in NLS learning, neither Kate
nor Dana extensively engaged their students in NLS praxis during the observations.
Their individual SRIs did not strongly suggest that either teacher engaged her students in
suggested that students needed to interact with specific technology. Yet, the participants
combined engagement with “media fluency” reflected only two total codes among the
three participants. A longer single observation period, or one that occurred over a
broader time frame, may have exhibited much stronger NLS activities.
instruction led me to presume that NLS was virtually improbable and essentially
mere presence or absence of technology tools in the classroom did not assure automation
in NLS practices. Ferguson (2011) suggested, “Without appropriate ethos and pedagogy
276
in place, a virtual world is nothing more than a more technically complicated way of
learners and teacher continuing to do what they were doing before” (Ferguson, 2011).
were unclear in this study. A distinction was made regarding technology use during
instruction. Teaching with technology was not synonymous with hands-on interaction,
where students were engaged with technology learning. The NLS research clearly
The research suggested that some teachers were weak with technology integration
and were unable to keep pace with technology advancements (Mullen & Wedwick,
2008). Thus, some teachers existed in a challenging digital divide that may have
polarized them as participants in this study (Mullen & Wedwick, 2008). This notion was
unproven in this study, but the overall findings supported this perspective.
Research evidenced the notion that instructional technology was relevant and
useful for instructing core standards. Some teachers failed to integrate technology into
classroom learning primarily due to intimidation, lack of technology skills, and time
constraints (Honan, 2008; Stolle, 2008). It was likely that some participants in this study
may have questioned the relevance of technology integration that extended beyond the
local school’s suggestions. It may have existed as a result of poor funding, outdated
equipment and/or inadequate professional development. Andy addressed the fact that
many students struggled to gain access to technology outside school, because they did not
have personal computers and/or they could not access the Internet. Both Dana and Kate
noted that they were not technology-driven teachers. Kate said, “I often tell my students,
277
and the occasional game. I am nowhere near where I need to be with the use of
During the SRI, Kate said that technology implementation was a novel privilege versus a
ritualistic constant in the learning environment. Kate suggested that her students
preferred learning with technology on a few occasions, rather than using it every day.
She explained,
But I think with my class relying on it too much . . . it would just become old hat.
And they would rather not do it . . . I think it engages them pretty well to do
something like this every so often. And then, they get to where they come in and
say, “Can we play hangman today?” (K. King, personal observation, September
12, 2012).
Dana confirmed technology integration. She said, “I try to use technology every
day” (D. Dunn, personal communication, September 17, 2012). The data were equivocal
and ambivalent regarding the degree that the students were engaged in technology
pursuits during instruction. The data suggested that Dana would more fully engage her
rather than stated. Knowledge building occurred best in active learning contexts, where
knowledge was disseminated among the group as well as the individual (Dieterle, 2009)
and more broadly developed by others (Dieterle, Dede & Schrier, 2007; Dunleavy, Dede
& Mitchell 2009; sub et al., 2008). As noted in Figure 4, NLS positively associated the
monumental task, teachers needed the knowledge base, instructional skills and the school
278
district’s financial support to effectuate those goals (Hadjioannou, 2012). The data did
not reflect that during data collection any of the participants fully implemented or broadly
present an alternative and rival view (Yin, 2012) to explain why this may have occurred.
environments and cited new literacies that demanded technology tools. Although the
technical complexities were non-existent during this study, I did not presume the
While the technological tools were unavailable during the observations, some of the
Figure 4. Neomillennial learning styles preferences (Dieterle, Dede, Perkins & Russell,
2008).
information” factors were central to the premises of those engagements. These same
factors were evinced by all three participants in varying degrees while accumulating 119
combined NLS codes. The data reflected that the participants, whose effectiveness
279
measurements were mostly determined by their students EOCT scores, used 21st century
skills to promote higher-order learning. Although the broadly research-based CCSS had
shift had not yet completely occurred on the local level. Therefore, while the participants
RQ4
The fourth research question sought to understand how the participants measured
their own self-efficacy in teaching 21st century learning skills within the core curriculum.
The participants’ perceived self-efficacy was generally defined as the belief they had
regarding their capacity to produce a positive academic effect (Bandura, 1997). All three
student learning engagement levels, assessments and EOCT exams. Dana’s self-efficacy
EOCT scores.
sense of self-efficacy. Bandura (1997) noted, ‘‘Teachers’ beliefs in their efficacy affect
their general orientation toward the educational process as well as their specific
instructional activities’’ (p. 241). Andy’s self-efficacy was directly focused on his
acumen with making the curriculum real-world relevant to his students. Self-efficacy
represented one’s belief in his capacity to structure and carryout the action steps
necessary for producing the given goals (Bandura, 1997), a process dependent upon
280
analyzing multiple viewpoints of efficacy information conveyed through vicarious,
cultural, and physical means (Bandura, 1993). According to Bandura (2006), “The issue
is not whether one can do the activities occasionally, but whether one has the efficacy to
get oneself to do them regularly in the face of different types of dissuading conditions”
(p, 311).
effectively instructing and managing their classrooms. The data reflected that the
teachers were developmental regarding their perceptions of their ability to teach some
21st century learning concepts, especially those that focused on technology integration.
