Personal Progress-Narrowing Down
TT24
Read-MASTERTEACHERSASINSTRUCTIONALLEADERS.pdf
MASTER TEACHERS AS INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERS:
AN INSTRUMENTAL CASE STUDY
by
Deborah Renee Moore
Liberty University
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
Liberty University
2015
2
MASTER TEACHERS AS INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERS:
AN INSTRUMENTAL CASE STUDY
by Deborah Renee Moore
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA
2015
APPROVED BY:
Dr. Mark A. Angle, Ed. D., Committee Chair
Dr. Reginald S. Kimball, Ed. D., Committee Member
Dr. Janice C. Powell, Ed. D., Committee Member
Scott Watson, Ph.D., Associate Dean, Advanced Programs
3
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this instrumental case study was to understand the role of the master teacher as
an instructional leader in South Carolina schools implementing the System for Teacher and
Student Advancement, formerly known as the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP). This
qualitative study sought to explain the role of the master teacher, how the master teacher assumes
the role of an instructional leader, what support is provided by the master teacher, what issues
master teachers face as instructional leaders as well as how the master teacher enhances the
school environment. The focal participant in this study was a SC TAP master teacher with 12
years’ experience in this position. The main sources of data included reports, artifacts, and
multiple interviews with the participant and stakeholders who observed the master teacher
including teachers, principals, and state level employees. All data were analyzed through
categorical aggregation and direct interpretation from which themes were formed. The themes
that emerged were an overarching umbrella of support provided by the master teacher, the
pedagogy necessary for the master teacher to embed authentic application of skills into the
school environment, and the characteristics necessary for these to exist.
Keywords: master teacher, instructional leader, System for Teacher and Student Advancement
(TAP).
4
Dedication
This manuscript is dedicated to my children, Tanner and Katelyn Ogden. May you
always follow your dreams and accomplish the goals you set for your lives. I am extremely
proud of the young adults you have become.
5
Acknowledgments
Every journey we embark upon includes companionship that makes the experience more
worthwhile. Throughout my doctorate journey there were many influential people who inspired
me to keep working to complete my dissertation and doctoral degree. Those individuals include
members of my dissertation committee, my family, and my friends. My dissertation committee
and research consultant, Dr. Mark Angle, Dr. Reginald Kimball, Dr. Janice Powell, and Dr.
Fred Milacci all provided scholarly expertise and guidance throughout this process.
My family: my husband, Michael Moore; my parents, John and Debra Wulf and Cheryl
Zeglen; my children, Tanner and Katelyn Ogden and stepchildren; Josh and Julia Moore; my
grandmother and grandfather, Skip and Dianna Morse, thank you for helping me to keep pushing
on and to see the light when I was blinded by the heavy weight of this task. To my dear friends,
Suzanne Howard and Nichelle Tyson, thank you for being there when I needed someone to clear
my head and push me even harder to not give up.
I am also humbly appreciative of the nine participants who accepted to be part of my
study, especially my focal participant, Lily. Without their willingness to take part in this study, I
would not have been able to complete this instrumental case study. Without all of these special
people in my life, I could not have completed this lifelong dream.
6
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT…….. .............................................................................................................. 3
Dedication ………………………………………………………………………...4
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. 5
List of Tables ........................................................................................................... 9
List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................. 10
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. .11
Overview …………………………………………………………………………11
Background ............................................................................................................ 11
Situation to Self ..................................................................................................... 15
Problem Statement ................................................................................................. 15
Purpose Statement ................................................................................................. 16
Significance of the Study ....................................................................................... 17
Research Questions ............................................................................................... 18
Research Plan ........................................................................................................ 19
Delimitations and Limitations ............................................................................... 20
Definitions ………………………………………………………….……………20
Summary ...………………………………………………………….……………21 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................... 22
Overview ............................................................................................................... 22
Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................... 24
Related Literature .................................................................................................. 29
Summary ................................................................................................................ 49
7
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ...................................................................................... 51
Overview ............................................................................................................... 51
Design .................................................................................................................... 51
Research Questions ............................................................................................... 52
Setting …………………………………………………………………………...53
Participants ............................................................................................................ 53
Procedures………………………………………………………………………..54
The Researcher's Role .......................................................................................... 55
Data Collection ...................................................................................................... 56
Data Analysis. ........................................................................................................ 62
Trustworthiness ..................................................................................................... 64
Ethical Considerations ........................................................................................... 65
Summary ………………………………………………………………………...66 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS ………………………………...……………………….67
Overview…………………………………………………………………………67
Participants……….……………………………………………………………....67
Results…………………………………………………………………………...79
Summary…………………………………………………………………… ……99
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS..100
Overview………………………………………………………………….…….100
Summary of Findings……………………………………………..………….....100
Discussion…..…………………………………………….………………….....105
Implications……………………………………………………………………..112
8
Limitations……………………………………………………………………...116
Recommendations for Future Research………………………………………..117
Summary……………………………………………………………….…….....119
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………….………121
APPENDIX A: Interview Guide ……………………………………………………….134
APPENDIX B: IRB Approval ………………………………………………………….135
APPENDIX C: Case Subject Consent Form …………………………………………...136
APPENDIX D: Participant Consent Form……………………………………………...139
9
List of Tables
Table 4.1: Participant Overview ………………………………………………………………...68
Table 4.2: Participant Interview Type …………………………………………………………..79
Table 4.3: Emergence of Themes Through Research Questions………………….……………..80
Table 4.4: Characteristics Necessary to be a Master Teacher …………………………………..91
10
List of Abbreviations
Comprehensive Online Data Systems (CODE)
Comprehensive School Reform (CSR)
Individual Growth Plan (IGP)
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) National Institute for Teaching Excellence (NIET)
No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Palmetto Assessment of State Standards (PASS)
Professional Learning Community (PLC)
South Carolina Department of Education (SCDE)
South Carolina System for Teacher and Student Advancement (SC TAP)
Supporting Effective Educators Development (SEED)
System for Teacher and Student Advancement (TAP)
Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF)
United States Department of Education (USDOE)
11
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Overview
The purpose of this instrumental case study was to understand the master teacher’s role as
an instructional leader in one South Carolina (SC) K-5 elementary school implementing TAP,
Sarolina Elementary (a pseudonym assigned for anonymity). The problem that necessitated the
research for this study was a dearth of empirical research in understanding the role of TAP
master teachers as instructional leaders in schools. The focal audience for this research would be
the education realm, specifically those interested in certified teachers as instructional leaders.
Distributed Leadership theory provided the theoretical framework for this study.
This chapter consists of a thorough background of the TAP system and how the research
is related to the researcher. The chapter also describes the problem, purpose, significance of the
study, and research questions driving the case study:
• What is the role of the master teacher?
• How is the master teacher an instructional leader in SC TAP schools?
• What characteristics are necessary to successfully fill the role of a master teacher?
The chapter closes with the research plan, delimitations, limitations, and definitions used
throughout the study.
Background
Lowell Milken founded the System for Teacher and Student Advancement, formerly the
Teacher Advancement Program (TAP), in 1999. It is currently managed by Milken’s
independent public charity, the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching (NIET). TAP is
based on four elements: multiple career paths, ongoing applied professional development,
instructionally focused accountability, and performance-based compensation (NIET, 2013). One
12
level in the multiple career paths is the TAP master teacher. “Master teachers are charged with
‘making it happen’ by turning the school plan into action” (NIET, 2006, p. 8).
Master teachers are the core component of ensuring TAP is implemented on a daily basis
at the school level. The master teacher’s role in the four components of TAP is displayed not
only through multiple career paths but also through ongoing applied professional development.
“TAP is a whole system reform intended to develop, motivate, recruit, and retain high quality
teachers in order to increase student achievement” (Agam, Reifsneider, & Wardell, 2006, p. 5).
The master teacher is at the core of developing and retaining these teachers, which in turn
increases student achievement. Many states are struggling to maintain their current work force,
and therefore are turning to TAP and its foundational elements (Mann, Leutscher, & Reardon,
2013).
South Carolina is one of 10 states that has recently taken advantage of Teacher Incentive
Fund (TIF) and Supporting Effective Educators Development (SEED) grants offered by the
United States government to implement TAP (Center for Educator Compensation Reform,
2013). According to the South Carolina Department of Education (SCDE), the state has used
TIF grants to implement TAP into 83 of its elementary, middle, and high schools (2013, para.
2). On September 18 the US Department of Education (2013) announced that it was awarding
another $30 million in grants, $7.5 million going to NIET (para. 1, 5, and 9) for the
implementation of more TAP schools in South Carolina. With these continuous awards, TAP
schools have increasingly grown, from impacting 3,319 students in 2002, to impacting over
200,000 students in 2012 (NIET, 2014), thus resulting in an increase in the number of master
teachers (NIET, 2013). The recent release of TAP Research Summary states, “with an increase
in TAP schools over the previous decade, from 2002-03 through 2012-13, students in
13
approximately three-fourths of the TAP system schools have gained a full year or more of
academic growth” (NIET, 2014, p. 5). These gains are also found in TAP supported poverty-
stricken schools.
The schools’ efforts to keep pace with the demands of the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB) (2002) are another reason for the increase in master teachers and other instructional
leaders. Schools are continuously searching for ways to increase teacher effectiveness and
student achievement. According to Mayo (2002), for successful school change and improvement
to occur, schools have begun to adopt the role of teacher leaders. TAP is one system that offers a
variety of teacher leadership roles. The principal, assistant principal, master teacher, and mentor
teachers make up the TAP leadership team. This group of administrators and teacher leaders
manage the TAP system on a daily basis. “Master and mentor teachers receive compensation for
their additional work, and all teachers are eligible for bonuses based on measures of their
students’ growth, the growth of the school, and comprehensive teacher evaluations” (Eckert &
Dabrowski, 2010, p. 91). The compensation received by teachers is in addition to the wealth of
knowledge gained through weekly professional development.
TAP is grounded in 20 years of research (Danielson, 1996; Elmore; 2000; Fullan, 2001;
Hawley, 1985; Leithwood, Tomlinson, & Genge, 1996; Murphy & Hart, 1986), however, since
its inception there has been limited research from teachers’ perspectives on the multiple career
paths of the master and mentor teachers (Williams, 2009). The research in which TAP is
grounded is focused on the four elements of TAP. Multiple career paths research has found a
positive relationship between employee motivation and the ability for career advancement
(Barrier, 1996). It also has shown collective leadership amongst teachers is the most effective
style of instructional leadership (Darling-Hammond, Bullmaster, & Cobb, 1995). One aspect of
14
ongoing applied professional growth research has focused on Elmore and Burney’s (1997)
characteristics of successful professional development:
• Focusing on concrete classroom applications of general ideas;
• Exposing teachers to actual practice rather than descriptions of practice;
• Involving opportunities for observation, critique, and reflection;
• Providing opportunities for group support and collaboration; and
• Requiring evaluation and feedback by skilled practitioners with expertise in
teaching methods. (NIET, 2013)
Other ongoing professional growth research has looked into Guskey’s (2000) four principles of
professional development practices which focus on: learning and learners; an emphasis on
individual and organizational change; small changes guided by a grand vision; and ongoing
professional development that is procedurally embedded (NIET, 2013). Job-embedded
professional development research offered through TAP focuses on student-centered
professional growth opportunities led by master teachers at all TAP schools.
There are currently 83 schools in South Carolina that have utilized the TAP system as a
means of improving student achievement and teaching competency; with the number of master
and mentor teachers on the rise due to the increase of TIF grants, more research was needed to
provide an understanding of these new teacher leader positions. Current research has focused on
TAP and its effect on teachers’ professional growth (Fain, 2012), merit pay (Holland, 2005), and
the master teachers’ critical practice on student learning strategies (Paulmann, 2009); however,
there have not been studies conducted on the role of the master teacher as an instructional leader.
Understanding the role of the master teacher as an instructional leader can provide insight into
this job-embedded professional development that has shown to have a positive effect on student
15
achievement and teacher competency. This qualitative instrumental case study focused on one
South Carolina elementary school master teacher who had served in this role for 12 years in
order to gain an understanding of the master teacher as an instructional leader.
Situation to Self
The motivation for completing this study was to gain an in-depth understanding of the
role of the master teacher as an instructional leader. I currently serve as a regional master
teacher in South Carolina; however, I have never held the position of a master teacher. I am
currently assigned to coach 13 master teachers on a weekly basis to improve their ability in
leading professional development and field-testing, however I do not have the experience to fully
understand the struggles and job requirements of a master teacher nor have I found this in
empirical literature. I have been extensively trained in implementing TAP in schools and have
previously worked concurrently with a master teacher while serving as an assistant principal.
This study relied on an ontological assumption by using the actual words of the master
teacher and her colleagues, which were obtained through interviews, artifacts, and documents to
construct a holistic picture of the role of a master teacher as an instructional leader. An
ontological assumption also correlates with a case study as it uses quotes and themes from the
words of the participants (Creswell, 2013). The paradigm that guided this study was
constructivism, as the researcher used open-ended questions to understand the experience of a
TAP master teacher (Creswell, 2013).
Problem Statement
According to the South Carolina Department of Education (SCDE) (2013),
16
Over the next decade we will face a shortage of as many as 40,000 teachers; and this state
of affairs is occurring at a time when our entire U.S. economy is experiencing fierce
competition for a limited pool of high quality human capital. (para. 1)
TAP provides education systems an opportunity to offer multiple career paths and
performance-based compensation to entice teachers to stay in the profession and also offers in-
house professional development to grow the current teacher pool. The problem was a dearth of
empirical research in understanding the role of TAP master teachers as instructional leaders in a
school. While many studies have looked at TAP and performance pay, few have focused on the
multiple career paths (Akiba & Liang, 2011; Gius, 2012; Lavy, 2009). Other studies have
examined the role of the mentor teacher at the university level (Gilles, Davis, & McGlamery,
2009) and mentor teachers in teacher preparatory programs (Johnson, 2011); however, only one
(Paulmann, 2009) has focused on the role of the master teacher. Paulmann’s (2009) study
concentrated on master teachers’ critical practice and student learning strategies whereas this
study focused on determining what is the role of the master teacher and how he or she serves as
an instructional leader. According to a review of literature on instructional leaders, Neumerski
(2013) found that “our knowledge of how instructional leaders improve teaching remains
limited” (p. 311). This study adds to the existing supportive research on instructional leaders,
especially the TAP master teacher.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this instrumental case study was to understand the master teacher’s role as
an instructional leader in one South Carolina (SC) K-5 elementary school implementing TAP,
Sarolina Elementary (a pseudonym assigned for anonymity). The ultimate goal of SC TAP is to
develop policies, practices, and procedures regarding evaluation, certification, and teacher
17
quality to improve teacher recruitment, retention, motivation, practices, and performance (SCDE,
2013; NIET, 2013). Through the use of multiple career paths, TAP offers long-term professional
growth, teacher involvement in school decisions, involvement of senior teachers in induction of
new teachers, and the development of relatively permanent promotion to encourage career
planning by teachers (NIET, 2013). These instructional leadership practices increase the current
pool of teachers and lead to teacher longevity and increases in student achievement.
Significance of the Study
This study provides a look at the longest-standing master teacher, of 12 years, in South
Carolina and how she pioneered the position in the state. Many researchers (Fain, 2012; Gius,
2012; Lavy, 2009; Paulmann, 2009) have explored TAP and its impact on student achievement
(Dispenzieri, 2009; White, 2009) but none have focused on what it means to be an instructional
leader as a master teacher or even what the position of a master teacher entails. Knowing that
“the aims of instructional leadership are tied to the core work of schools: teaching and learning,”
it is critical that we understand the role of the TAP master teacher and its impact on teaching and
learning (Neumerski, 2013, p. 316).
Other studies related to this topic have examined the elements of TAP, such as
performance-based compensation and instructionally focused accountability (Akiba & Liang,
2011; Podgursky & Springer, 2007). When considering the multiple career paths, studies have
focused on the distributed leadership model (Lieberman & Miller, 2004); this leadership
framework advocates for collective responsibility and a sharing of knowledge and roles (Elmore,
2000). According to Kouzes and Posner (2003), “in this dynamic global environment, only
adaptive individuals and organizations will thrive” (p. 257). This concept is what TAP offers
18
through their multiple career paths of master and mentor teachers and what keeps TAP as a
thriving school reform model.