The data intimated that all three participants had strong self-efficacy towards instructing
critical thinking, understanding, and real-world application. They showed very strong
learning cultures in their individual classrooms. The four research questions showed
281
Figure 5. Research questions correlation to the major themes and minor themes.
performing data analysis. The literature touted problem-based learning (PBL) as a highly
effective, 21st century instructional methodology. Prior to the study, I believed that PBL
was centric to 21st century learning, and supposed that constructivist PBL classrooms
were among the most effective learning environments. A recent meta-analysis (Viilo et
al., 2011) suggested that PBL provided students with greater learning satisfaction than
in PBL designs and production processes (Strobel & van Barneveld, 2009). Important
factors were highlighted as prototypical models of 21st century learning, like multimedia
activities (Seo et al., 2008), where problem-centered teamwork incorporated new forms
282
Figure 6. Four intelligence factors emerged in this study (Gardner, 1983).
paradigm for learners to create authentically (Adams, 2005), to use RWL strategies
(Rubin, 2007) in open-ended complexities (Jonassen & Hung, 2008), and to make
decisions based on real-world issues (Strobel & van Barneveld, 2009). A PBL meta-
analysis reflected that PBL provided a “robust positive effect from PBL on the skills of
students” (Dochy, Segers, Van den Bossche & Gijbels, 2003, 533).
opposing viewpoints, and stimulated critical thinking by asking questions and answering
his students’ questions. Andy primarily modeled the desired traits for his students.
linchpin in NLS, the data did not definitively suggest that PBL was highly manifested
during the observations. Rather, the observational data suggested that critical PBL
elements were being developed for student engagement in PBL at a later time.
The assignments were formulated around traditional test measurements and did
not suggest an alternative type assessment with Andy. On the other hand, Dana and Kate
283
showed strong tendencies toward engaging students in PBL. Kate’s classroom learning
design was primed to engage her students in scientific inquiry and discovery through
upcoming lab assignments. Even still, the data did not suggest that discovery learning
was equated with PBL. Based on a variance in qualitative perspective regarding PBL, the
data could have suggested that creativity and innovation factors actually engaged students
in PBL. Rather than proposing a different set of standards for determining the teacher’s
level of engagement in PBL instruction, for the purposes of this study the data reflected
that the participants did not fully engage their students in PBL.
Several factors were identified through the literature review and framed this case
study’s delimitations and boundaries (Creswell, 2007; Stake, 1995). The parameters of
this bounded case included core academic high school teacher participants who were
located within a single school. Selected participants were required to have had three
years teaching experience and ninety percent or above EOCT scores. The delimitations
in this study were the number of participants, the data collection instruments, and the
of a select group of uniquely qualified participants. Guest, Bunce & John (2006)
suggested that the greatest value measurement of data lay in the quality of the data
collected rather than the sample size. Myriad qualitative researchers suggested a wide
range of acceptable sample sizes that ranged from a single subject to hundreds of
participants (Bowen, 2008; Mason, 2010). Three high school teachers from the same
284
According to Miles and Huberman (1994), in applied research like this collective
case study, purposive samples were the most common sample types. Patton (2002) noted
that most participants were chosen prior to the beginning of the study based on relevant
research criteria. In a review of the literature, Guest et al (2006) stated that purposive
sample sizes were inductively determined and that the sampling process continued until
the point of saturation occurred. Significantly, the review suggested that most
the study, as was the case in this study. Their findings suggested that applied researchers
were “stuck with carrying out the number of interviews they prescribe in a proposal, for
better or worse” (Guest et al., 2006, 61). This small sample of three provided me the
opportunity to delve deeply into each case study. It was possible that using a small
sample posed potential weakness and did not offer various perspectives that could have
been derived from a larger sample. My rationale for selecting three participants was to
If I were to perform this exact same study again, I would pursue two things
differently. Provided that the same participants taught the same courses, I would collect
data during the second semester. I believe that students are more settled in their routines
propose that this single factor would provide deeper levels of instruction. For example,
Andy could have potentially engaged students in deep Socratic discussions, because they
were more readily entrenched in the learning environments. I would perform this study
in three separate school departments with two or three participants in each department.
285
Teachers are leaders who independently affect the classroom learning environment. Yet,
I have reason to believe that classroom culture is affected by the collective learning
culture within individual departments like science, mathematics and history based on the
Given the opportunity to pursue this same study in the future, I would consider
other options that were not present in this study. Using the same EOCT requirement,
subsequent studies would examine participants in separate school locations. The data
reflected that the learning culture was a seminal factor in 21st century learning. An
investigation of three teachers from different schools would provide the opportunity to
investigate individual classroom cultures in light of unique school cultures. Whereas this
study did not determine the broad-based issue of collective school culture, this factor may
suggested that school leadership had significant impact on individual classroom cultures
(McCollum & Yoder, 2011). As a result, data collected from high-performing teachers in
different school cultures may present a variance in the findings and suggest other
The three participants represented a populace that excluded first decade teachers.
A subsequent similar study, that includes participants across each three teaching decades
who teach at the same location, may proffer different instructional foci among the
participants. Thus, the sample would include one digital native participant and two
digital immigrant participants (Prensky, 2001a). The analysis could examine the same
issues across three groups with broader instructional experiences. I presume that first
286
decade teachers are typically twenty-two to twenty-three years old. A post hoc
evaluation may suggest that first decade teachers demonstrate a greater dependence on
gaming. Based on the participant’s proximal age with high school students, the first
decade teachers may potentially have a deeper understanding of the students’ learning
culture. A subsequent study should examine teachers who are in their twenties, thirties
and forties.
A final optional study may include teachers across distinct racial parameters.
This study did not determine to examine teachers based on gender, age or race. Yet, a
representative sample of one Caucasian, one Hispanic and one African-American teacher
may provide distinctive findings regarding the learning culture. This study could occur
within the same setting, or across multiple settings, while holding to the 90% or above
EOCT standard. An investigation in three separate locations may provide opportunity for
researchers to examine the same issues based on race. Based on the sampling population,
a qualitative collective case study could include both race and teacher’s experiential
levels as unique criteria for understanding the participants’ perspectives on the four
regarding the conceptualization of the study, the data represented only a small slice of
reality respective to myriad settings. I speculate that the research principles of this study
were transferrable. Furthermore, the findings regarding the four major themes may find
relevance in a number of settings where core teachers were concerned. Patton promoted
287
modest speculations on the likely applicability of findings to other situations under
similar, but not identical, conditions. Extrapolations are . . . problem oriented rather than
statistical and probabilistic” (Patton, 2002, p. 584). The naturalistic settings of the
relevant to classrooms, where excellence existed not as a goal but as fact. Transferability
could be relegated to similar academic settings where the learning culture, assessment
Potential weaknesses in the study may have included the need to examine teachers
based on their gender, ethnicity or educational degree. Two participants were female and
one was male. If a larger sampling was used, the issue of gender balance could have
become a factor. Furthermore, this study could have examined a single gender or could
have been replicated with gender preferences. The participants in this study were all
Caucasian teachers. This factor limited the study, by focusing only a single race of
participants. The literature did not suggest that 21st century learning skills were pertinent
to particular races or cultures; therefore, it did not initially seem pertinent that I consider
A limitation was the age span of the participants. Two participants were in their
third teaching decade, while one participant was near the middle of his career. The study
may have been limited by not having a participant who had taught 10 years or less. A
larger sample size may have examined participants based solely on the decades in which
they had taught. An examination of teachers with experience levels between three and
ten years, 11-20 years and 21-30 years may have provided great insight, especially in
288
based teachers in dissimilar schools may have produced data that suggested differing
The study may have been limited by studying teachers who did not have either a
specialist’s degree or a doctoral degree. One participant had earned a bachelor’s degree,
while the other two participants had earned a master’s degree. A study that included
bachelor’s level teachers, master’s level teachers and doctorate level teachers may have
noteworthy to ascertain how recently each of the participants had received their last
degree. As in my case, I presumed that recent graduates may have had deeper online
learning experiences than those who earned degrees in non-recent years. This factor may
Collegial familiarity could have posed concern for the participants. I explained
assured the participants that I was not an administrator. My goals were to observe and to
learn from them, versus placing a value judgment on their instructional capacities. I
reiterated the notion that each participant had been selected as a highly qualified teacher
based on their EOCT scores and that each participant was part a 2010 Georgia School of
learn from them. My relaxed approach with them seemed to encourage each participant
to act and to teach normally, while I was present as an investigator. Although I did not
observations, all three master teachers could have felt some measure of stress.
289
A limitation may have included the fact that the teachers knew me as a faculty
member and a collegial peer. On the other hand, as an electives course teacher, I was not
required to administer an EOCT in my courses. This factor separated me from the three
participants and potentially made me less threatening. Even though I may have
misapprehended the participants’ perceptions about this study, I did not presume that this
A potential limitation was the data collection time period. Most all the data
collection occurred in August, during the first month of school. Although standard
routines and procedures appeared to be in place, it was possible that the data would have
shown significant alterations if the research had been performed near the end of the
A final limitation was the researcher’s bias regarding 21st century learning skills
and technology. I began this study with a significant interest in 21st century learning. My
learning applications. At the inception of the study, my interests and experiences led me
into the study. Furthermore, based on the literature review, I believed that 21st century
learning best occurred when students were deeply engaged in technology (Dede, 2007;
Dieterle, 2008). This supposition did not curtail my ability to view the data with an open
The findings in this study may provide a clearer understanding of a current and
heretofore was unrepresented in the literature and dissertation research. While both the
290
21st century literacies literature and the CCSS literature abounded as separate entities, a
The findings were mostly consistent with the literature regarding the need for
teachers to demonstrate positive attitudes towards 21st century skills instruction and to
show progression towards implementing those goals. It seems probable that learning
institutions. This study may have suggested ways to create a paradigmic shift among
experienced core teachers towards a more defined 21st century learning modality.