In the state where this study took place, TAP was implemented in 83 schools for the
2013-2014 school year. Sarolina Elementary is located in a school district in northwestern South
Carolina with a population of 3,050 students, 184 teachers, and six master teachers (SCDE,
2012). All schools in the district currently use TAP; this includes three elementary schools, one
middle school, and one high school. Sarolina Elementary has a population of 614 students, 34
teachers, and 1 master teacher (SCDE, 2012). This study offered accountability to other TAP
schools by providing insight into the expectations of the master teacher and who best could fill
the role within the school. This study may help new and current master teachers understand the
magnitude of the position since they are often the sole master teacher in the building.
Additionally, this study may assist regional master teachers in coaching current master teachers
in reaching their full potential in developing the teacher profession and student academics. This
study also provided further insight into the distributed leadership theory and how it affects
instructional leaders in schools.
Research Questions
Given that the purpose of this study was to understand the role of the master teacher as an
instructional leader, the following questions framed this study:
• What is the role of the master teacher?
• How is the master teacher an instructional leader in SC TAP schools?
• What characteristics are necessary to successfully fill the role of a master teacher?
19
Research Plan
A qualitative study was chosen for this research to explore an issue that cannot be easily
measured quantitatively (Creswell, 2013; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2009). Qualitative research searches
for an understanding of complex interrelationships throughout society (Stake, 1995). By
conducting a qualitative study, I was able to gather detailed descriptions of the role of TAP
master teacher through the use of interviews, artifacts, and documents, thereby obtaining
insightful explanations of personal experiences.
This qualitative case study focused on a unique individual case to understand the
particularities (Stake, 1995). Quantitative researchers regularly treat uniqueness of cases as
“error,” outside the system of explained science; where qualitative researchers focus on these
unique cases as important to understand (Stake, 1995). Focusing on how and why questions, as
well as a contemporary phenomenon within a real-life context has led to an instrumental case
study design (Yin, 2009). This design was best suited for this study due to limited availability of
elementary master teachers in South Carolina with extensive experience in the role of a master
teacher. As is true for most instrumental case studies, the issue of understanding the role of the
master teacher was of more importance than the case itself (Stake, 1995).
According to Springer (2009), many SC TAP schools do not last beyond the five year
grant of the program due to lack of funding after the grant has expired, thus many master
teachers have five years’ experience or less. The ideal participant in this study was one with
knowledge and experience in the role of a master teacher. An instrumental case study provided
an in-depth understanding of the role of the master teacher (Stake, 1995).
20
Delimitations and Limitations
Delimitations for this study included limiting the data to the experiences of one
participant, for the purpose of gaining a true understanding of the role of an elementary master
teacher as an instructional leader. By limiting the participant to the longest-standing K-5 master
teacher in South Carolina, it allowed the voice of the most experienced to be heard and
maximized what could be learned (Stake, 1995). Another delimitation includes the use of only
elementary level as the majority of TAP schools in South Carolina are elementary. This
increased the number of master teachers affected in the elementary setting.
Limitations to the study include limiting it to one case study due to the small number of
master teachers with 12+ years’ experience. Confining the study to one case limited the
generalizability of the study; however, “qualitative researchers are reluctant to generalize from
one case to another because the contexts of cases differ” (Creswell, 2013, p. 99). Broad
assumptions should only be applied to those studied—master teachers with multiple years of
experience in South Carolina K-5 elementary TAP schools.
Definitions
1. Cluster – weekly applied professional development led by the master and mentor teachers
(NIET, 2013, p. 13).
2. Master Teacher – identified member of the TAP Leadership Team who leads cluster
meetings and assists in the implementation of TAP (NIET, 2013, p. 25).
3. TAP – a school reform model developed in 1999 by the Milken Family Foundation to
restructure and revitalize the teaching profession; focused on multiple career paths,
ongoing applied professional growth, instructionally focused accountability, and
performance-based compensation (NIET, 2013, p. 6).
21
4. TAP Leadership Team – group made up of administrators, master teachers, and mentor
teachers whom meet weekly to ensure TAP is implemented (NIET, 2013, p. 13).
Summary
This chapter provided the background to this instrumental case study, focusing on the
history of TAP, its role in South Carolina, and the funding sources associated with TAP. It
provided an overview of the research in which TAP is grounded, studies that have since been
conducted in relationship to TAP, and the significance to which this study had on the researcher.
Chapter one also provided the problem statement, which showed the empirical significance of
this study to the field of education, the purpose for this study, and its significance. The chapter
introduced the research questions and provided a breakdown of the research plan, delimitations,
limitations, and definitions that were discussed throughout this entire case study. This chapter
served as an introduction to this instrumental case study focusing on the role of the SC TAP
master teacher as an instructional leader. The next chapter will focus on an in-depth review of
literature available pertaining to this topic.
22
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview
The purpose of this instrumental case study was to understand the role of TAP master
teacher as an instructional leader. A thorough review of literature was conducted to examine the
various roles of certified teachers who serve as elementary level instructional leaders. On review
of the limited empirical research available on the TAP master teacher, it was evident that the
scope of this literature review needed to broaden to examine TAP mentor teachers, instructional
coaches, teacher leaders, and other shared leadership positions where teachers stood out as
instructional leaders. Although there was an exceptional amount of research on the principal as
an instructional leader, the scope of this review of literature solely focused on that of certified
teachers, not administrators.
Professional learning communities (PLCs) is another outlet for certified teachers to grow
as instructional leaders, which is why PLCs were included in the review of literature. Job-
embedded professional development, including TAP cluster meetings, and adult learning were
researched because of their effect on the growth of teachers as leaders. To understand the roots
of the TAP model, the history and functions of school reform were also included in this review
of literature. Additionally, research was conducted pertaining to distributed leadership theory to
support the theoretic framework and provide a lens to understand how the master teacher
performs as an instructional leader in schools. Not only does the distributed leadership theory
provide an understanding of the role of the TAP master teacher, the role of the TAP master
teacher also helps to extend the understanding of the distributed leadership theory. The primary
source of research for this study was obtained through Liberty University Library, scholarly
23
journals, and books on educational leadership and distributed leadership theory owned personally
by the researcher.
The passing of the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) and the adoption of the Common
Core State Standards, a more rigorous approach to education, required deeper thinking and
understanding by all teachers, administrators, and students; because of this, many schools
searched for ways to provide job-embedded professional development to help teachers prepare
for more demanding academic expectations. As part of one school reform model, TAP, offers
four career paths, designed to restructure the teaching field to enable networking and a new
culture to thrive (Fullan, 1996). TAP’s multiple career paths are based on research from
business and education models that incorporate: (a) significant economic rewards for
advancement; (b) continuous high performance demonstrated by employees; (c) clear standards
to measure employees; (d) frequent evaluations and feedback; and (e) different roles and
responsibilities associated with varying compensation models (Barrier, 1996; Murphy & Hart,
1986; Schacter, Thum, Reifsneider & Schiff, 2013). TAP’s career paths include career teachers,
mentor teachers, master teachers, and regional master teachers.
Multiple career paths allocate for the implementation of teacher leaders in TAP schools.
Teacher leaders provide the opportunity for job-embedded professional development to occur
during the school day without having to outsource to another company. Weekly professional
development is one of the main responsibilities assigned to a TAP master teacher. According to
NIET (2012), “while principal support is crucial, collaborative teams are more successful when
facilitated by teacher-leaders who implement the new strategies in classrooms themselves and
show evidence of improved student learning” (p. 4). However, much of the empirical research
on educational leadership still focuses on the role of principal as the instructional leader in the
24
school. This case study increased existing supportive research on teachers as instructional
leaders.
The term teacher-leader is not a new concept in schools; although it has become more
prominent in recent years, it was first mentioned more than 70 years ago by Willard Waller
(1932) who advocated for teachers to take a more active leadership role in schools (Bond, 2011).
Teacher leaders are often thought of as those who exhibit excellent teaching strategies, advanced
student achievement in their classrooms, and are able to assist colleagues in implementing
similar teaching strategies that lead to an increase in student achievement in other classrooms
(Lieberman, 2011; Neumerski, 2013; Petersen & Conway, 2011; Wetzler, 2010). To add to the
limited research on this topic, the role of master teacher as an instructional leader in schools was
chosen for this study. With many new master teachers applying each year to an increased
number of TAP schools, a better understanding of this position was needed to assist master
teachers in becoming the instructional leaders designed by the TAP system. The leadership role
of a TAP master teacher is explained further through the lens of Spillane’s (2006) distributed
leadership theory.
Theoretical Framework
Distributed leadership theory delegates authority incorporating multiple leaders in an
organization. Dialog among professional educators concerning distributed leadership theory
began at the turn of the millennium, prior to that, many researchers focused solely on the
principal when observing leadership in schools. A literature review conducted by Bennett, Wise,
Woods, and Harvey (2003), found that “distributed leadership is in its infancy and a lack of
empirical knowledge base still exists” (p. 11). Again in 2011, a literature review was conducted
by Bolden to determine the origins and empirical research of distributed leadership, resulting in a
25
limited and contradictory knowledge base. According to Cole and Engestrom (1993), distributed
leadership theory has roots in the 1980s and early 1990s as developing ideas about cultural and
historical influences on individual cognition, which led to an understanding of this cognition
being distributed through the material and social artifacts in a particular environment.
“However, it is only since the mid 1990s that the idea of distributed leadership has been the
focus of serious consideration in the research literature” (Timperley, 2005, p. 2).
Since 2002, there have been four models (Gronn, 2002; Leithwood, Day, Sammons,
Harris, & Hopkins, 2006; MacBeth, Oduro, & Waterhose, 2004; Spillane, 2006) of distributed
leadership that have been studied (Bolden, 2011). The theoretical framework for this study
focused on the model provided by Spillane (2006), as much of the research was conducted in the
elementary school setting. Spillane’s (2006) perspective helps understand the how and why
leaders do what they do.
According to Spillane (2006), distributed leadership focuses on three essential elements:
leadership practice, interactions of leaders, and situation. This provided a framework for
thinking about and analyzing leadership and the role of master teacher as an instructional leader
in TAP schools. This new way of investigating leadership takes the focus off school principals
and places it on other formal and informal leader positions in a school. Spillane’s (2006)
research focuses on two aspects: the leader-plus aspect and the practice aspect. The leader-plus
aspect relies on the belief that leadership is stretched over multiple leaders; as many as seven in
elementary schools (Camburn, Rowan, & Taylor, 2003; Spillane, 2006). Camburn et al. (2003)
conducted one of the first distributed leadership studies investigating multiple leaders in the
context of elementary schools that had adopted a comprehensive reform model similar to TAP.
The authors focused solely on the formalized roles of leadership created through the reform
26
model and suggested further studies on other reform models presenting distributed leadership as
the main leadership style.
TAP, a unique school reform model, focuses on what Spillane (2006) refers to as the holy
grail of the distributed leadership perspective- the second aspect, leadership practice.
Throughout Spillane’s (2006) research with various colleagues (Spillane, Diamond, & Jita, 2000;
Spillane, Diamond, Sherer, & Coldren, 2004) three types of leadership practice distributions
were identified: collaborated, collective, and coordinated. Throughout TAP, each of these
leadership practices is exemplified. Collaborated distribution is characterized as “leadership
practice that is stretched over the work of two or more leaders who work together in place and
time to execute the same leadership routine” (p. 60). This practice is at the heart of the TAP
leadership team.
According to the TAP Leadership Team Handbook (NIET, 2006), the role of the
leadership team and of the individual members within the leadership team is clearly defined by
four essential tasks of EVERY leadership team member:
1. To develop and monitor progress toward meeting school plan goals leading to
increased student achievement.
2. To plan for and monitor effective cluster operations that directly led to increased
teacher proficiency and student achievement in specific areas of need.
3. To plan and implement an evaluation and post-conference schedule while continually
working to strengthen each team member’s skill with evaluating and conferencing,
and to use the data from the evaluations to monitor and address score inflation.
4. To monitor Individual Growth Plans, how they are supported, and movement toward
meeting both student achievement and teacher improvement goals.
27
(p. 7)
These responsibilities coincide with collaborated distribution in that all leaders are “co-
performing a leadership routine together, creating a reciprocal interdependency” (Spillane, 2006,
p. 61). This reciprocal interdependency allows TAP’s leadership teams to stand apart from other
professional learning communities. Collaborated distribution also allows for each member to
grow professionally into successful school leaders.
The second leadership practice, collective distribution, is revealed through interactive
work of TAP master and mentor teachers. Collective distribution is considered “practice that is
stretched over the work of two or more leaders who enact a leadership routine by working
separately but interdependently” (Spillane, 2006, p. 60). The TAP Leadership Team Handbook
(NIET, 2006), states that master and mentor teachers primarily work with analyzing student data
obtained through action research, referred to as field-testing, in order to enhance and support
career teachers in the building through their weekly cluster meetings. Collective distribution
practice is exemplified through master and mentor teachers working separately to conduct and
analyze field testing in classrooms, then working interdependently to bring results to cluster
meetings to improve teacher practices and student achievement. This practice not only
strengthens career teachers in the building but also strengthens mentor teachers, who are regular
classroom teachers with additional assigned duties as stated previously in the TAP leadership
team responsibilities. Collective distribution practice ensures all student strategies are field-
tested with like-students in the mentor and master teachers’ individual schools before providing
strategies to the teachers for implementation. Collective distribution practice strengthens TAP
master and mentor teachers as instructional leaders in their schools.
The third leadership practice Spillane (2006) referred to is coordinated distribution,
28
which is emphasized through the combined efforts of the TAP leadership team and the career
teachers in the building. “Coordinated distribution refers to leadership routines that involve
activities that have to be performed in a particular sequence” (Spillane, 2006, p. 60). This is
evident in TAP cluster meetings, “where teachers use the Five STEPS for Effective Learning to
study and develop instructional strategies for classroom application” (NIET, 2006, p. 30).
Clusters follow a cycle plan where results of the field-testing are segmented into steps for TAP
leadership teams to teach career teachers through clusters and individual follow-up to ensure
implementation has occurred. According to Spillane (2006), career teachers were considered the
followers, an essential yet narrowly researched group, in the practice of coordinated distribution
through the distributed leadership model. These three components of distributed leadership:
collaborated, collective, and coordinated, helped provide a framework for understanding the role
of TAP master teacher as an instructional leader in TAP elementary schools. Utilizing
distributed leadership as the theoretic framework for this case study increased available research
in this area to provide a better understanding of distributed leadership theory and instructional
leadership.
Related Literature
School reform
School reform is a constant reflection of societal needs. In the United States, school
reform can be dated back to Horace Mann in the early 1800s (Gutek, 2005). School reform
movements occurred after Sputnik, the civil rights movement, A Nation at Risk report, and as a
result of the United State’s constant need to keep pace with other nations (Bunting, 1999). Since
the late 1990s the federal government has taken a more vocal approach to school reform with the
adoption of Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) program, No Child Left Behind Act, and
29
Common Core State Standards. In 2003, 73% of the public believed the existing school system
needed to be reformed (Rose & Gallup, 2003). This public opinion increased federal
government spending on school reform initiatives with Race to the Top Fund, Teacher Incentive
Fund (TIF), and Supporting Effective Educators Development (SEED) grants. According to
Education Week’s 2014 Quality Counts report, 54% of those surveyed felt change needed to be
made in the structure of schools and the majority of district administrators reported some level of
support for various reform models. This support for change is one reason TIF and SEED grants
are awarded to school districts around the country.
According to the US Department of Education website, the focus of the CSR program
was to raise student achievement by employing proven methods and strategies to produce
comprehensive school reform (USDOE, 2014). The proven strategies at increasing student
achievement and teacher competency are the foundation for TAP and why it is considered a
successful and federally funded school reform model. John Hopkins School of Education’s Best
Evidence Encyclopedia website (Slavin, 2014) stated, external comprehensive school reform
models typically include
• innovative approaches to instruction and curriculum used in many subjects
throughout the school;
• extensive, ongoing professional development, and coaches or facilitators in the
building to help manage the reform process;
• measureable goals and benchmarks for student achievement; and
• emphasis on parent and community involvement. (2014)
These frameworks are included in Lowell Milken’s TAP model. Adopting an external
comprehensive school reform model allows schools to respond to public pressures and external
30
accountability measures created under NCLB, which require an increase in student achievement.