Alternative assessment strategies, like PBL and collaborative learning models, may
emerge in settings where teachers were once reluctant to make the shift from traditional
The learning culture was a significant finding in this study. The data suggested
that 21st century learning skills development and assessment practices were founded in
the learning culture and LS. This factor may be applicable in many learning
environments, not only in schools where academic excellence prevailed. The themes
suggested that learners were more highly engaged in learning when the teachers created a
brain-based learning environment and learning culture. The connection between research
and practice was evident in many respects. Based on this data, the learning culture
The literature addressed maladroit practices that impeded learning and disrupted
the learning process. These practices were not evidenced in this study. Yet, while
Kozhevnikov, 2007; Zima, 2007) and effectuated them in the high school core classroom,
291
the implications were that each of the participants wanted to expand their current
habits, the participants’ metacognitive processes were difficult to ascertain and to reify.
The implications were that teachers were highly active in self-evaluation, used advanced
cognition processes during instruction, and engaged to some degree in implicit and
technology in relation to creative and innovative learning aspects and some teachers
The methodological implications were that case study research was a valid
approach to examining relevant current issues in education. The collective case study
provided data that extended across multiple participants and created voluminous data.
The data collection process created cogent, authentic and well-founded evidence. The
analytical aspects accented the naturalistic and holistic nature of qualitative research
practices. Filtering the data through three social theories provided greater clarity and
made analysis impervious to personal bias. The symbolic interactionism filter provided
the greatest methodological challenge. The interpretive aspects required a more thorough
examination of the participants’ implicit and explicit communications with their students.
This deductive process reified their intentions and more accurately elucidated their overt
implications to other locations indicated that these abstractions held potential for
292
Constructivism founded this research effort to understand teachers’ attitudes
posited by various theorists, i.e., Vygotsky, Piaget, Dewey, and Bruner as a descriptive
knowledge based on the interplay between one’s experiences and ideas (Vygotsky, 1978).
Knowledge was actively contextualized versus being imparted or acquired and was
Dana engaged her students by stating, “You have to decide, and what format it should
take. Everything. It’s up to you. Do what you think” (D. Dunn, classroom observation,
August 24, 2012). Dana afforded the students opportunities to make personal learning
decisions.
Andy reiterated his facilitative instructional role, wherein students created their
own opinions based on what he had taught them. He said, “. . . It’s not my job to decide.
It’s my job to educate you so you can make a decision” (A. Adams, classroom
contextualized and social constructivist theories (Spector et al., 2007), where learning
was inseparable from its present and past contexts (Jonassen & Hung, 2008). Andy
instruction on RWL opportunities. He pinpointed how rising tuition costs were affecting
That affected you. That has affected your family. That’s gonna affect how much
food goes on the table. And here, if that doesn’t bother you, that affects whether
293
you stay at home with mama all four years of college or not (A. Adams,
RWL demonstrated the financial impact that governmental decisions had made in the
The data suggested that all three teachers sought to engage their students in deep
necessary 21st century survival skills (Wagner, 2008). A new set of standards would
guide instruction and assessment practices beginning 2012 (Common State Standards
Initiative, 2010). For instance, Prensky (2009) purported that digital wisdom should be
assessed within the new literacies. Mayrath (2012) suggested a need for quicker and
more demanding ways to perform 21st century skills assessments. Mayrath (2012)
suggested that “evidence centered design” (100) was a reputable way to reach those
requirements. The tasks and assessments were to be correlated to specific skills and
perspectives guided the assessment formation. Mayrath (2012) purported, “. . . first there
needs to be some agreement on the skills to be measured”, even though the skill set
existed as a “moving target” (p. viii). In a personal interview, Ed Dieterle suggested that
the term “neomillennial” held less relevance with the passing of time. Yet, the constructs
within the term were highly relevant in the current literature. He suggested that “21st
century learning” had replaced the term “neomillennial”. Therefore, I suggest that this
century learning” while upholding its original constructs (E. Dieterle, personal
294
An overlay between the CCSS and the 21st century learning skills suggested that
creativity and innovation criteria were amoeba-like and evolutionary. The creativity
was inconclusive. While the parallel between creativity and constructivism emerged in
this study, I realized the extreme difficulty that teaching creativity and innovation skills
posed for the participants. This was most clearly discussed during Dana’s SRI, when she
said,
seems to be most meaningful and most significant to you (D. Dunn, personal
It seemed pertinent that the CCSS failed to implicitly explicate 21st century
English Language Arts where students engaged in creative writing (Magner, 2011). This
was evidenced by the fact that Dana, an English teacher, seemed to readily articulate
creativity, although it did not occur without critical thinking during the SRI.
Other content areas, like physical science, possessed little ambiguity regarding
content mastery. Contrarily, some of the 21st century skills were obscure and unclear.
Therefore, as suggested by Silva (2009), teachers determined those skills based on their
own premonitions and goals. In this study Kate reflected this same idea when she stated,
“I am also comfortable with giving students a choice in how they wish to show mastery
295
implement creative assessment strategies for students to demonstrate their levels of
content mastery.