Under the CSR program, many grant opportunities were established to assist schools in
raising student achievement. When the CSR program ended in 2005, more grant opportunities
were established with Race to the Top, Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF), and Supporting Effective
Educators Development (SEED) grants. TIF grants, used by many TAP schools, support efforts
to develop and implement performance-based teacher and principal compensation systems in
high-need schools with the goals of
• improving student achievement by increasing teacher and principal effectiveness;
• reforming teacher and principal compensation systems so that teachers and
principals are rewarded for increases in student achievement;
• increasing the number of effective teachers teaching poor, minority, and
disadvantaged students in hard-to-staff subjects; and
• creating sustainable performance-based compensation systems. (USDOE, 2014)
TIF grants have increased the growth in interest and use of externally developed school reform
designs by providing school districts with needed funds to begin implementation (Datnow,
2000). Although TIF grants are designed to give schools 100% of the funds needed the initial
year, they slowly decrease the amount of funding to allow schools to eventually sustain the
models without funding from the grant. Since 2013, NIET has been using SEED grants to fund
TAP in higher education to prepare future educators. SEED grants allow non-profit agencies
funding to “enhance preparation of pre-service teachers, provide professional development to in-
service teachers and leaders, and disseminate best practices across all 50 states” (USDOE, 2013,
para. 2). SEED grants allow for TAP to reach all levels of the teaching profession and ensure
continued professional development for instructional leaders.
31
Professional development
Professional development has seen many changes in the 21st century. Changes have
occurred in who delivers professional development, what is delivered, and how it is delivered.
Many of the changes have occurred as a result of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(1965) and NCLB (2001). To increase student achievement, NCLB (2001) required an increased
percentage of “high-quality professional development to enable teachers to become highly
qualified and successful classroom teachers” (USDOE, 2014, Sec. 1119). According to the
National Center for Education Statistics (2013), schools responded by providing professional
development to 99% of public school teachers and 95% of private school teachers. Prior to
NCLB (2001), professional development for teachers had largely been in response to educational
fads rather than solid research (Helsing, Howell, Kegan, & Lahey, 2008). Most professional
development experiences failed because (a) they did not affect what teachers do in the classroom
each day, (b) teachers had little say in what they learned, (c) transferring learning from training
to the classroom was difficult to achieve; and (d) there were few opportunities to practice and
refine strategies (Grim, Kaufman, & Doty, 2014). Significantly raising student achievement
required schools to restructure professional development for teachers, grounding it in best
practices that improved classroom instruction (Annenberg Institute for School Reform, n.d.).
According to NIET (2006), in addition to classroom instruction, professional development
should also be offered on best practices for lesson planning and classroom environment; this is
included in the TAP instructional rubric.
Guskey (2014), believed professional development should be planned backwards,
beginning with student learning outcomes, new practices to be implemented, needed
organizational support, desired educator knowledge and skills, and optimal professional learning
32
activities. By focusing on student learning outcomes, professional development is more likely to
have a positive effect on student achievement. DuFour (2014) stated effective professional
development is:
• ongoing, with a sustained, rather than episodic and fragmented, focus;
• collective, rather than individualistic;
• job-embedded, with teachers learning as they engage in their daily work;
• results-oriented, with activities directly linked to higher levels of student learning;
and
• most effective in schools and districts that function as professional learning
communities. (p. 31)
These elements are included in the professional development provided in TAP schools. Through
TAP cluster meetings, professional development is offered to certified teachers and
administrators by certified teachers and administered within their own building. Career teachers
are given weekly professional development in clusters and leadership team members are given
weekly professional development in leadership team meetings. Weekly professional
development ensures staff members continuously grow in their knowledge of best teaching
practices to ensure maximum student achievement. In addition to student strategies taught in
TAP cluster meetings, teachers are also trained on the TAP Instructional Rubric, which focuses
on classroom instruction, lesson planning and designing, and classroom environment (NIET,
2006).
According to Drago-Severson (2008), growth occurs when there are increases in
“cognitive, affective (emotional), interpersonal and intrapersonal capacities that enable us to
manage better the complex demands of teaching, learning, leadership, and life” (p. 61).
33
Professional development requires the improvement of teachers’ knowledge and skills to
maintain their effectiveness in the classroom. Guskey (2014) believed, “to be successful in
professional development efforts we must plan backward, beginning with the student learning
outcomes” (p. 10). In South Carolina TAP schools, backward planning is used in professional
development by first identifying the school instructional goal based on the previous year’s high-
stakes testing results. High-stakes tests include the Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) for
Kindergarten through third grades and the Palmetto Assessment of State Standards (PASS) test
or other state tests for fourth through eighth grades.
In addition to weekly cluster meetings focused on student needs, TAP schools offer
“individual coaching and classroom-centered support, based on teacher accountability
evaluations given throughout the year” (Armstrong, 2011, p. 48). It is this support that
differentiates TAP from standard evaluation-based reform models. According to the 2013 TAP
national survey of teacher attitudes, “92 percent of teachers in TAP schools agree with
statements reporting a high level of collegiality in their schools and approximately 70% report
strong agreement” (NIET, 2014, p. 15). In addition to this high level of collegiality, the survey
reported 88% of teachers strongly support the job-embedded professional development provided
in TAP schools (NIET, 2014). Support and collaboration are key components in meeting the
needs of teachers and students; this is evident in the full year or more of academic growth
achieved by students in TAP schools (NIET, 2014).
Professional learning communities (PLC).
Another form of professional development that emerged as a result of the school reform
model is professional learning communities (PLCs). PLCs are recognized by the National Staff
Development Council as means to improve schools and offer professional development.
34
According to leading PLC researchers DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Many (2006), “a PLC is
composed of collaborative teams whose members work interdependently to achieve common
goals linked to the purpose of learning for all” (p. 3). A PLC is generally described as an
action-oriented community; (a) gathering evidence of current levels of student learning,
(b) developing strategies and ideas to build on strengths and address weaknesses in that
learning, (c) implementing those strategies and ideas, (d) analyzing the impact of the
changes to discover what was effective and what was not, and (e) applying new
knowledge in the next cycle of continuous improvement. (DuFour et al., 2006, p. 4)
This is essentially the description of the TAP leadership team. The main difference
is a PLC can often include parents, support staff, and career teachers who unite together on a
common cause. There can be multiple PLCs occurring at a school at one time with varying
focuses, thus resulting in opportunities for teachers to stand out as leaders within their schools.
To ensure success of PLCs, “educators must ensure that professional learning networks are more
than a forum for sharing war stories or a platform for promoting personal preferences about
instruction” (DuFour, 2014, p. 30). PLCs achieve the most success when they are action-
oriented and student-focused.
Another key difference between PLCs and TAP leadership teams is that often PLC
meetings take place after school, resulting in teachers missing meetings and opportunities for
professional development (Linder, Post, & Calabrese, 2012). By requiring weekly cluster
meetings to take place during the day, every career teacher receives professional development
from the master and mentor teacher in TAP schools. Key components of both PLCs and TAP
leadership teams are collaboration and collegiality (Jones, Stall, & Yarbrough, 2013, p. 357). In
his infamous book, Failure is Not an Option, Blankstein (2010) stated six principles essential to
35
schools with PLCs:
(1) Principle 1- Common mission, vision, values, and goals;
(2) Principle 2- Ensuring achievement for all students;
(3) Principle 3- Collaborative teaming focused on teaching and learning
(4) Principle 4- Using data to guide decision making and continuous improvements
(5) Principle 5- Gaining active engagement from family and community; and
(6) Principle 6- Building sustainable leadership capacity. (p. 56)
Dufour et al. (2006) and Blankstein (2010) share similarities in their beliefs about professional
learning communities. Professional Learning Communities are seen as a powerful staff-
development approach and a potent strategy for school change and improvement (DuFour,
2004). Both PLCs and TAP cluster meetings offer a professional learning environment where
teachers are given opportunities for personal growth that has a positive effect on student
achievement.
Similar to TAP master teachers, PLCs have an assigned member who completes the
behind-the-scenes work to ensure each meeting is successful. These assigned members are
teacher leaders working to better their schools and teaching abilities. “The professional learning
community model is a grand design- a powerful new way of working together that profoundly
affects the practices of schooling, but initiating and sustaining the concept requires hard work”
(DuFour, 2004, p. 6). Through PLCs, teacher leaders are given opportunities for professional
advancement yet there is no assigned teacher leaders, as with TAP, to ensure research-based
professional development. Each PLC is centered on teamwork and a common focus of analyzing
student data and improving the team as a whole, as opposed to individual professional growth,
which occurs in TAP cluster meetings with peer coaching by leadership team members.
36
Individual professional growth allows teachers to work on areas of concern in best teaching
practices, such as grouping, presenting instructional content, lesson structure, and pacing. The
differences between PLCs and TAP cluster meetings are what make TAP cluster meetings highly
successful for teachers and students.
TAP cluster meetings.
The core of job-embedded, ongoing professional development in TAP schools occurs in
TAP cluster meetings. Cluster meetings are based on large-scale studies of effective professional
development that demonstrate student achievement and teacher learning. Teacher-led, on-going,
and collaborative professional development has shown to increase teacher learning (Desimone,
Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman, 2002; Smylie, Allensworth, Greenberg, Harris & Luppescu,
2001). Cluster meetings occur each week for at least one hour during the school day and are led
by the TAP master and mentor teachers. TAP recommends that groups remain small to be
effective, with at least two leadership team members present to provide individual coaching for
career teacher professional growth in the implementation of the teacher and student strategies
(NIET, 2006). According to Hackman (2011), if a group is too large, social loafing can occur
and the cluster will be less efficient. Social loafing may diminish the professional growth
obtained by career teachers in a cluster meeting.
Cluster meetings follow the five STEPS of Effective Learning, which include:
1. Identify the need or problem.
2. Obtain new teacher learning aligned to student need and formatted for classroom
application.
3. Develop new teacher learning with support in the classroom.
4. Apply new learning to the classroom.
37
5. Evaluate the impact on the problem or need. (NIET, 2006, p. 80)
Along with the five STEPS, effective clusters include three essential parts: (a) an analysis of
student work that informs the new learning; (b) new learning; and (c) time for teachers to
develop the new learning (NIET, 2006). The master or mentor teachers use authentic student
artifacts from field-testing to provide the analysis of student work, which informs new learning;
additionally, each career teacher is responsible for bringing student work to analyze and make
connections to during each of the five STEPS. In the new learning section of TAP cluster
meetings, cluster leaders provide: (a) research of where the strategy being studied/applied
originated; (b) effectiveness of the strategy illustrating student growth from field-testing; (c)
critical attributes which teachers must implement for similar achievement gains; and (d) a model
of how teachers effectively teach the strategy (NIET, 2006). During the development time of
cluster meetings, peer coaching occurs by TAP Leadership Team members with career and
mentor teachers. Career teachers are 95% more likely to transfer new knowledge into
classrooms when a peer coach is present (Joyce & Showers, 2002).
Development time gives teachers an opportunity to take responsibility for planning
implementation of new learning while cluster leaders assess the teachers’ ability to implement
the new learning strategy. This level of support gives career teachers an opportunity to
proficiently implement new learning with students. When career teachers appear to struggle
during development time, leadership team members make plans to co-teach or model new
learning in the career teacher’s classroom to ensure students have equal opportunities for
achievement. After surveying 2,000 current and former teachers, Futernick (2007), concluded
that teachers felt greater satisfaction when they believed in their own efficacy, were involved in
38
decision-making, and established strong collegial relationships. These traits are embedded in
each TAP cluster meeting to ensure maximum growth of all participants.
Most TAP clusters are composed of the same grade level or same content area groups to
ensure the most effective professional development. A study conducted by Daly, Moolenaar,
Boliver, and Burke (2010) found elementary school teachers primarily interact with fellow
teachers in the same school and grade level rather than reaching out to others. TAP offers
opportunities twice a year for TAP leadership team members to interact with other TAP
leadership team members from around the state and the nation at national and state conferences.
Cluster meetings focus on Elmore and Burney’s (1997) characteristics of successful
professional development:
• Focusing on concrete classroom applications of general ideas;
• Exposing teachers to actual practice rather than descriptions of practice;
• Involving opportunities for observation, critique, and reflection;
• Providing opportunities for group support and collaboration; and
• Requiring evaluation and feedback by skilled practitioners with expertise in
teaching methods. (NIET, 2013)
TAP cluster meetings provide continuous learning on a strategy, broken into cycles that last six
to eight weeks. Each year, TAP cluster meetings begin with a review and study of best practices
from the TAP instructional rubric. Several indicators of best practices are studied annually,
including: (a) standards and objectives, (b) motivating students, (c) grouping, (d) presenting
instructional content, (e) lesson structure and pacing, (f) teacher knowledge of students, (g)
content implementation, (h) thinking, (i) problem solving, (j) activities and materials, (k)
questioning, (l) academic feedback, (m) instructional plans, (n) student work, (o) assessment, (p)
39
expectations, (q) managing student behavior, (r) environment, and (s) respectful culture.
Depending on how familiar career teachers are with TAP rubrics determines how the learning is
approached. Some schools focus on how each on the indicators look and sound from a teacher
and student perspective, while others may make connections to each indicator through a certain
indicator, such as thinking. Regardless of the method studies, each cluster cycle is best achieved
through the TAP master teacher and leadership team members’ understanding of the adult
learners present in each cluster meeting.
Adult learners
Leading effective professional development can only be implemented once the master
teacher’s knowledge of how adults learn is reached. Similar to students, adults are diverse
learners whose level of understanding determines how they are challenged and what is gained in
professional development settings (Drago-Severson, 2008). According to Joyce and Showers
(2002), adult learners expect a model with authentic artifacts. They need to try something
immediately, and they need to know the why. This occurs during TAP cluster meeting’s five
STEPS of Effective Learning. Each adult learner is given an opportunity to apply the
professional development immediately to his or her students with the assistance of a TAP
leadership team member until their level of understanding is reached. The Center for Public
Education (Gulamhussein, 2013) reported that adults need 20 or more practice sessions to master
a specific teaching strategy; this is one reason cluster meetings have such an affect on teachers’
growth in effective teaching practices- they are modeled each week for career teachers. The
Center for Public Education (Gulamhussein, 2013) also reported that teachers are both
technicians and intellectuals who need to understand practice and theory to have the biggest
effect on student achievement. Practice and theory are embedded in to each TAP cluster meeting
40
to ensure teachers are given these opportunities.
TAP master and mentor teachers must understand adult learners, but more importantly,
the role of teachers as students. Master and mentor teachers’ primary role is to support and teach
fellow teachers to increase student achievement. Newmann, Bryk, and Nagoaka (2001) and
Desimone et al. (2002) found that teacher learning and performance improved when teachers: (a)
concentrated on instruction and student outcomes for the specific content and context they
taught; (b) had sustained opportunities to experiment with and receive feedback on specific
teaching innovations; (c) collaborated with professional peers; and (d) had influence over the
substance and process of their professional development. These characteristics are evident in all
cluster meetings that occur in TAP schools. “Teachers have a great deal of knowledge about
their practice and their students that is incredibly valuable to other teachers” (Van Tassell, 2014,
p. 76). Like students, teachers use background knowledge, conversing with others, and learning
from others to increase their knowledge. TAP leadership team members’ knowledge of adult
learners and teachers as students is used weekly during cluster meetings in TAP schools to
enhance the growth of teachers professionally.
Instructional leaders
Ronald Edmonds (1979) coined the term instructional leadership in his landmark study,
which stated “effective schools almost always have leaders focused on instruction” (p. 22).
While Edmund’s research (1979), focused on principal leadership, the term has since broadened
to include other leaders within schools. From the research, it is evident that teacher quality is the
number one determining variable impacting student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2000;
Tivnan & Hamphill, 2005). With the expansion of educational reform initiatives introduced by
the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) that required increased performance expectations of
41
teachers and students, schools have felt the pressure to add formal and informal instructional
leader positions to assist in the growth of all teachers. Some formal positions incorporated
include instructional coaches, master and mentor teachers, resource teachers, and curriculum
specialists; informal positions include grade level chairs and team leaders for certain subjects.
Characteristics of highly effective teacher leaders considered for such leadership roles include
high levels of content and procedural knowledge, data analysis skills, communication skills, and
respect among colleagues (Mangin & Stoelinga, 2010). Throughout the review of literature, it is
evident that a need for instructional leaders exists in schools.