Future research may examine K-5 or 6-8 teachers to determine the degree to
which the student’s age affected teachers’ perceived abilities to engage students in 21st
century learning. Future research should examine schools on a statewide or national level
and compare teachers across specific experiential domains. While a small sample
provided me the opportunity to delve deeply into each case study, it may have also
Future research studies should compare traditional learning environments, where schools
are recognized for excellence, employ non-traditional learning methods and assessments,
regarding the success or failure of United States public schools (Au, 2007). “High-stakes
testing” impacted instruction by narrowing the content (Au, 2007, 264). It was unclear
how the CCSS would affect future assessment practices at WHS. Constructivism
founded this research effort to understand teachers’ attitudes towards 21st century
296
The reason(s) why and how the 21st skills are taught should be examined in subsequent
research.
insight into understanding effective 21st century instructional praxis. The implementation
of effective pedagogies and instructional designs may well enhance current and near
future learning. Thus, students who learn in real-world environments relate to the real
world and are able to identify, assess, and provide alternative solutions to problems
Researchers and practitioners need to bridge the gap between knowledge creation
perspectives and practical instruction (Cools & Van Den Broeck, 2007). Further research
transmogrification dispels the economic divergence that exists between the low-income
majority and the affluent minority as well as the 21st century academic global
achievement gap.
297
References
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., &
1102-1134.
Achieve. (2005). Rising to the challenge: Are high school graduates prepared for college
Adams, K. (2005). The sources of innovation and creativity: National center on education
and the economy (NCEE) research summary and final report. Retrieved from
http://www.fpspi.org/Pdf/InnovCreativity.pdf
Albert, R. S., & Runco, M. A. (1990). Theories of creativity. Newbury Park, London:
Sage Publications.
University Press.
Allen, R. (2008). Green light classrooms: Teaching techniques that accelerate learning.
Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard business review, 76(5), 76-87.
298
Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2009). Classroom motivation. Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Anderman, E.M., & Sinatra, G.M. (2009). The challenges of teaching and
learning about science in the 21st century: Exploring the abilities and constraints
www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/AndersonSinatraPaper.pdf
Arieti, S. (1976). Creativity: The magical synthesis. New York: Basic Books.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in
Babintsev, V. P., Boiarinova, I. V., & Reutov, E. V. (2008). Leadership and outsidership
among the young people of a region. Russian Education & Society, 50(11), 75-88.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.
44, 1175–1184.
299
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan
Beetham, H., McGill, L., & Littlejohn, A. (2009). Thriving in the 21st century: Learning
http://www.caledonianacademy.net/spaces/LLiDA/uploads/Main/LLiDAreportJu
ne09.pdf
Beghetto, R. A. (2005). Does assessment kill student creativity? The Educational Forum,
69, 254–263.
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Borkowski, J. W., & Sneed, M. (2006). Will NCLB improve or harm public education?
300
Buckingham, D. (2007). Digital media literacies: Rethinking media education in the age
55.
Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student
Choi, S. (2007). The experiences of non-native English speaking teachers and their
from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 3301115).
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004b). Should we be using
learning styles? What research has to say to practice. Learning and Skills
Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies
used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the
Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. (2008). Central issues
in new literacies and new literacies research. In J. Coiro, M., Knobel, C.,
Lankshear, & Leu, D. (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies, 1–21. New
301
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards
Cools, E. , & Van Den Broeck, H. (2007). Searching the Holy Grail: Some thoughts on
p/rug/rugwps/07-470.html
1257659801
Craft, A., Gardner, H., & Claxton, G. (2008). Creativity, wisdom, and trusteeship:
Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment
to equity will determine our future. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dartt, M. (2011). The impact of teacher attitudes on technology use during instruction.
302
Publishers.
and teacher educators. 106th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Dede, C. (2009a). Determining, developing, and assessing the skills of North Carolina’s
Dentley, P. , & Bishop, K. (2010). The potential of using stimulated recall approaches to
for classroom research: collecting data and analysing narrative. New York:
Routledge.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th
Dieterle, E. (2009). Neomillennial learning styles and River City. Children, Youth and
Dieterle, E., Dede, C., Perkins, D., & Russell, M. (2008). The convergence of
303
dissertation, Harvard University, United States – Massachusetts. Retrieved from
Dieterle, E., Dede, C., & Schrier, K. (2007). “Neomillennial” learning styles propagated
and new media to their full potential. Hershey, PA: Idea Group, Inc.
9029-x
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, S. (2003). Effects of problem-
114-118. doi:10.1080/00986281003626706
Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of
008-9119-1
Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2007). The impact of after-school programs that seek
304
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and
http://www.sac.smm.lt/images/12%20Vertimas%20SAC%20Creativity%20and%
20innovation%20-%20SI%20Presidency%20paper%20anglu%20k.pdf
Evans, C., & Cools, E. (2011). Applying styles research to educational practice.
Evans, C., & Waring, M. (2009). The place of cognitive style in pedagogy: Realizing
Fazarro, D. E., Pannkuk, T., & Pavelock, D. (2009). The effectiveness of instructional
tool for continuous improvement for faculty in career and technical education
Ferguson, R. (2011). Meaningful learning and creativity in virtual worlds. Thinking Skills
Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., & Punie, Y. (2009). Innovation and creativity in education and
http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=2700
305
Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
http://m4hand04.myweb.uga.edu/portfolio/projects/pdfs/Underachieving_Gifted_
6900.pdf
54(1), 5-36.
Cengage Learning.
Friedman, T. L. 2006. The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New
Friedman, T. L., & Mandelbaum, M. (2011). That used to be us: How America fell
behind in the world it invented and how we can come back. New York: Farrar,
Gall, J. P., Gall, M. D., & Borg, W. R. (2009). Applying educational research: A
Galloway, C., & Lasley, T. J. (2010). Effective urban teaching environments for the 21st
306
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:
Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (2007). Five minds for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Gardner, H., & Moran, S. (2006). The science of multiple intelligences: A response to
teaching and learning 21st century literacy skills. Ed.D. dissertation, Walden
http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/
Assessment/Pages/EOCT-Statewide-Scores.aspx.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D., & Boyatzis, R. (2008). Social intelligence and the biology of leadership.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An
307
Gülbahar, Y., & Tinmaz, H. (2006). Implementing project-based learning and e-
Hamel, G. (2007). The future of management. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Ho, L. (2008). Adolescents' perspectives of citizenship and the national narrative: Case
Columbia University, United States -- New York. Retrieved from Dissertations &
Honan, E. (2008). Barriers to teachers using digital texts of literacy classrooms. Literacy,
42, 36-43.
for-students.aspx
Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robinson, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2006).
Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st
308
Jensen, E. (2007). Introduction to brain-compatible learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
Jensen, E. (2008). Brain-based learning: The new paradigm, of teaching (2nd ed.).
Jonassen, D. H., & Hung, W. (2008). All problems are not equal: Implications for
9(2), 1-23.
Ketelhut, D., Nelson, B., Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2010). A Multi-user virtual
environment for building and assessing higher order inquiry skills in science.
Kim, K., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (2010). The relationship between creativity and behavior
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge (4th ed.). San
309
Lambert, J., & Cuper, P. (2008). Multimedia technologies and familiar spaces: 21st
Laster, M. T. (2008). Brain-based teaching for all subjects. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield Education.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue
learning-theory-bandura.html
learning-theory-lave.html
Lemke, C., Coughlin, E., Thadani, V., & Martin, C. (2003). enGauge 21st century skills:
Li, M. (2008). Transforming adult learning through critical design inquiry system.
008-9100-1
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.
310
Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd
Lyle, J. (2003). Stimulated recall: A report on its use in naturalistic research. British
Magner, T. (2011). P21 common core toolkit: A guide to aligning the common core state
standards with the framework for 21st century skills. Retrieved from
http://www.p21.org/tools-and-resources/publications/p21-common-core-toolkit
Martin, A., & Grudziecki, J. (2006) DigEuLit: Concepts and tools for digital literacy
5(4), 249-267.
Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for
Curriculum Development.
Company.
Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative
http://search.proquest.com/docview/869912466?accountid=12085
311
Matthews, M. R. (2000). Appraising constructivism in science and athematics education.
opinions on controversial issues (pp. 161-192). Chicago, IL: National Society for
Mayrath, M. C. (2012). Technology based assessment for 21st Century Skills: Theoretical
McCollum, E. C., & Yoder, N. P. (2011). School culture, teacher regard, and academic
aspirations among middle school students. Middle Grades Research Journal, 6(2),
65–74.
McNulty, J. A., Espiritu, B., Halsey, M., & Mendez, M. (2006). Personality preference
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/6/7
Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure,
487–503. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070258
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
312
Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology integration (LoTi): A framework for measuring
Mullen, R., & Wedwick, L. (2008). Avoiding the digital abyss: Getting started in the 1
classroom with YouTube, digital stories, and blogs. The Clearing House, 82(2),
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/members.html
Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2008). Accessed from the website
http://ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
313
Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Implicit attitude. In P. Wilken, T. Bayne, & A.
Olsen, B., & Sexton, D. (2009). Threat rigidity, school reform, and how teachers view
Olsen, J. (2010). A grounded theory of 21st century skills instructional design for high
Connecticut. Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No.
AAT 3398651)
Owoyemi, T. E., & Olowofela, T. A. (2013). Effects of the learning company approach
10.5539/ass.v9n1p142
Paine, S.L., & Schleicher, A. (2011). What the U.S. can learn from the world’s most
hillresearchfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/pisa-intl-competitiveness.pdf
Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital. Understanding the first generation of
314
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2006). Are they really ready to work?: Employers’
perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st
comcontent&task=view&id=504&Itemid=185
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2007). 21st Century learning environments.
r21leepaper.pdf
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2007b). Framework foundations white paper.
content&view=article&id= 5&Itemid=2
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2008). Transition brief: Policy Recommendations on
http://www.p21.org/ documents/p21transitionpapernov242008.pdf
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). P21 framework definitions. Retrieved from
http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2011). P21 common core toolkit: A Guide to
aligning the common core state standards with the framework for 21st century
P21CommonCoreToolkit.pdf
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rowher, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts
Patel, M., & Yelland, R. (2006). 21st century learning environments. Danvers, MA:
OECD publishing.