Hiring the best master and mentor teachers is arguably the most critical
component of TAP because master and mentor teachers:
• lead the school’s professional development;
• frequently team-teach with career and specialist teachers;
• evaluate and coach teachers;
• introduce new curricula, assessment, and instructional strategies; and
• assist teachers in continually enhancing their content knowledge. (Schacter,
Thum, Reifsneider, & Schiff, 2013, p. 21-22)
Requiring the most qualified teachers in these formal and informal teacher leadership positions
ensures the highest competency of teachers is met, thus resulting in higher gains in student
achievement.
There are currently many studies on leader positions in schools including: teachers as
leaders, instructional coaches, mentors, and professional learning communities; however, there
are few empirical studies on the TAP master teacher. For that reason, the review of literature
examined these examples of instructional leaders and compares them to TAP master teachers.
42
According to Kouzes and Posner (2003), leadership is “not about personality; it’s about
behavior” (p. 15). An instructional leader “attempts to change such school factors as curricular
content, teaching methods, assessment strategies, and cultural norms for academic achievement”
(Hoy & Miskel, 2008, p. 433). Instructional leadership is defined as “the development or
exercise of intentionally planned activities by an educator that leads to significant student
achievement (McCoy, 2013, p. 1). This definition focused on all educators as opposed to past
definitions that related to the principal or assistant principal as the primary instructional leaders
in schools. Neumerski (2013) believed the aims of instructional leadership were tied to the core
work of schools: teaching and learning. Through various roles, instructional leaders served as a
“resource for teachers: conducting workshops, co-planning and modeling lessons, observing
teachers and providing feedback, collecting and analyzing data, facilitating dialogue and
reflective critique, and promoting shared practices among peers” (Mangin & Stoelinga, 2010, p.
1). Regardless of the activity, instructional leaders are focused on teacher development within
the school to reach higher student achievement levels.
Teachers as leaders.
According to Mayo (2002), “school change and improvement cannot successfully occur
without teacher leaders” (p. 29). The term ‘teachers as leaders’ is directly correlated with
distributed leadership, where all members have a role to play in leadership. Research studies
have been conducted on teachers as leaders, especially as it relates to school reform (Ballou &
Podgursky, 2002; Carroll, 2009; Crow, 2007; Ghamrawi, 2013; Neumerski, 2013). Through
these studies, it was evident that “a strong classroom leader’s every action, large or small,
contributes to the goal of student learning” (Wetzler, 2010, p. 26); however, the difference from
an effective teacher to a teacher leader is that teacher leaders share this knowledge with other
43
teachers in their building to help build teacher competency. Teacher leaders are defined as “a
teacher who works with colleagues for the purpose of improving teaching and learning, whether
in a formal or informal capacity” (Patterson & Patterson, 2004, p. 74).
Formal positions that teacher leaders often hold are “consultants, curriculum managers,
department chairs, mentor teachers, professional development coordinators, resource teachers,
specialists, coaches, and demonstration teachers” (Neumerski, 2013, p. 320). When teachers are
given opportunities to be leaders within the school, they feel “empowered to work
collaboratively and to have a say in the decision making so that a collaborative sense of
responsibility for improving student outcomes occurs” (Petersen & Conway, 2011, p. 176).
According to Ghamrawi (2013), “high-quality, teacher-led professional development has the
potential of fueling up the process of developing leaders at school” (p. 180). In TAP cluster
meetings master teachers, along with the leadership team, boost career teachers’ knowledge and
use newfound strengths as examples when leading TAP cluster meetings. Through TAP,
teachers become teacher leaders earlier in their careers when compared to schools without TAP
(Nolan & Palazzolo, 2011). It is recommended that TAP mentors have three years of experience
and master teachers have taught for five years. The opportunity to become teacher leaders early
in their career drives student teachers to apply only to TAP schools upon graduation. According
to Lieberman (2011), as a teacher leader, teachers are able to influence decision-making through
“changing the focus of assessments from an accounting of learning to an accountability for
learning, become change agents and help in reshaping the norms and expectations for students,
and redefine the teaching profession as an intellectual and collaborative enterprise” (p. 17). This
research confirms that the use of teacher leaders continues to grow in schools across the country.
44
TAP master teacher.
The TAP master teacher is as new as the TAP system itself, which is one reason there is a
dearth of empirical research on the TAP master teacher. Qualifications of master teachers
include holding advanced degrees, at least five years of successful teaching as measured by
performance evaluations, excellent communication skills and an understanding of how to
facilitate growth in adults, and demonstrated expertise in content, curriculum development,
student learning, instructional best practices, data analysis, mentoring, and professional
development (NIET, 2006). Master teachers serve as leaders to all staff members in a school and
directly affect each student’s ability to achieve. Master teachers are expected to have more
experience in curriculum development, professional development, and mentoring than a
traditional teacher; they serve as a role model for all other instructional staff and are considered
the “gold standard” in teaching (NIET, 2012).
Master teachers are independent learners who strive to improve their own learning to
deliver effective learning to their peers. The core component of a master teacher is to deliver
high-quality professional development to career teachers.
The master teacher’s function is a unique manner relative to the traditional teacher;
working with the principal, the master teacher’s primary role is to analyze student data, as
well as to create and institute an academic achievement plan for the building. (NIET,
2006, p. 11)
According to NIET (2012), “master teachers spend all or most of their time fulfilling
instructional leadership responsibilities; they are not simply ‘coaches’ or ‘team facilitators’, but
true instructional leaders in their schools” (p. 14). Master teachers differ from coaches and team
facilitators by providing action research within the school and assisting teachers in data analysis,
45
professional learning, and evaluating teachers’ effectiveness. Instructional leadership
responsibilities vary each day for master teachers. These responsibilities include field-testing,
holding and preparing for cluster meetings, conducting and scoring observations, providing
follow-up to career teachers from meetings and observations, conducting pre and post
conferences with career teachers, and researching effective teaching strategies to use in their
field testing and clusters. “In TAP schools, master teachers provide intensive coaching to
teachers in their own classrooms on a regular basis; coaching can take the form of modeling
particular instructional strategies, giving demonstration lessons, or team teaching” (Jerald & Van
Hook, 2011, p. 32). Each opportunity to provide coaching to career teachers, also improves the
skills of a master teacher as an instructional leader.
Professional growth is an expectation for the master teacher, not only providing it to
others in the building but also searching out opportunities for themself. Master teachers are
provided professional development from regional master teachers and the state TAP director.
Weekly to bi-weekly coaching and feedback on cluster operations and coaching skills is
provided to master teachers by the regional master teacher. Quarterly professional development
is provided by the entire state team to enhance skills of the master teacher in field-testing, cluster
operations, and evaluation using the TAP Instructional Rubrics with fidelity.
In addition to these opportunities for growth, NIET provides an annual conference for
TAP leadership team members. Each state team provides a summer institute incorporating all
necessary skills to improve master teachers’ educational knowledge in best practices. These
continuous professional development opportunities for the TAP master teacher ensure they
remain the most knowledgeable instructional leader in the school. The master teacher epitomizes
what it means to be an instructional leader yet their impact on the educational system is only now
46
starting to emerge. This study helps to understand what it means to be a master teacher and how
they are the instructional leaders in their school.
TAP mentor teacher.
Mentor teachers are another step in the multiple career paths offered through TAP.
Qualifications for a TAP mentor teacher include student data that illustrates increases in student
achievement, demonstration of instructional excellence, an effective communicator, and an
understanding of how to facilitate growth in adults (NIET, 2006). The TAP mentor teacher often
serves as a liaison between the master teacher and career teachers and is actively involved in
enhancing and supporting the teaching experience. TAP mentor teachers often lead and
participate in cluster meetings with the support of the master teacher. Providing follow-up from
cluster meetings and evaluations is a daily responsibility of a TAP mentor teacher.
Prior to TAP, teachers who wanted career advancement only had the option to move into
administration. TAP’s mentor teacher career path allows classroom teachers to establish
themselves as experts, taking on more responsibilities, impacting more teachers and students,
while staying in the classroom (Armstrong, 2011). TAP mentors often co-teach with career
teachers and provide a sounding block to improve teachers’ instructional knowledge and ability.
In addition to co-teaching, TAP mentor teachers often provide model lessons for career teachers
to assist in proper development of how the instructional strategies should be implemented in the
classroom. Co-teaching and model lessons are often provided by mentor teachers because
teachers believe mentors better understand their strengths and weaknesses in the classroom.
Coaching opportunities develop strong working relationships for the TAP mentor teacher as an
instructional leader while allowing them to stay classroom teachers.
47
Instructional coaches.
Job responsibilities and structures of instructional coaches vary across states and districts.
“The concept of instructional coaching developed in the early 1980s as a response to new ideas
about teacher leadership; districts recognized that some teachers needed to learn how to meet the
mandated, more stringent standards for student learning” (Neumerski, 2013, p. 322). Over the
past 30 years, many definitions have been used for this position. Some believe instructional
coaches are “master teachers who offer on-site and on-going instructional support for teachers;
however, do not directly instruct or tutor students unless used as a means to model instruction for
teachers” (Marsh, McCombs, & Martorell, 2010, p. 873). Others believe “an instructional coach
is a former teacher whose central role is to partner with the principal and teachers to bring
research-based instructional practices into classrooms” (Knight, 2012, p. 54).
The instructional coach model was influenced by cognitive and situational learning
theories that “built on a philosophy of partnership that values teacher choice and views the coach
and teacher as equals in the process of improving instruction” (Knight, 2012, p. 54). Since the
term was first introduced, there has been “little peer-reviewed research that (a) defines the
parameters of the role, (b) describes and contextualizes the work of instructional coaching, or (c)
explains how individuals learn to be coaches and are supported to refine their practice over time”
(Gallucci, Van Lare, Yoon, & Boatright, 2010, p. 920).
Coaches, like master teachers, have been narrowly researched as to how they perform
their duties and what impact they have on the school environment. Their assigned duties may
include: (a) enrolling teachers to be coached; (b) identifying appropriate interventions for teacher
learning; (c) model teaching; (d) gathering data in classrooms; and (e) engaging teachers in
dialogue about classroom and other data (Knight, 2009). The overarching goal is for
48
instructional coaches to develop a learning community and support for teachers’ professional
growth (Heineke & Polnick, 2013). Instructional coaches are the most used formal leadership
position in schools, especially in the areas of literacy and math. The main responsibility of an
instructional coach is to “help teachers develop critical learning behaviors and learn how to
utilize those behaviors to think deeply about what it means to teach well” (West & Cameron,
2013, p. 2). This differs from a TAP master teacher’s responsibilities.
The main difference between an instructional coach and a TAP master teacher is that a
TAP master teacher conducts action research (direct instruction) in career teachers’ classrooms
and provides weekly professional development during the school day, as well as weekly follow-
up to teachers’ understanding of applying the concepts learned that week. Master teachers are
often seen as more of an equal than an instructional coach since they are down in the trenches
with the teachers. Often times, there is a “lack of rapport between an instructional coach and
teachers that may constrain the coach’s ability to provide support to all teachers” (Marsh et al.,
2010, p. 901). According to Garcia, Jones, Holland, and Mundy (2013), it was determined there
were significant differences between schools that utilized coaches and those that did not;
however, the results were not always positive on the school environment, depending on the grade
and subject. This could be related to the lack of rapport between the coach and teacher or lack of
professional development provided for the coach (Gallucci et al., 2010).
Another area of concern for instructional coaches is the lack of feedback on their
progress. “The loneliness of the position and unwillingness of some teachers to try new
strategies for improvement can create hostile environments for instructional coaches” (Heineke
& Polnick, 2013, p. 48). This lack of support can be detrimental to the effectiveness of an
instructional coach. TAP leadership teams offer an immense amount of support for master
49
teachers, thus resulting in the success of these positions. Often the instructional coach relies
solely on the support of the principal (Heineke & Polnick, 2013). Instructional coaches partner
with the TAP leadership team in TAP schools, to strengthen the team’s content knowledge and to
provide support for instructional coaches.
Summary
This review of literature covered school reform, professional development, adult learners,
and various types of instructional leaders found in public schools. Each of these is integral in the
role of a TAP master teacher. It examined how educational policy is providing new meaning to
the term instructional leaders, especially at the elementary level through the jobs of instructional
coaches, master and mentor teachers, and professional learning communities. This shift in roles
exemplifies that “instructional leadership requires more than just passing tests and achieving
minimum standards; it requires leadership knowledge, skills, and dispositions that move schools
to an inquiry footing and a path of continuous improvement with respect to teaching and
learning” (Brazer & Bauer, 2013, pp. 646-647).
Forty-three states have adopted the Common Core State Standards as of December 2014,
meaning more changes are sure to take place in the makeup of instructional leadership in schools
(Common Core State Standards Initiatives, 2014). Adopting the distributed leadership theory
can provide a framework for schools to analyze leadership responsibilities across several
positions to provide job-embedded professional development needed to help teachers meet the
Common Core State Standards. This instrumental study on the TAP master teacher provides
educators with an in-depth examination of the qualifications of a master teacher and how to
become a strong educational leader in schools. Understanding qualifications of a master teacher
as an instructional leader could help current master teachers and leadership teams strengthen
50
current practices. It may also provide an analysis for future schools that are considering
becoming TAP schools. This study increased available research on the understanding of the
TAP master teacher position.
51
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
Overview
According to Yin (2009), the case study method allows investigators to retain the holistic
and meaningful characteristics of real-life events to understand complex social phenomena. An
instrumental case focuses on a single case bounded by the investigator in the process of
designing the research (Stake, 1995). This instrumental case study was conducted by
interviewing a former SC TAP elementary school master teacher and collecting data and
documents from her time as a master teacher. (The master teacher recently took advantage of the
multiple career paths and began a position as a regional master teacher). Multiple sources of
data were used including documentation, archival records, physical artifacts, and interviews
(Stake, 1995; Yin, 2009) with the master teacher and her former colleagues to provide a holistic
view of the role of the master teacher as an instructional leader. The researcher transcribed all
interviews for this case study and analyzed them for specific patterns and themes. Various
checks were made throughout the data analysis process to ensure enough detail was provided to
assess the trustworthiness and dependability. Following this format, the goal of this case study
was to provide a vivid description of the case to allow others to learn about the role of the master
teacher as an instructional leader (Creswell, 2013).
Design
The approach for this study was categorized as an instrumental case study. An
instrumental case study differs from an intrinsic case study because it is a study of one bounded
case used to understand something rather than a need for a general understanding obtained
through multiples cases (Creswell, 2013; Stake, 1995). An instrumental case study was chosen
based on the limited number of master teachers in South Carolina with at least 12 years’
52
experience. The length of experience was instrumental in developing a deeper understanding for
the role of master teacher.
An instrumental case study also helps to understand the how and why, which is what was
sought in this study (Yin, 2009). These questions help the researcher and audience understand
the complexity of the case (Stake, 1995). By conducting a qualitative study, the researcher
created a deeper understanding of the role of an elementary master teacher. Stake (1995) argued
there are three major differences in qualitative and quantitative research: (a) the distance between
explanation and understanding as the purpose of inquiry; (b) the distinction between a personal
and impersonal role of the researcher; and (c) a distinction between knowledge discovered and
knowledge constructed (p. 37). These differences demonstrated why this study was considered a
qualitative case study and the understanding behind the following research questions. In keeping
with the design of qualitative research, the researcher was the instrument of data collection,
which continuously guided the study.
Research Questions
Formulating rich research questions is an instrumental part of designing a solid case
study. “The design of all research questions requires conceptual organization, ideas to express
needed understanding, conceptual bridges from what is already known, cognitive structures to
guide data gathering, and outlines for presenting interpretations to others” (Stake, 1995, p. 15).
The design of the research questions is also an important deciding factor in which research
method is chosen (Yin, 2009). Given that the purpose of this study was to understand the role of
the master teacher as an instructional leader, the following questions framed this study:
• What is the role of the master teacher?
• How is the master teacher an instructional leader in SC TAP schools?
53
• What characteristics are necessary to successfully fill the role of a master teacher?
The research questions guided the case study and refocused the researcher when needed. The
research questions were designed to help narrow the focus of the TAP master teacher by
investigating the role and characteristics of the position. The questions aimed to address the role
of the master teacher as an instructional leader in TAP schools.
Setting
The setting for the instrumental case study was a South Carolina elementary school,
Sarolina Elementary (a pseudonym assigned for anonymity), which had been successful in
sustaining TAP for the past 13 years. The site was chosen for its longevity with TAP and the
years’ experience of the master teacher. Sarolina Elementary was one of only 10 elementary
schools in South Carolina that had sustained TAP beyond the five-year grant period and the only
K-5 elementary school that had a master teacher with over 10 years’ experience (SCDE, 2013).