315
Penna, S. (2007). Beyond planning a field trip: A case study of the effect a historical
site's educational resources have on the practices of four urban eighth grade
United States -- Massachusetts. Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.
193-223).
Picciano, A., & Seaman, J. (2007). K-12 online learning: A survey of U.S. school
Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
Immigrants-Part1
Prensky, M. (2009). H. sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to
H.SapiensDigitalFromDigitalImmigrantsandDigitalNativestoDigitalWisdom.pdf
Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. Thousand
Rayner, S. (2011). Researching style: Epistemology, paradigm shifts and research interest
316
Rayner, S., & Cools, E. (Eds.). (2011). Style differences in cognition, learning, and
Rayner, S., & Peterson, E. (2009). Reaffirming style as an individual difference: Toward
Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important?
10.3102/0034654312457429
Reitano, P., & Sim, C. (2010). The value of video in professional development to
Approaches, 4, 214–22.
Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin
Rodgers, M., Runyon, D., Starrett, D., & Von Holzen, R. (2006). Teaching 21st century
http://www.uwex.edu/ disted/conference/Resourcelibrary/searchfullresults.cfm
R. Hausman (Eds.), The creativity question (pp. 165-175). Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
317
Rogers, C. (1970). Encounter Groups. New York: Harper and Row.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04385.x
Publishing.
Russ, S. (1996). Development of creative process in children. New Directions for Child
Sternberg (Eds.), Perspectives on the nature of intellectual styles (pp. 3−28). New
Salaway, G., Caruso, J. B., & Nelson, M. R. (2007). The ECAR study of undergraduate
Applied Research.
318
Schepens, A., Aelterman, A. & Van Keer, H. (2007). Studying learning processes of
10.1016/j.tate.2006.12.014.
Schrader, P. G., & Lawless, K. A. (2011). Research on immersive environments and 21st
Schultz, G. (2006). Kingdom education: God’s plan for educating future generations (2nd
Seo, K. K., Templeton, R., & Pellegrino, D. (2008). Creating a ripple effect:
from doi:10.4236/ce.2010.13026
Sharp, C. (2004). Developing young children's creativity: what can we learn from
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related
319
Siccama, C. J. (2006). Work activities of professionals who occupy the role of faculty
10.1177/0098628312450444
Sims, R. R., & Sims, S. J. (2006). Learning styles and learning: A key to meeting the
Sontag, M. 2009. A learning theory for 21st-century students. Innovate 5(4). Retrieved
from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=524
Sousa, D. A. (2011). How the brain learns (4th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Spector, J., Merrill, D., Van Merrienboer, J., & Driscoll, M. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of
research for educational communications and technology (3rd ed). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
DOI:1895279911
320
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Human intelligence: A case study of how more and more
research can lead us to know less and less about a psychological phenomenon,
until finally we know much less than we did before we started doing research. In
E. Tulving (Ed.), Memory, consciousness, and the brain: The Tallinn Conference
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 87-
98.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and
Stoffels, N. T. (2005). ‘Sir, on what page is the answer?’ Exploring teacher decision-
making during complex curriculum change, with specific reference to the use of
321
learner support material. International Journal of Educational Development, 25,
531–546.
Strobel, J., & van Barnveld, A. (2009). When is pbl effective? A meta-synthesis of
manners, customs, mores, and morals. New York: Ginn & Co.
Taboada, A., Guthrie, J. T., & McRae, A. (2008). Building engaging classrooms. In R.
Fink and S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Inspiring success: Reading interest and motivation
Tormey, R., & Henchy, D. (2008). Re-imagining the traditional lecture: An action
322
Torrance, E. P., (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
Inc.
Press.
from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010/executive-summary
Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don’t
teach the new survivals skills our children need-and what we can do about it.
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Aligning promise and passion: Best
Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 693-
323
Warlick, David. (2006). A day in the life of web 2.0. Retrieved from
http://www.techlearning.com/article/13980
Willingham, D. T. (2010). Why students don’t like school – A cognitive scientist answers
questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. San
Winograd, M., & Hais, M. D. (2011). Millennial momentum: How a new generation is
Wynn, J. R. (2009). Digital sociology: Emergent technologies in the field and the
7861.2009.01109.x
on the 2009 High School Survey of Student Engagement. Bloomington, IN: Center
Yin, R. K., (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
Yin, R. K., (2012). Applications of case study research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Zelenka, A. T. (2007). Connect!: A guide to a new way of working from GigaOM's web
324
Zhang, L.-f, & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of intellectual styles. Mahwah:
Zhang, S., & Duke, N. K. (2008). Strategies for internet reading with different reading
Zima, P. V. (2007). What is theory? Cultural theory as discourse and dialogue. New
Zull, J. E. (2011). From brain to mind: Using neuroscience to guide change in education.