The school utilized TAP’s multiple career paths with career teachers, mentor teachers, a master
teacher, assistant principal, and principal. The school district had several schools utilizing the
TAP model including the middle and high school. The school had a student population of 614
students. Of these students 51% are Caucasian, 36% African American, 7% Hispanic, 1% Asian,
and 5% with two or more ethnicities. In South Carolina, 17 school districts, hosting 78 schools,
were currently implementing TAP, with 24 more projected to begin the next school year (SCDE,
2013).
Participants
The participants for this instrumental case study were chosen through purposeful
sampling. The master teacher was chosen based on years’ experience in the role of the SC TAP
master teacher. Other participants were chosen based on interactions with the master teacher and
54
their understanding of the role of master teacher. To create a holistic analysis of the role of
master teacher, snowball sampling was used to access multiple units within the bounded case
(Creswell, 2013). Snowball sampling led to participants that had worked with the master teacher
over the past 12 years. Snowball sampling “identifies cases of interest from people who know
people who know what cases are information rich” (Creswell, 2013, p. 127). The master teacher
provided names of individuals with whom she worked as a master teacher; these individuals
included mentor teachers, career teachers, principals, superintendents, and the state director of
SC TAP. To ensure bias did not occur with participants, names offered by the master teacher
were cross-referenced with the state director of SC TAP to ensure participants were
knowledgeable and reputable individuals. From interviews, more names were collected until the
researcher exhausted the list of potential participants who worked with the master teacher. The
goal of interviewing stakeholders who were involved with the master teacher was to gain a
holistic picture of the role of the TAP master teacher in one South Carolina elementary school.
This holistic picture ensured a true understanding of the role of the SC TAP master teacher,
characteristics of the TAP master teacher, and if the SC TAP master teacher served as an
instructional leader in the school.
Procedures
The steps necessary in conducting this study began with an initial inquiry with the focal
case subject and her superintendent to gain approval for advancement of this instrumental case
study. Once this was obtained the proposal was developed and defended; this included chapters
one through three and incorporated a plethora of research into instrumental case studies and
instructional leaders such as the TAP master teacher, school reform models, and job-embedded
professional development. After successfully defending the proposal, the researcher submitted
55
and secured Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval (See Appendix B) and elicited
participants for the study through the focal case subject (See Appendix C and D). Prior to
interviews and defending the proposal, the researcher developed interview questions that were
reviewed by experts in the field of TAP. Following IRB approval, the interview questions (See
Appendix A) were piloted with a small sample of SC TAP leadership team members including:
master and mentor teachers and administrators. The sample group was not part of the study and
assisted the researcher in ensuring clarity of questions and wording.
Once participants were selected and consent was granted, the researcher began collecting
data via interviews and document collection from the focal case subject. All data were recorded
electronically via audio recordings or hard copies of documents and artifacts and emailed
interviews. Data that was obtained via audio recording was then transcribed using a computer-
software program, Dragon, and then hand corrected via the researcher in Microsoft Word. Once
all interviews were transcribed the researcher used categorical aggregation software, Atlas ti, to
analyze the data for trends by combining all interviews based on answers to questions. Key
words and phrases were identified for each question to help identify these trends.
After identifying the trends and patterns, chapters four and five were completed using the
research obtained in this instrumental case study in comparison to the literature reviewed in
chapter two. The manuscript was then submitted for review and edits were made until ready for
the dissertation defense.
The Researcher's Role
I grew up in a Midwest state and traveled to the East Coast after graduating high school.
As a child, I attended public schools and began college after marrying and having children. I
graduated in 2005 with a Bachelor of Arts in Early Childhood Education. Following degree
56
completion, I began teaching first grade. After two years of teaching, I obtained a Masters of
Education in Curriculum and Instruction. I taught first grade for a third year while working on
my second Masters of Education in Educational Leadership. After completing my third year of
teaching, I was promoted to Assistant Principal at the same school. I graduated in 2009 with my
second master’s degree and quickly began working on my Doctorate of Education in Educational
Leadership at Liberty University. The school at which I previously worked became a TAP
school in the 2011-2012 school year and I served on the school’s leadership team for two years
before moving into my current position as a regional master teacher with SC TAP.
Throughout this study, I served as a human instrument in developing an in-depth
understanding of the elementary master teacher. As a former assistant principal in a TAP
elementary school, I experienced working with a master teacher and several regional master
teachers; however I did not have prior relationships with any of the case study participants. The
focal master teacher of this case study and I were both hired as regional master teachers for SC
TAP at the same time. In my current position, I have monthly conference calls with the master
teacher but limited contact otherwise as we work in different parts of the state. I did not have
contact with the site participants of this study except while conducting the research. Having
been in a TAP school and seen its success with teachers and students, I was bias to the system
but kept this separate during the research through reflective journaling. Strict data protocols,
such as member checks, peer reviews, and verbatim interview transcripts, were used to limit bias
on the subject of TAP and master teachers.
Data Collection
A critical aspect of qualitative inquiry is rigorous and varied data collection techniques.
According to Yin (2009), there are six sources of data that can be used in case studies; these
57
include: documentation, archival records, interviews, direct observations, participant-
observation, and physical artifacts. Creswell (2013) added a final source of data- reflective
journaling. In this instrumental case study, the researcher used documentation, archival records,
interviews, reflective journaling, and physical artifacts. The only observations that could have
occurred were that of the master teacher in her role as a regional master teacher, so these were
not used for the case study.
After gaining IRB approval, data collection began in the fall of 2014.To maximize data
collection, three principles were used:
• Multiple sources of evidence
• A case study database
• A chain of evidence (Yin, 2009).
Although previous studies had focused on single sources of data, this case study used multiple
sources of evidence to ensure a coherent understanding of the role of the master teacher. Using
multiple sources, data was triangulated to ensure accuracy in the findings. The case study
database included notes, documents, tabular materials, and narratives that could be retrieved to
inspect the data used to determine the case study’s findings (Yin, 2009). Maintaining a chain of
evidence allowed external observers to come to similar findings by reviewing the data collected
and housed in the case study database. A combination of these principles ensured that the study
remained at the highest validity and reliability. In addition, permission was obtained from the
superintendent of the school district as well as each participant prior to being interviewed (see
Appendix C).
58
Interviews
Interviews are one of the most important sources of information obtained in case study
research (Yin, 2009). Interviews can be in the form of in-depth (over multiple visits) or focused
(one hour) (Yin, 2009). While an in-depth interview was planned for the main participant,
focused interviews were planned for additional interviewees unless an in-depth interview was
deemed necessary in providing a better understanding of the role of the master teacher.
Participants were chosen based on their unique insight into the role of the master teacher as an
instructional leader. During the untimed, fluid interviews, additional probing questions were
asked to allow participants to express the details of their experience with the TAP master teacher
as related to the case study’s research questions. For participants unable to meet in person,
phone and email interviews were allowed to get as many participants as possible. These
interviews were followed up with second emails and phone calls when needed to provide
clarification and further insight.
Throughout the interview process it was essential for the researcher to: (a) follow the line
of inquiry, and (b) ask questions in an unbiased manner to avoid defensiveness (Yin, 2009). A
deliberate effort was made to ensure the message shared was captured in its entirety (tone, body
language, and words). Interviews were conducted with those involved with the master teacher
including: career teachers, mentor teachers, a master teacher, principal, and the SC TAP director.
After analyzing the data, follow-up interviews were conducted to ensure a firm understanding
and that triangulation amongst the different evaluators was evident (Patton, 2002). After
conducting the interviews, verbatim transcripts were made and each script was analyzed for
common themes and patterns (Creswell, 2013).
59
An initial approval from the main participant was received in June of 2013. Prior to
conducting interviews, an initial email or meeting took place introducing the researcher to
individual stakeholders. Participants were notified of the study and the value of their input in the
study. An initial set of open-ended interview questions (See below and Appendix A) were
developed for this study (Creswell, 2013). These questions were piloted amongst the SC TAP
regional master teachers prior to interviewing the participants.
Standardized Open-Ended Interview Questions
Role of the TAP Master Teacher as an Instructional Leader
1. Tell me about yourself, your job/work, what you do.
2. How long have you been in your current position/education field?
3. What led you to your career choice?
4. How long have you been associated with TAP?
5. Describe a “typical” day at work.
6. Describe your understanding of the master teacher position. (Prompts: cluster, leadership
team, field testing, student achievement)
7. What characteristics are needed to be a master teacher?
8. With whom does the master teacher interact?
9. What support is offered to master teachers?
10. How is the master teacher an instructional leader at your school?
11. Based on your experience, what concerns do you feel master teachers face as
instructional leaders?
12. How does the master teacher position enhance the school environment?
13. Is there anything else significant about master teachers that you would like to share?
60
The purpose of the questions pertaining to the background and current position of the
participant (questions one through five) was to gather information about the participants and
their experience and involvement with TAP and the master teacher. Question four was designed
to inform the researcher on the years of experience the participant had in a TAP school.
Question six allowed the participant to reveal their understanding of the master teacher position,
which gave the researcher an opportunity to look for trends in their answers. Question seven was
developed to see if participants’ answers reinforced current research on characteristics of
instructional leaders including: high levels of content and procedural knowledge, data analysis
skills, communication skills, and respect among colleagues (Mangin & Stoelinga, 2010).
Given the discrepancies in research (Gallucci et al., 2010; Knight, 2012; Marsh et al.,
2010) on the interactions of the master teacher or instructional coach, questions eight and 10
were developed to assess this understanding. Question nine, 11, and 12 helped to clarify the role
of the master teacher as an instructional leader. These questions also provided insight into how
master teachers can be supported and best serve as an instructional leader in SC TAP schools.
Question 13 allowed the participants an opportunity to share any other information pertaining to
master teachers that would be beneficial to this case study. All of the questions were developed
to answer the following research questions:
• What is the role of the master teacher?
• How is the master teacher an instructional leader in SC TAP schools?
• What characteristics are necessary to successfully fill the role of a master teacher?
Document Analysis
Documents were used to corroborate and augment evidence collected through the
interviews (Yin, 2009). The documents analyzed for this instrumental case study included Skills,
61
Knowledge, and Responsibility scores for the focal participant, school report card data, and
value-added data. Skills, Knowledge, and Responsibility scores are a compilation of the master
teacher’s observation data, personal survey on how she performed her duties, and how the
leadership team and career teachers viewed the master teacher in relation to her duties.
Throughout the focal participant’s time as a master teacher her scores ranged from 4.0 – 4.87 on
a one to five scale which placed the master teacher above proficient in all areas.
The report card data showed the school was at below average growth rating prior to
participation in TAP and has since remained at an average growth rating. The value added data
ranged from an average growth rating of -1.8 (regressing students academically one year and
eight months in a one year time period) to a +3.4 (increasing students academically three years
and four months in a one year time period). These numbers fluctuate based on individual
teachers, district and school initiatives, and individual students. These data points scored the
school a value-added average of a five the first, sixth, and seventh years, a value-added four the
third, fourth, and fifth years and a value-added three each other year. These scores are based on
a five-point scale and show that every year since implementing TAP, students have grown one to
two years academically each year. The documents analyzed in this case study provided the
researcher with exact details of events and helped provide a holistic account of the role of master
teacher (Yin, 2009). To ensure accuracy, documents were verified with the main case study
participant and the state director of SC TAP.
Artifacts
Artifacts obtained through the interview process were collected to provide a thorough
understanding of the role of master teacher (Creswell, 2013). These documents provided insight
into the technical operations and cultural features of TAP at Sarolina Elementary (Yin, 2009).
62
Artifacts analyzed for this instrumental case study included the master teachers field-testing
notes, cluster long-range plans, and calendars of support provided to teachers. The field-test
notes and cluster long-range plans helped to show how the master teacher researched strategies
to support teacher and student learning and how she used data to track trends in student work.
The calendar of support showed the various types of support provided by the master teacher and
any reflection notes for follow-up support needed to ensure the success of the teacher. The
artifacts analyzed reinforced the themes that emerged in this study.
Reflective journaling
Throughout data collection, the researcher maintained a reflective journal to record
personal biases, thoughts, and feelings on the data obtained (Creswell, 2013). The journal helped
the researcher identify further questions for participants and possible research topics. Qualitative
researchers must become experts in reflective practice to gain true understanding of their case
(Stake, 1995). The reflective journal was reviewed frequently for trends in thoughts obtained
throughout the case study.
Data Analysis
According to Stake (1995), there is no right way to analyze data and each researcher must
determine the way that works best to answer their research questions. Throughout the entire
study, data analysis occurred by examining observations and impressions from the interviews,
documents, and artifacts while searching for common themes and patterns. Having a clear plan
for analysis ensured the researcher remained proactive in data analysis and was able to navigate
the case study database.
The researcher used categorical aggregation and direct interpretation in analyzing data
from which themes were formed (Creswell, 2013). This occurred through the use of computer-
63
assisted software designed for qualitative data analysis, ATLAS ti, in which repeated words and
phrases were grouped and analyzed for deeper understanding. As the researcher continued to
search for meaning, one strategy stood out more than the other in finding the greatest meaning
when the researcher coded notes and transcripts (Stake, 1995). This strategy was the old-
fashioned paper and pencil method, highlighting and marking the transcript texts. According to
Yin (2009), there are four things the researcher must do to have the highest quality data analysis:
(a) attend to evidence, (b) address rival interpretations, (c) address the most significant aspect of
the case, and (d) use prior, expert knowledge in the analysis. Once the researcher examined the
results, conclusions revealed a deeper understanding of the role of master teacher in SC
elementary TAP schools. These conclusions were then used to form themes: an overarching
umbrella of support provided by the master teacher, the pedagogy necessary for the master
teacher to embed authentic application of skills into the school environment, and the
characteristics necessary for these to exist.
Interviews
According to Yin (2009), interviews are essential sources of case study information,
which provide a targeted-focus directly related to the case study topic. To reduce bias, interview
questions were piloted and reviewed by experts prior to the actual interviews in this study. Any
necessary changes were made prior to conducting the first interview. Prior to recording of
interviews, permission was obtained by all interviewees. All interviews were then transcribed by
the researcher and read thoroughly; notes were made in the margins of all transcripts to identify
themes (Creswell, 2013). In transcribing the interviews, recordings were replayed frequently to
ensure all feedback was recorded. While examining interviews for patterns and trends, the
transcribed interviews were re-read frequently to ensure information was not overlooked.
64
Documents/artifacts
Documents and artifacts provide stable and unobtrusive objects that can be reviewed
repeatedly and contain exact details of an event (Yin, 2009). According to Stake (1995),
“documents serve as substitutes for records of activity that the researcher could not observe
directly” (p. 68). In this case study, documents and artifacts were scanned or copied so that notes
could be written in the margins and coded accordingly. Upon analysis of data, categorical
aggregation was used to establish themes or patterns (Creswell, 2013); Yin (2009) refers to this
as pattern matching. According to Stake (1995), the need for categorical aggregation is greater
in instrumental case studies.
Reflective journaling
The researcher compared notes in the reflective journal to data collected to ensure a
holistic description was obtained without bias from the researcher’s personal experience
(Creswell, 2013). The reflective journal was re-read throughout the data analysis to insure
thoughts and feelings recorded had been scrutinized for future development.
Trustworthiness
To ensure dependability of the research, trustworthiness was addressed throughout every
phase of this study including: understanding the researcher’s biases, member checking, peer
reviewing, and utilizing a triangulation of data. In addition to these measures, follow-up
interviews were conducted as needed to ensure accurate accounts of each participant’s
disposition of the role of master teacher.
To address bias, the researcher kept an open-mind when interviewing participants. To
ensure an accurate understanding of each participant’s perceptions, member checking was
performed. According to Creswell (2013), in member checking “the researcher takes data,
65
analyses, interpretations, and conclusions back to the participants so that they can judge the
accuracy and credibility of the account” (p. 252). This gave participants an opportunity to clarify
the interpretation and contribute new or additional perspectives on the case.
To ensure information was honest and interpreted appropriately, the researcher
participated in peer reviews and debriefings with the dissertation committee. Throughout the
study the researcher worked with a colleague to ensure information was accurate. Peer reviews,
along with member checking, provided external checks of the study to increase reliability.
Transferability of this study was only accurate in other South Carolina elementary TAP schools.
Utilizing all three forms of data analysis ensured triangulation was met. Once the
relevant themes or patterns emerged, the researcher developed naturalistic generalizations to help
others understand the role of master teacher and its relevance in their setting.
Ethical Considerations
Many ethical considerations were upheld to ensure an honorable case study. The
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval process was completed prior to contact with
participants to ensure there were no harmful effects on participants. Prior to participation in the
study, each participant completed a consent form that stated the purpose of the study as well as
their voluntary participation in the process. It also stated that only pseudonyms would be used at
all times, including all written documents to protect the identities of all participants. Respectful
working relationships were in place between the participants and me prior to the start of the
interviews. I also held no position of authority over any of the participants.
Although not encouraged, all participants were allowed to share information “off the
record” when deemed necessary to provide a better understanding of their stance on the role of
TAP master teacher. Multiple interviewees ensured an essence was captured from statements
66
made during interviews. All data collected remained in a password-protected location
throughout the study and will remain for five years following the dissertation approval when they
will be destroyed. I, as the researcher, was the only one with the password. All data were also
backed up on a password-protected external hard drive. Records of this study will remain private
and will never be made public.
Summary
This chapter focused on the methods of the study and provided an overview of the design
of this instrumental case study. The chapter also reviewed the research questions, setting, and
participants of the study and provided a detailed list of the procedures followed in completing
this study. Another key element of this chapter was the breakdown of data collection and
analysis, which included: interviews, document analysis, artifacts, and reflective journaling. The
conclusion of this chapter focused on trustworthiness and ethical considerations for this
instrumental case study on the role of the master teacher as an instructional leader.
67
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Overview
The purpose of this instrumental case study was to understand the master teacher’s role as
an instructional leader in one South Carolina K-5 elementary school implementing TAP.
Documents, artifacts, and individual interviews were used to provide an understanding of the
master teacher as an instructional leader. Data from interviews, artifacts, and documents are
presented in this chapter through themes that were derived from the research questions
investigated during this instrumental case study:
• What is the role of the master teacher?
• How is the master teacher an instructional leader in SC TAP schools?
• What characteristics are necessary to successfully fill the role of a master teacher?
Each of these questions was asked directly to participants, as well as other questions that helped
to understand the role of the master teacher as an instructional leader (See Appendix A). The
themes that emerged were an overarching umbrella of support provided by the master teacher,
the pedagogy necessary for the master teacher to embed authentic application of skills into the
school environment, and the characteristics necessary for these to exist.
Participants
Participants for this instrumental case study were chosen through purposeful and
snowball sampling. A total of eight out of 11 potential participants agreed to participate in this
study. Multiple attempts were made at reaching the other three participants, but those efforts
were futile. In this case study, eight participants were interviewed totaling 188 years of
experience in education and 88 years of experience in a TAP setting. All participants currently
live and work in South Carolina and had worked within a TAP elementary school setting.
68
Participants were chosen based on their previous work experience with the identified case study
participant, Lily, the PreK-5 SC TAP master teacher with the most years of experience. The
participants’ current positions ranged from TAP mentor, TAP master teacher, TAP principal,
TAP reading coordinator, TAP regional master teacher, to TAP state director (See Table 4.1).
Each participant had advanced degrees and had taken advantage of the multiple career paths
associated with TAP to advance beyond the classroom teacher position.
Table 4.1
Participant Overview
Participant Current Position Previous Positions Years in
Education
Years
in TAP
Lily TAP regional master
teacher
TAP master teacher, K4-5th
grade classroom teacher
30 14
Natalie K5 teacher, TAP mentor 1st grade teacher 33 10
Barbara TAP principal Master teacher, math coach,
curriculum specialist,
technology coach, classroom
teacher
30 12
Emily TAP regional master
teacher/program
specialist
Classroom teacher 12 8
Abby TAP master teacher TAP mentor, classroom
teacher
20 14
Jack State TAP Director TAP Principal, TAP, 19 8
69
Assistant Principal,
classroom teacher
Ava TAP regional master
teacher
Director early childhood
school, classroom teacher
17 8
Lucy TAP reading
coordinator
1st-5th grade classroom
teacher
27 14
Lily
The focal case study participant for this case, Lily, is a soft-spoken married mother of
three adult children and two grandchildren. She and her family enjoy attending sporting events
such as football and baseball and participating in water sports, including jet skiing and boating.
Lily enjoys reading, traveling, and assisting with children’s activities at church. As long as Lily
can remember she has always wanted to work with children in helping them succeed. In her
education journey, she has obtained both Bachelors and Masters degrees in early childhood
education and is nationally board certified as an early childhood generalist. Lily has been in the
education field for 30 years as a classroom teacher of all grades K4-5th. She has been a TAP
master teacher for 12 years, and a SC TAP regional master teacher for two years. In her current
position Lily supports 11 master teachers within seven schools. Lily describes herself as a
reflective learner who always volunteered for new innovative practices throughout her teaching
career. As an educator, Lily served on various committees and teams including: evaluation of
teachers and students, data teams, curriculum mapping, and assessment teams.
When asked about her previous job experiences Lily stated:
70
As a TAP Master teacher, I worked with students and teachers as well as administration
and my school’s leadership team. I completed a lot of research and looked at data and
found research on best practices, and field tested specific strategies that our leadership
team had decided may work with our students, I then field tested to make sure that the
strategies worked with our students and then carried those strategies into cluster. I had
seven clusters per week with 42 classroom teachers. I supported them not only through
implementing strategies in their classroom through modeling and team teaching but also
through providing various other help they needed in the classroom. I also worked with
groups of students in classrooms and taught classes. (personal communication,
September 3, 2014)
Lily has worked with TAP for the last 14 years.
I first became aware of the program through my principal but we had not implemented it in
our district at that point so I visited other districts who were beginning to implement TAP,
became interested in it, talked to the state director at the time, learned a lot more about it,
was able to hear the overview and the advantages of having TAP in my school and then the
faculty voted on it and of course started implementation. (Lily, personal communication,
September 3, 2014)
When asked what led to her career choice in TAP Lily stated:
Well as a teacher for all those years I wanted to go to the next level without becoming an
administrator because I still wanted to work with the students closely and in the classroom
so when the opportunity arose to become a master teacher in my building I applied. I
received the position and stayed in that position for several years and then decided to take
it to the next level so that I can help in various schools across the state. (Lily, personal
71
communication, September 3, 2014)
To understand Lily’s duties as a master teacher and a regional master teacher, she was asked to
provide information on both of these positions.
As a master teacher in my building it was my job to work with the leadership team and
administrators to look at the data carefully, and analyze the specific needs in our building.
From there we went to researching various strategies to see what we needed to do, not
only student strategies but pedagogical strategies for teachers, would field test those,
implement them in cluster, implement them in classrooms, revisit the data, benchmark a
lot to make sure what we were doing was working, then tweaked what we needed to
tweak. We then provided various types of support in the classroom to ensure students
were successful. And then as a regional, I did pretty much similar things; I also
researched strategies, focusing on schools that I work with now across the state. I also
help their master teachers and their leadership teams and administrators research
strategies, look at the data, identify needs of teachers and students and help them to
implement TAP with fidelity in their buildings. (Lily, personal communication,
September 3, 2014)
Lily exemplifies the role of a master teacher through her supportive personality and willingness
to work with teachers and students on whatever is needed.
Natalie
Natalie’s own school experience and role models led her into the education field 33 years
ago. “I guess I found that over time I seemed to have a gift when working with children. I had
worked with children through babysitting and through church and tutoring children as well”
(Natalie, personal communication, November 5, 2014). Since the start of her career Natalie has
72
served as a classroom teacher and TAP mentor teacher. “I have been teaching for 33 years; 13 of
them in 1st grade, 20 of them have been in 5K. I have been a mentor for the past 10 years with
TAP and that was my position when I worked with Lily” (Natalie, personal communication,
November 5, 2014).
A typical day for Natalie begins at 7:00 A.M. with setting up her classroom.
I do teach a full day of Kindergarten and I am responsible for them except when they are in
the related arts for 40 minutes a day so I teach ELA large group and I have Literacy centers
and small group guided reading. I teach math and we have math learning stations as well
as Science and Social Studies. At least once during the week I will have a mentor release
time in which I am going in to teachers’ classrooms to observe and coach teachers, team
teach, and provide model lessons. I also assist in cluster with modeling the new strategies
and field-testing. We have field-testing in our classrooms as well. I think that is kind of
typical. Usually I am not leaving out of here until about 4:30 P.M. or 5:00 P.M. on a
good day. (Natalie, personal communication, November 5, 2014)
Natalie’s experience provides insight into the master teacher position through the eyes of a TAP
mentor teacher. Natalie served as a mentor teacher alongside of Lily when she was a master
teacher.
Barbara
Barbara is currently a TAP middle school principal with 12 years of TAP experience.
She serves 700 students and 85 employees.
I have been a principal for nine years. I was the principal of Sarolina Elementary School
for 6 years and the principal of my current school for the last three years. Before being a
principal I served various schools in the position of TAP master teacher (three years),
73
math coach, curriculum specialist, technology coach, and classroom teacher. (Barbara,
personal communication, September 24, 2014)
When asked what led her to her career choice, Barbara stated:
Honestly, I went to college at first to be a nurse as I wanted to work in the Emergency
Room. In the summer before my senior clinical, I had a terrible car accident. After
surgeries, rehab, and recovery, I was unable to drive or enroll in my senior year. So, once
I was finally released from the doctor, I enrolled back in school but was told that I was
put back on a two-year waiting list. So, since I was already coaching because I coached
two sports at a school in college, I decided to sign up for a few education courses. I
realized real quickly that I could complete an education degree before I could re-enroll in
nursing. After graduating and landing my first job, I never looked back. I loved
everything about teaching. (Barbara, personal communication, September 24, 2014)
She candidly said she has no typical day at work.
I oversee the implementation of all school, district, and state initiatives. On any given
day, I attend meetings, visit classrooms, meet with parents, staff, or students, handle
discipline, deal with complaints, complete paperwork, return phone calls, lead
professional development, analyze data, etc. I have duty assignments to supervise
students during arrival, dismissal, and lunchtime. (Barbara, personal communication,
September 24, 2014)
Barbara’s insights as a TAP principal and former master teacher help provide an understanding
of the role of TAP master teacher as an instructional leader from multiple facets. Barbara served
as principal of Lily when she was a master teacher.
Emily
74
Emily is currently serving her eighth year as a regional master teacher/program specialist
for SC TAP. Her job requires that she work with eight schools and their TAP implementation.
She also works with the Value-added analysis and the TAP payouts for the entire state.
When asked what led her to her career choice as a classroom teacher she stated:
I had a job in the private sector right after I graduated from college that I did not like and
one of the things that I found out that I did was I enjoyed teaching the other people that I
worked with, how to do their jobs, so that I didn’t have to do mine. So I decided that
maybe I should be a teacher. (Emily, personal communication, September 18, 2014)
Emily was a classroom teacher for four years in a non-TAP school before she took her current
position. When asked what made her decide to come out of the classroom and accept her current
position she stated, “I was in a graduate class and my professor had worked with TAP and she
told me a little bit about it and that there was a position coming open and maybe I should apply
and I just kind of did; kind of fell into it” (Emily, 2014). Emily describes her typical day:
Usually begins with at least an hour drive to one of the TAP schools that I work with,
then I go to a school… there’s really no typical day… that is part of the problem. I’m
either working with a cluster leader in planning for cluster or the principal on planning
for leadership team meetings. I may be in classrooms doing walkthroughs or follow-up
or observing field-testing. I could be observing cluster meetings or LT meetings. I
typically try to go to more than one school in a day when I can. Six of my eight schools
are within 30 minutes of each other so I usually try to transition around lunchtime and
then go to another one in the afternoon then I have another hour drive home. (Emily,
personal communication, September 18, 2014)
75
As a regional master teacher and program specialist, Emily has a unique perspective on the role
of a master teacher as an instructional leader. Emily also served as regional master teacher for
Lily when she was a master teacher.
Abby
Abby, former mentor teacher at Sarolina Elementary and currently serving her 2nd year as
master teacher has been teaching for 20 years and worked with TAP for 14 years. When asked
to tell about herself, Abby (personal communication, September 24, 2014) stated,
I have a BS in Early Childhood Education, National Board Certification (Early
Childhood Generalist), and a M.Ed. in Educational Leadership (Administration). I am
currently working on a 2nd master’s degree – this one in Teaching Math and Science K-12
through Clemson University. (Abby, personal communication, September 24, 2014)
Abby was led to a career in education from her passion to help others, “both students and
adults” and to help them “succeed and reach their potential” (Abby, personal
communication, September 24, 2014). She added, “having great teachers along the way
inspired me to try to be the same positive change in the lives of others that those teachers
were in mine” (Abby, personal communication, September 24, 2014).
For Abby:
A typical day at work begins with a quick check-in with the other master teacher to
discuss the day’s schedule and discuss anything that may have come up at the end of the
previous day or questions about a field test, cluster or follow-up. After that, my day
consists of field testing in at least one classroom, completing follow-ups in classrooms,
teaching a small group reading lesson, facilitating cluster, and meeting with mentor
teachers to debrief about field testing or discuss critical attributes for strategies. (Abby,
76
personal communication, September 24, 2014)
Abby worked alongside Lily as a mentor teacher and then took the position of master teacher
when Lily moved into the regional master teacher position.
Jack
Jack, a 19-year educator, is currently serving his seventh year as the state director for
TAP. Jack is a previous classroom teacher, assistant principal, principal for elementary and
middle-aged students, and associate state director for TAP. When asked about his job Jack
replied, “My job basically entails the political side of what TAP is, the training, the setup, and
creating the state structure to merge with all of the other state systems to ensure that TAP is a
successful and viable model within the state” (personal communication, September 3, 2014).
Jack was principal of the focal case study participant, Lily, when he hired her from the
kindergarten classroom to serve as the first master teacher at Sarolina Elementary. Twelve years
later, he also hired her to join the state team as a regional master teacher to assist in training other
master teachers.
When asked what led him to his career choice he stated:
When I had the opportunity to become an assistant principal I chose to at a school that
was a TAP school because I wanted to be more involved with curriculum and
instructional leadership; then I became the assistant principal there and then the principal
at the elementary school that was to begin TAP and later at a middle school. Then I was
given an opportunity to take on the associate director role for our TAP system because
my former master teacher from the middle school that I hired became the state director so
he called me back up and wanted me to be involved in that. He left six months later and
77
then I became the state director and have been ever since. (Jack, personal
communication, September 3, 2014)
Jack’s long-standing experience with TAP (TAP began in 1999 and Jack became involved in
2001) has allowed him to lead many state and national trainings to help others implement TAP
successfully. As Emily stated earlier, Jack agreed that he has no typical day on the job:
My schedule is dictated completely by others. I am the one who puts out fires, the one
who deals with the superintendents, the district, the state, and the national
representatives; so I am at everyone else’s whim, so where as my typical day is
concerned, I would be going to work with the regionals, following them around, coaching
them, working with superintendents, finance, curriculum and professional development to
embed that within the state system. However, here lately my typical day has been thrown
more into state and national initiatives, leading professional development by training
either state directors, regional master teachers, principals, or master teachers on the
effectiveness of TAP and the effectiveness of implementation. (Jack, personal
communication, September 3, 2014)
Jack’s perspective is unlike any other because he has been involved at the state and national level
for so long that he has helped to form the expectations for the role of the master teacher as an
instructional leader in SC TAP schools.
Ava
Ava, a current regional master teacher and former regional master teacher to Lily, has
been in the education field for 17 years and with TAP since 2002. She has served as a classroom
teacher, TAP mentor, assistant principal, TAP regional master teacher, and a director of an early
childhood center. When asked what led to her career choice, Ava (personal communication,
78
September 3, 2014) responded, “I think it was a way for me to grow when I was looking for a
change and a way that I could impact others and not be isolated in one position and it would help
me grow professionally” Ava currently holds two positions as a part time regional master teacher
and early childhood director. When asked about her typical day as a regional master teacher she
stated:
Now is different but when I was a full time regional master teacher, I was traveling to
different schools and helping them to develop their goals, analyze their student work, and
figuring out where clusters needed to go to address the needs of all students in different
capacities, grade levels, and subjects. I also was sitting down with the principals and
helping the principals with coaching their master and mentor teachers. I also looked at
clusters and coached leadership teams. I was really there to do anything that the
principals and master and mentor teachers needed and sometimes career teachers as well.