325
APPENDICES
326
APPENDIX A
327
APPENDIX B
Local School Research Request Form
328
APPENDIX C
770-363-3004 434-582-2000
Fernando Garzon
IRB Chair
434-582-2000
study where John Wilborn is a doctoral student at Liberty University. This study is a
provides the researcher the opportunity to understand how three teachers’ views of self-
efficacy in engaging students in 21st century learning skills development impact their
instruction. The three teacher participants will perform one pre-observational survey, two
329
stimulated recall interviews, and four teaching lessons. Each lesson will be video
recorded by the researcher. The participants will be informed of the findings from this
study.
Section II: Risks and Benefits to Students, Teachers, School Staff, and School
District
Each participant realizes that potential risks to participants are negligible. All
participants’ actual names will be protected. I will provide each participant a pseudonym.
Collected data from surveys, interviews and observations will be kept confidential. All
materials will be stowed in a locked school vault. This includes video SD card data,
interview transcriptions, and any other recorded data or media acquired during the data
collection processes. Following the study, the researcher will store materials off-campus
for three years. At that time, the participants may request the materials, or a copy of the
materials to keep in their possession. By participating in this study, the participant will
have the perquisite to gaining more substantial understandings of how his/her views of
their instruction. If the participant has concerns about the risks or benefits of participating
in this study, he/she may contact John Wilborn or the IRB office.
type will be made to him/her for participating in this study. There will be no cost to the
participant other than the amount of time required to perform the survey, observations
and interviews.
330
Section IV: Participant’s right to withdraw from the study
The participant understands that he/she may withdraw from the study at any point
The participant understands that or she can be removed from the study. If the
participant does not engage in one or more components in the study, the principle
The participant has read the foregoing informed consent form. The participant
wholly understands the subject matter contained in this document. He/She intentionally
agrees to participate in the research study entitled, “Teacher Self-Efficacy: Common Core
State Standards within a 21st Century Skills Framework”. The participant has been given
every opportunity to ask questions about the research and is settled with the responses
given by the researcher. As a result, the participant agrees to engage in this study. Future
participant questions may be directed to the principal researcher, John Wilborn. Each
participant has received a duplication of this form. His or her approval concludes at the
By signing the informed consent form, you give assent to using “your” school to perform
331
APPENDIX D
Pre-observational Survey
Directions: For questions one through four, circle the letter that best applies.
A) Male B) Female
A) 20-29
B) 30-39
C) 40-49
D) 50-59
E) 60-69
A) 0-3 years
B) 4-5 years
C) 6-10 years
D) 11-15 years
E) 16-20 years
F) 21-25 years
G) 26-30 years
H) Over 30 years
332
4) What is your highest earned degree?
A) Bachelor
B) Masters
C) Specialist
D) Doctorate
333
Section II - Instructional Attitudes
Directions:
For questions 1-4 in each section, place an “x” in the box that best applies. This section is
divided into four parts. Each part contains four attitudinal statements related to teacher’s
role in instructing and engaging students in learning. For each statement, please
Part 1: The following attitudinal statements relate to items based on students’ cognitive
or academic engagement.
What additional attitudes related to items 1-4 would you like to share? Write them in the
space below:
334
Part II: The following attitudinal statements relate to items based on students’ social,
What additional attitudes related to items 1-4 would you like to share? Write them in the
space below:
Part III: The following attitudinal statements relate to items based on students’ learning
styles.
335
Part IV: The following attitudinal statements relate to items based on your understanding
of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The Common Core State Standards (4Cs)
include four essential Learning and Innovation skills: (a) critical thinking; (b)
336
Section III: Self-Efficacy Questionnaire
Directions: The following questions relate to specific concepts that pertain to this study.
Self-Efficacy
instructional practices?
2. The Common Core State Standards (4Cs) include four essential Learning and
Innovation skills: (a) critical thinking; (b) communication; (c) collaboration, and (d)
creativity. In what CCSS area(s) are you most and least confident in teaching?
Explain.
Student engagement
3. What instructional strategies or techniques are you most and least confident using
4. What learning styles strategies or techniques are you most and least confident in
337
APPENDIX E
2. As you observe your own teaching, what role does “self-efficacy” play in
3. In what specific content area(s) of your curriculum do feel most confident? Why?
learning.
6. How have your personal experiences in engaging students in learning made you
10. How would you assess your self-efficacy towards teaching 21st century learning
skills?
11. To what extent do you try to be creative and innovative when teaching?
12. How successful are you at engaging students in creativity and innovation?
338
APPENDIX F
Coding Sheet
The coding performed during video sessions and during interviews included open coding
Open coding – the process of breaking down the data obtained from the
o identifying
o naming
o categorizing
o describing events
Axial coding – the process of disaggregating the core themes. This process
perspectives.
o core themes
o sub themes
339
APPENDIX G
The Looming Tiger
All he does is sit at the foot of the bed, his eyes locked with mine.
But he has made no effort to make way; this tiger looming over me.
Mother says I’m just plain silly, but I always stress that it might kill me.
Still he sits at the foot of the bed - his eyes aglow, his feet like lead.
And whisper a soft, quiet goodnight to this tiger looming over me.
(Megs, 2008)
340