(Ava, personal communication, September 3, 2014)
Ava is the first-hired SC TAP regional master teacher and offers a perspective from how the
master teacher position has shifted over the years and been transformed into an instructional
leader in TAP schools.
Lucy
Lucy, Reading Coordinator, at Sarolina Elementary served as a career teacher when Lily
was master teacher at Sarolina Elementary. Lucy describes her job as,
I work with teachers to improve literacy in our school by providing resources, assisting in
planning lessons, modeling lessons, and coaching lessons. I also test students to establish
their current reading levels and make suggestions as to how teachers may work with that
child. (Lucy, personal communication, November 6, 2014)
79
Lucy is in her 27th year of teaching students in grades one through five; this is her first year out
of the classroom and 10th year working in a TAP school.
Lucy chose her career “because I love children and wanted to help make a difference in
their lives” (Lucy, personal communication, November 6, 2014). A typical day at work for Lucy
begins in classrooms:
I go into classes to work with teachers and/or students. I observe lessons and coach
teachers. During the day I meet with teachers to locate resources, plan lessons, or discuss
strategies that may help students in their classroom. I am also in charge of ordering
resources that teachers need. (Lucy, personal communication, November 6, 2014)
Lucy’s responses help to provide insight from the career teacher’s perspective of the regional
master teacher as an instructional leader.
Results
The information gathered from interviews, artifacts, and documents served as a basis to
answer the research questions guiding this instrumental case study and to form themes for the
study. Interviews were conducted in person, via email, and via phone to meet the needs of all
participants. (See Table 4.2)
Table 4.2
Participant Interview Type
Participant Interview
Type
Lily In Person
Natalie Phone
Barbara Email
80
Emily In Person
Abby Email
Jack In Person
Ava In Person
Lucy Email
All interviews were then transcribed and sent back to participants for verification. Documents
and artifacts were obtained online, via email or in person from the case study participants. These
documents, along with the transcribed interviews were combined and analyzed to reveal several
themes and sub-themes. The three themes that emerged were an overarching umbrella of support
provided by the master teacher, the pedagogy necessary for the master teacher to embed
authentic application of skills into the school environment through cluster and field-testing, and
the characteristics necessary for these to occur. (See Table 4.3) These themes help explain how
the master teacher serves as an instructional leader in SC TAP schools.
Table 4.3
Emergence of Themes Through Research Questions
What is the role of the master teacher?
(Number of participants cited)
How is the master teacher an instructional leader?
(Number of participants cited)
Lead professional development (9) Supports teachers (9)
Improve school scores (8) Leads professional development (6)
Support teachers (7) Researches strategies (6)
Analyze data (7) Supports students (5)
Research strategies (6) Analyzes data (4)
81
Improve teacher efficacy (5) Supports the school goals (3)
Conduct field testing (5) Conducts field-testing (3)
Provide follow-up (5)
Support the school goals (4)
The Master Teacher Provides Support
The responses obtained by all participants and artifacts that were analyzed expressed the
overall role of the master teacher was to support teachers resulting in improved student
achievement and teacher efficacy in TAP schools. The participants shared multiple ways in
which the master teacher provides support to teachers in a school environment. The best way to
understand the responses provided in relation to support would be through the locations in which
the support occurs. These locations include in leadership team meetings, in the classroom, and
outside of the classroom environment.
All participants stated that the ways in which the master teacher provides support is
differentiated for the needs of every teacher. According to Lily:
The one word that I would use to describe the master teacher position would be support,
support for teachers, administrators, leadership team members, and also students.
Support may take the form of working with teachers in their classrooms to help with their
instruction, but it also may be working with groups of students to help them as they are
learning and to help them improve what's going on with them. Master teachers also
provide support through formal observations of teachers in which they provide feedback
to teachers using the TAP rubrics. (personal communication, September 3, 2014)
82
Similar comments on how master teachers provide support to teachers were reiterated throughout
every participant’s interview.
Support through leadership team meetings.
According to the participants, support is provided by the master teacher through leadership
team meetings in a multiple of facets including: analyzing data, setting goals, and researching
strategies on how to support and coach teachers in order to grow leadership team members,
teachers, and students within the school. Master teachers complete these tasks along with the
help of administrators and mentor teachers; interacting daily with students, career teachers, and
regional state structures to provide support (Ava & Natalie, personal communication
September/November 2014).
Participants shared how a master teacher is an integral part of planning and leading
the leadership team to ensure all staff members are supported on a daily basis through a
prescriptive plan derived from data analysis obtained from teacher observations and student
work. According to Abby, “Master teachers are a part of the leadership team which works to
ensure that data is being used to make effective and sound instructional decisions, provide
support and development for teachers, and conduct classroom observations” (personal
communication, September 24, 2014). Master teachers have a lot of work to do with data
analysis on a school-wide level as well as with individual classrooms (Lily, personal
communication, September 3, 2014). In leadership team meetings the master teacher plans with
the administrators and mentors to determine who needs what type of support, researches
strategies, and helps determine the direction of the school through goal setting, improving school
test scores, and improving teacher efficiency and effectiveness (Natalie, personal
communication, November 5, 2014).
83
Participants shared how master teachers support career teachers in the school through
leadership team meetings and how they also assist in growing the entire leadership team in these
meetings. The master teacher assists the principal in planning leadership team meetings to help
grow all TAP leadership team members (Lily, personal communication, September 3, 2014).
According to Lucy (personal communication, November 6, 2014), “Master teachers are always
interacting with leadership team members and administrators in the building, also with district
level people because they play a huge role in determining what happens in a school.” Participants
believed leadership team meetings were vitally important to ensure all teachers and leadership
team members were provided a supportive model to assist them in growing professionally.
Support in the classroom.
The participants equally shared how support can take many forms in the classroom
including team teaching, model lessons, whisper coaching, working with students, and written
academic feedback from walkthroughs focusing on an area of improvement. According to Jack,
SC TAP State Director, the master teacher is:
Not a mini administrator but rather an instructional coach that works along teachers in the
classrooms. The structure that we have in South Carolina is based off of the national
structure, but it is more specific here to the design of support; support for change in
instructional practices and change in reform for teacher efficacy and not so much the idea
of what we typically see as an instructional coach that is there to tell you what to do
instructionally. (personal communication, September 3, 2014)
He continues this by stating:
The master teacher should interact 80-90% of the time with the career teachers. The
remainder of time should be working on field-testing with individual students, working
84
with mentor teachers to grow them, or working with administration on leadership team
activities to be able to ultimately implement the overall TAP System; but again 80-90%
of time should be in classrooms with career teachers in one form or another. (Jack,
personal communication, September 3, 2014)
Barbara (personal communication, September 24, 2014) adds to this by saying, “Master
teachers follow up with teachers and provide support on any concept related to improving
teaching and learning.” The data master teachers use to determine support comes from testing,
observations, and research and are combined to help teachers through cluster meetings and
individualized support in the classroom. From a principal viewpoint:
The master teacher is responsible for knowing and understanding the data and helping to
set learning goals for teachers. Master teachers are expected to be in classrooms
supporting classroom teachers by researching to find new materials and strategies to
target specific areas of need as identified by data.
While understanding the importance of providing support to teachers, master teacher, Lily
states that is can also be a difficult task:
I think time management is the most difficult aspect that master teachers face when
supporting teachers. It's hard because you need to be in the classrooms, you need to be
supporting teachers and students, and in most cases master teachers are teaching
classrooms or groups of students and so what comes with that territory is the planning,
assessing, and all that the normal classroom teacher would do. In addition to that, master
teachers are researching, looking for best practices, and supporting teachers through
modeling and team teaching and working closely with administrators to make sure the
vision is being carried out in the building. (Lily, personal communication, September 3,
85
2014)
According to participants, master teachers are an essential member of the school community
whose main focuses is ensuring the teachers are supported. TAP principal, Barbara (personal
communication, September 24, 2014) stated, “In my nine years as principal, I could not have
effectively led a school without the help, structure, and support of master teachers being on the
front lines working one-on-one with teachers.” This statement shows the powerful relationship
that exists in SC TAP schools between principals and master teachers. As mentioned by Lily
earlier, master teachers provide a magnitude of support in and out of the classroom.
Support outside of the classroom.
Participants shared many examples of ways in which master teachers provide support
outside of the classroom. Lucy, Emily, and several other participants stated that master teachers
spend time working with teachers through planning lessons and offering coaching sessions.
Barbara added, “Master teachers work with teachers to plan and implement effective lessons and
create assessments” (personal communication, September 24, 2014). Lily’s calendar of support
reinforced that various types of support that was offered outside of the classroom. These
included: coaching and planning sessions, post conferences, IGP (individual growth plans)
conferences, analysis of student work sessions, and many drop by sessions for relationship
building purposes.
According to Lily, with every observation that occurs in a TAP school, teachers are
provided a post conference in which professional growth in the ultimate goal. These coaching
sessions provide the teachers with an area of reinforcement (something that positively impacted
the lesson) and an area of refinement (something to work on for professional growth). In these
86
sessions, plans are also made for the leadership team member to support the teacher with the area
of refinement.
Another opportunity that allows master teachers to support teachers outside of the
classroom is through their Individual Growth Plan (IGP) reflecting conferences. This was
evident in Lily’s support calendar as well as through the participant interviews. Ava stated that,
IGP sessions allow the master teacher an opportunity to reflect with the teacher on classroom
activities that are performing and their impact on student achievement. Master teachers can
support teachers on reflecting on what is working for the students and what needs to be adjusted.
This is done through analyzing student work samples.
Based on the data gathered, TAP schools offer 360 support; occurring everyday, with
everyone, in every facet. Regardless of the support offered inside and outside of the classroom
or in leadership team meetings, master teachers strive to ensure every teacher and leadership
team member feels supported and grows in their profession. According to Lily (personal
communication, September 3, 2014), without the support of the master teacher, instructional
change would not occur to increase the achievement of students or the pedagogy of teachers.
The Master Teacher Must Have Pedagogy To Embed Authentic Application of Skills
The second theme that emerged through the analysis of data was the need for the master
teacher to have strong pedagogy, which impacts all areas of the master teacher’s job, including:
supporting master teachers (discussed in the first theme), field-testing strategies in the classroom,
and leading clusters.
According to the state director, Jack:
Master teachers require pedagogy in curriculum strategies to understand what is effective
for students. Since master teachers work with individual teachers, they have to
87
understand how to analyze data to then identify the needs of students, to be able to then
identify the curriculum strategies that are needed. Master teachers also need to look at
the needs of teachers and design professional development that will enhance the specific
needs of the classroom teacher to ultimately increase teacher efficacy that then will, as
research shows, increase student achievement. (personal communication, September 3,
2014)
As Jack stated the master teacher must have pedagogy to embed authentic application of skills
into field-testing (working with student strategies) and in leading clusters (job-embedded
professional development for teachers). “A master teacher is like a curriculum facilitator. A lot
of people don’t understand TAP but when you say like a curriculum specialist/facilitator, they
understand it better” (Ava, personal communication, September 3, 2014). There are some areas
that can cause angst for master teachers in regards to pedagogy:
Master teachers, based on training in college and as in their job as instructional leaders,
do not get trained enough on analyzing data; some don't understand how to truly analyze
data assessment for enhancing teachers and students. The second thing master teachers
often lack training on is coaching; dealing with adults is different than dealing with
students, so even understanding the idea that you have kids that are, or you are, a
dynamic teacher, doesn't necessarily translate to a dynamic coach. The needs of an adult
learner are different than the needs of child learners. (Jack, personal communication,
September 3, 2014)
Lily clarifies this from a master teacher perspective:
Sometimes I didn’t feel I was a great instructional leader but I think it is knowing that
you are not the expert in everything but being willing to find out, find the answers, and
88
find the way to help through your support of students and teachers. I think that the
biggest thing is not being the person that knows everything and can do everything exactly
right but be the person willing to investigate, research, and provide that assistance to
those who need it. (personal communication, September 3, 2014)
Career and then mentor teacher, Natalie expounds on this by stating:
I do believe the master teacher has challenges based on making the best academic
decisions for the school. I’m sure the master teacher feels the pressure of making sure
there are adequate student, school, and teacher growth. I’m sure there are concerns that
the master teacher has as far as making sure that information is updated, that strategies
are current and that resources are viable. Finally, I’m sure there are concerns at
orchestrating all of the components of TAP including teacher growth and student growth.
(personal communication, November 5, 2014)
Jack believes:
The key to that is that the job of a master teacher is so big and as an instructional leader
you can’t do one thing and another and keep adding them together; you actually have to
be able to start weaving things together like working in cluster which is the immediate
strategy needed for the students however working on the overall needs of the teacher
identifying how that pedagogically can fit into the strategy and then doing support and
follow-up that is specific to both so that you can then best utilize your time to increase
the teacher efficacy as well as the student achievement or student understanding.
(personal communication, September 3, 2014)
The master teacher must have pedagogy to embed authentic application into cluster
meetings.
89
In order for master teachers to embed authentic application of teacher and student
strategies into cluster meetings, they must have a strong understanding of the pedagogy
necessary to lead adult learners and maximize learning for students. Emily summarizes how
master teachers utilize this need for pedagogy:
The master teacher is the professional development leader in the school. They need to
have a strong background in curriculum; they need to work well with their peers in the
teaching profession. They need to be a sponge of knowledge and be able to relate it back
to the teachers that they work with. They need to be on the ground, looking for
strategies, helping teachers, assisting in whatever way they can with the idea of
improving student achievement. (personal communication, September 18, 2014)
Ava reiterates this by saying:
The master teacher is doing the research and collaborating with everyone; they are the
ones who are guiding and leading the professional development to assists others in
understanding the strategies, their students, and what needs to take place in the classroom
to be effective. (personal communication, September 3, 2014)
From a regional master teacher position, Emily stated:
Master teachers are the instructional leaders. They are part of the TAP leadership team
and work to set the goals that are the driving force at improving teaching competency and
student achievement through cluster meetings. Master teachers develop and test out the
content for the professional development presented in the cluster meetings; they interact
with teachers in classrooms to try and improve their individual instruction. Master
teachers do all facets of instruction daily. (personal communication, September 18,
2014)
90
Each participant described how the master teacher was a pedagogical leader through the
professional development they offer in cluster. The participants shared how the master teachers
embedded authentic examples from working with teachers and students into cluster. Many
participants shared how these authentic examples prove the master teacher had the pedagogy
necessary to make improvements in teacher instruction and student achievement through the
learning that took place in cluster meetings.
The master teacher must have pedagogy to embed authentic application into field-
testing.
In addition to leading professional development, master teachers must spend a lot of time
conducting action research, known as field-testing, to ensure authentic strategies are embedded
into cluster meetings that have been proven to work with students in his or her school.
According to Lily, master teachers field-test strategies with small groups of students prior to
providing the strategy to the entire school to ensure the strategy is successful for the students in
that particular school. Participants shared how important it was for the master teacher to have
pedagogy in understanding how to conduct effective field-testing in their buildings especially
since it eventually impacts their entire school. Lily’s artifacts showed the intricacies of field-
testing and how lack of pedagogy could negatively impact the results.
Natalie expounds on field-testing by stating: “The master teacher works not only with the
mentors with field-testing to determine the need but also plans how the field-testing impacts
clusters and helps determine benchmarks, pre- and post- testing and monitoring of all aspects of
TAP” (Natalie, personal communication, November 5, 2014). According to Abby (personal
communication, September 24, 2014), “Master teachers serve as mentors and support for
teachers – facilitating cluster meetings, teaching new strategies, field-testing strategies to
91
measure impact on student achievement and fine-tuning ways to present the strategies.” Emily
and Natalie shared how master teachers spend a lot of their time analyzing their field-test data to
ensure they are supporting teachers and students in the areas most needed. They shared how the
data analyzed from field-testing is later embedded into classrooms and cluster meetings to
impact all learners in the building. From the data obtained, it is evident master teachers often
complete the behind-the-scenes work that teachers do not have time to complete, such as field-
testing strategies to ensure success occurs for all students in the school.
A strong pedagogy of teacher and student learning is necessary for master teachers to
embed authentic application of skills into field-testing and clusters. Master teachers must
understand standards, skills, students, and adults to best apply the knowledge gained from data
analysis of strategies presented in field-testing and clusters. To be successful in embedding
authentic application of skills, there are many characteristics master teachers must exhibit.
These are discussed in the final theme.
Characteristics Necessary To Be A Master Teacher
The third theme that emerged from the participant interviews, documents, and artifacts
were the characteristics that were necessary to be a master teacher. Every response from
participants had an underlying theme of personal and professional characteristics exhibited by
the master teacher. (Table 4.4 summarizes these characteristics and who supported them.)
Table 4.4
Characteristics Necessary to be a Master Teacher
Personal characteristics
Who supported
these
characteristics
Professional
characteristics
Who supported
these
characteristics
92
Effective time
manager/record keeper
Ava, Barbara,
Emily, Jack, Lily,
Natalie
Ability to coach/
understand adult
learners
Abby, Ava,
Barbara, Emily,
Jack, Lily, Natalie
Honest/Trustworthy Abby, Barbara,
Lucy Data analyzer
Ava, Barbara, Jack,
Lily, Lucy, Natalie
Integrity Abby, Barbara,
Lucy Knowledgeable
Ava, Barbara,
Emily, Jack, Lily,
Lucy, Natalie
Listener/Non-Judgmental Abby, Lily Leader Abby, Ava, Emily,
Jack
Nurturing/Encourager Abby, Barbara,
Natalie Learner/Researcher
Ava, Barbara,
Emily, Jack, Lily,
Lucy, Natalie
Open to new ideas/Flexible Abby, Emily, Lily Organized Natalie
Self-motivated/Hard-
working Barbara, Emily Reflective Barbara
Work well with others
(teachers, students, parents,
administrators)
Abby, Ava,
Barbara, Emily,
Jack, Lily, Lucy,
Natalie
Supportive
Abby, Ava,
Barbara, Emily,
Jack, Lily, Lucy,
Natalie
Personal characteristics.
There are many personal characteristics necessary to be an effective master teacher.
93
Barbara (personal communication, September 24, 2014) summarizes the master teacher as “self-
motivated, eager to learn, reflective, honest, having integrity, knowledgeable, able to work with
adults, effective time manager, and firm but understanding.” Abby (personal communication,
September 24, 2014) confirms this by saying, “a willingness to serve, flexibility, honesty,
integrity, nurturing, ability to coach, a good listener, a thick skin, and openness.” Jack believes
master teachers have to be a people person. Lily adds to the characteristics shared by her
colleagues:
Master teachers must have a good rapport with teachers. They need to know that they
can go to master teachers as allies. They also need to know that master teachers will roll
up their sleeves with them and meet students’ needs. Master teachers need to be
trustworthy. Teachers should not have to worry about a master teacher reporting every
detail to the administration or spreading rumors around the school. Master teachers also
need to be able to set personal opinions and relationships with others aside when being an
evaluator. (personal communication, September 3, 2014)
According to Abby and Lily, master teachers must also be a good listener and open to new ideas.
Finding someone who has all of these skills is often difficult which is why master teachers go
through a rigorous interview process to ensure they are the right fit for their school and the
position.
Professional characteristics.
In addition to the personal characteristics necessary to be a master teacher, there are also
professional characteristics. According to Jack:
Master teachers have to have an understanding of pedagogy, they have to have an
understanding of strategies, but mostly they have to have an understanding of
94
differentiation so that they can truly differentiate professional development for everyone
in their building. I see the deposition where as an instructional coach takes a strategy and
implements it across the board; that is only one portion of a master teacher’s job so they
have to have that curriculum understanding but they also have to have the rapport and
understanding of each individual teacher so they can then coach the individual, provide
strategies for the individual, model, team teach, and demonstrate; so not only do they
have to be an exceptional teacher they have to be an exceptional coach and truly an
exceptional person to understand how to work with the individual and differentiate
everything to grow the individual teacher. (personal communication, September 3, 2014)
Natalie described the characteristics needed by master teachers to develop teachers:
The master teacher has to be proficient at data analysis, planning, organization, and their
knowledge and being able to carry out the goals of TAP as well as being able to work
with people at all levels; be it administration, leadership team members, career teachers,
and with students. The master teacher also needs to be an efficient record keeper to be
able to analyze the data. (Natalie, personal communication, November 5, 2014)
Other professional skills needed to successfully fill the role of a master teacher include
being “open to new ideas and being willing to research them and make them work for their
students in their schools” (Emily, personal communication, September 18, 2014). Lily (personal
communication, September 3, 2014) continued this saying “being supportive and
nonjudgmental.” According to Emily (personal communication, September 18, 2014), it is also
important for master teachers to have been a strong classroom teacher.
A professional characteristic that stood out for most participants was being able to analyze
data to best support the needs of teachers and students as well as understanding adult learners to
95
be able to coach them towards higher teacher efficacy. Jack begins this discussion by stating:
Master teachers need to be seen as a support structure and not a punitive or evaluative
measure. This is especially difficult in a new implementing school because the school
doesn't know what to expect and all they have known for evaluations is punitive so to
overcome years and years of educational practice to help them understand what truly is,
whether they’re good at it or not, becomes a difficult hurdle. (personal communication,
September 3, 2014)
Sometimes as master teachers, they become that label, you are one of “them” and so sometimes
teachers don’t accept everything they have to say; although good things, they kind of put them as
an outcast. (Ava, personal communication, September 3, 2014) TAP principal, Barbara confirms
this:
Master teachers often face credibility issues – because master teachers often do not teach
a full load, many career teachers often think differently of them because they don’t carry
as much credibility as other teachers. Master teachers also face time constraints; to be a
superior master teacher, it takes many, many tireless hours. Master teachers are often
pulled in so many directions; it is easy to lose focus on teaching and learning. Master
teachers have to complete career teacher observations, because of this sometimes, master
teachers are seen as “one of them” like an administrator with power over dismissal and
job performance. (personal communication, September 24, 2014)
Lucy (personal communication, November 6, 2014) adds:
Master teachers face the hurdle of teacher buy-in; if teachers are not comfortable with the
knowledge or experience of master teachers, it is difficult to look at them as an
instructional leader. If a master teacher spends too much time “hanging around” the
96
office, this may cause teachers to questions their reliability or worthiness. (If regular
teachers do not have time to waste, then neither should a master teacher.) When a regular
classroom teacher must stay until 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. each day and a master teacher
leaves at 3:15 p.m. each day, this may also put into question the workload of the master
teacher.
Not all master teachers exhibit the necessary professional characteristics upon being hired,
which is why SC TAP offers a support structure to ensure master teachers grow and refine their
craft to best serve their teachers. From the state level, regional master teachers offer support to
master teachers. According to Emily (personal communication, September 18, 2014), “I offer
support through my role as regional master teacher; working with them (master teachers) one-on-
one or giving them feedback either on classroom field-test lessons or cluster observations.”
Emily (personal communication, September 18, 2014) then added other support offered to master
teachers including: “summer training at the TAP summer institute, the TAP national conference,
master teacher trainings, and of course there are a lot of online resources, like the TAP portal,
which are available for training too.” According to Jack:
Here in the state of South Carolina we offer support through our regional master teachers
with the idea that the regional master teachers have an understanding of the
implementation of TAP but also have more of the bigger picture. They are the ones who
give the day-to-day support of the master teachers; where as a master teacher works with
career teachers, a regional master teacher works specifically with mentor and master
teachers to help them understand what comprehensive reform is, what instructional
leadership actually looks like, and how to utilize strategies and pedagogy to best enhance
the needs within their building so more of a data analysis/curriculum analysis. The state
97
team, as well as national trainings, and the national TAP team are the immediate support
structures. We have a comprehensive online data systems (CODE) that they can use, we
also have portal systems that give good model clusters, model leadership, model lessons,
and then there is the individual aspect of the individual personal growth that they need
which is done through STEM for example if they are specific to a STEM master teacher
or done through ASCD or national science project or anything else specific to the needs
of the individual to help them grow to ultimately benefit them in their job. The principal
should be supporting master teachers on a day-to-day basis. The structure that we have is
such that we do the training, we do the initial, we do the debrief, the guidance but we
should ultimately work ourselves out of a job in the fact that the master teacher should
then be working and that the support structure should be within the school or within the
district system to be able to ultimately enhance their understanding so that it is
completely sustainable within the school rather than always rely on an outsider.
(personal communication, September 3, 2014)
Although this is a lot of support offered to master teachers from the state level, when asked how
master teachers are supported Barbara (personal communication, September 24, 2014) stated
“honestly, not as much as should be.” This may be coming from the principal view as Ava
(personal communication, September 3, 2014) adds “a lot of the times, the principal doesn’t
understand that we can’t be in the buildings as much as we need to so principals need to support
the master teachers as well as the mentors.” Lily adds:
Most of the support for master teachers comes from principals who are willing to be
involved and active in the implementation of TAP but also through the state regional
master teacher because those are the people who are in there and supporting the same
98
way that the master teachers is in there supporting classroom teachers. If you have a
leadership team who’s not supporting you, trying to find the time to balance everything
that you’re supposed to be doing, as far as clusters and planning to get into the
classrooms is difficult. (personal communication, September 3, 2014)
Personal and professional characteristics play an integral part of the master teacher role.
It takes a special person to fill all of the characteristics necessary to be successful at leading
professional development for adult learners and completing data-driven field-testing in the
classroom. Although master teachers are provided a state-level coach to help them refine these
professional characteristics, they must be skilled at forming relationships to ever be successful at
supporting teachers and embedding authentic application of skills into clusters and field-testing.
From the three trends identified it is evident that the research questions were answered:
• What is the role of the master teacher?
• What characteristics are necessary to successfully fill the role of a master teacher?
• How is the master teacher an instructional leader in SC TAP schools?
Trends one and two provide answers to the first and third research questions. The role of the
master teacher is to support teachers and provide job-embedded professional development that
has been field-tested in the classrooms. The master teacher provides support to teachers in the
classroom, outside of the classroom, and in leadership team meetings. In order for the master
teacher to be a true instructional leader they must have the pedagogy necessary to embed
authentic application of skills into clusters, field-testing, and classrooms. The third trend
answers the second research questions by identifying the personal and professional
characteristics necessary to fill the role of a master teacher.
99
Summary
Data in this chapter provided insight into the role of the master teacher as an instructional
leader. Participants shared characteristics needed to successfully fill this position as well as
challenges faced by master teachers as instructional leaders in their schools. The role of a master
teacher as an instructional leader includes being a support structure and having a strong
pedagogy to embed authentic applications of skills into research-based professional development
and field-testing to increase teacher efficacy and student achievement through data analysis and
individualized support.
Characteristics of an effective master teacher include being able to coach adults through
data analysis, an understanding of research-based strategies to improve student achievement, and
an honest, reflective, people person willing to grow themselves as well as others. Challenges in
meeting the needs of teachers and students include: time constraints, coaching and data analysis
abilities, credibility amongst the staff, and being viewed as “one of them.” This summary shows
the overall beliefs of the participants and also lays the foundation for the themes that emerged
through this case study. Chapter five provides an overview, summary of findings, discussion,
implications, limitations, and recommendations for future research relating to the role of a SC
TAP master teacher as an instructional leader.
100
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Overview
As explained in Chapter 1, the purpose of this instrumental case study was to understand
how the TAP master teacher served as an instructional leader in one South Carolina elementary
school. Documents, artifacts, and individual interviews were used to provide an understanding
of the master teacher as an instructional leader. These sources of data were then analyzed for
common trends using categorical aggregation and direct interpretation. The following research
questions guided all aspects of data collection:
• What is the role of the master teacher?
• How is the master teacher an instructional leader in SC TAP schools?
• What characteristics are necessary to successfully fill the role of a master teacher?
The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the results of the study and to generate
conclusions from the data gathered. This chapter consists of a summary of findings followed by
a discussion of the importance of these findings in relation to the research. The chapter
concludes with implications of the findings for various stakeholders, limitations of the research,
and recommendations for future research. This chapter will explain how this study adds to the
current research and also challenges current understanding of certified teachers as instructional
leaders in their building. The chapter also provides insights into the limited empirical research
on the role of the master teacher.
Summary of Findings
To ensure a true understanding of the research questions was obtained, multiple
interviews were conducted with educators at all levels of their careers including: career, mentor,
and master teachers, coaches, administrators, and state level educators. The interview questions
101
utilized in this case study searched for the how and why master teachers serve as instructional
leaders in their buildings, as well as what exactly is a master teacher in SC TAP schools. In
addition to interviews, documents and artifacts such as professional development training logs
and notes from the master teacher, value-added scores of the school, and photographs were used
to capture the true understanding of the role of the master teacher. Through uncovering the
answers to the research questions, three themes emerged. These were: 1). An overarching
umbrella of support provided by the master teacher, 2.) The pedagogy necessary for the master
teacher to embed authentic application of skills into the school environment through cluster
meetings and field-testing, and 3.) The characteristics necessary for master teachers to be
successful instructional leaders.
The Master Teacher Provides Support
According to NIET (2012), leading professional development and supporting classroom
teachers by providing demonstration lessons, coaching, and team-teaching are the main duties of
the master teacher. These duties were evident in the responses and documentation collected for
this instrumental case study. However, data obtained also showed that the master teacher
supported all aspects of the teacher, not just cluster implementation. Differentiated support
allowed the master teacher to ensure all teachers effectively implemented the strategies provided
in the weekly cluster meeting as well as meeting other personal and professional needs of the
teachers, including supporting them with their area of refinement.
The support offered by the master teacher and other leadership team members included
conducting walk throughs for feedback, providing modeled lessons, team teaching with career
and mentor teachers, holding planning sessions, and coaching teachers before and after lessons
and feedback application to ensure effective implementation of the field-tested cluster strategy
102
and best practices. Support provided by master teachers and leadership team members was not
limited to these modes. Support took place in the classroom, outside of the classroom, and non-
directly through leadership team meetings. Based on these findings, individualized support was
the cornerstone of what made a master teacher such a constructive instructional leader in SC
TAP schools.
The Master Teacher Must Have Pedagogy To Embed Authentic Application of Skills
The role of the master teacher can best be defined as a data-driven support structure that
leads professional development where authentic application from field-testing is embedded to
improve student achievement and teacher effectiveness. In order to be successful in this role, the
findings revealed that master teachers needed to have a strong pedagogical background in
student strategies as well as in best practices for teaching and learning. DuFour et al. (2006)
believed that PLCs worked interdependently to achieve common goals; however, this
instrumental case study revealed that the master teacher is truly the change agent in SC TAP
schools, conducting amass of behind-the-scenes work. According to Emily (personal
communication, September 18, 2014), “Master teachers are the hardest working people in their
buildings.” Master teachers use researched-based strategies to guide teachers in improving
teacher effectiveness as well as student achievement. The master teacher must conduct sizable
amounts of prep work prior to and following cluster meetings to ensure transfer of knowledge
takes place. Master teachers serve as instructional leaders in SC TAP schools by weekly
embedding authentic application of skills into research-based professional development to
improve teacher efficiency and student achievement.
Master teachers also serve as instructional leaders by embedding authentic application of
skills into field-testing strategies as they work with small groups of students prior to providing
103
the strategy to the entire school in cluster; this ensures the strategy will work with the students in
that particular school or class. This practice is unique to the role of the TAP master teacher and
challenges current research on instructional leaders (Hoy & Miskel, 2008; Neumerski, 2013;
Schacter et al., 2013).
Based on the data obtained, master teachers should be in the trenches supporting the
teachers while also completing the behind-the-scenes work that teachers often do not have time
to complete, such as field-testing strategies to ensure they work for students in the school before
actually bringing them to cluster for teachers to implement. The master teacher, along with the
guidance of the leadership team, uses the data obtained in field-testing to structure the sequence
of the weekly professional development provided. Therefore, the more pedagogy the master
teacher has with teacher and student strategies, the better he or she will be able to serve as an
instructional leader in SC TAP schools by implementing authentic application of skills into the
school environment.
Characteristics Necessary To Be A Master Teacher
The data obtained revealed there are personal and professional characteristics that are
necessary for master teachers to hold in order to be successful in their roles. These included
being a reflective and honest instructional leader who has excellent coaching skills and enjoys
supporting others in the building. According to Gabriel (2005), “if a teacher leader is honest and
ethical, he or she will be respected, which is most important” (p. 15). These characteristics will
ensure the master teacher is able to gain the reverence of colleagues and effectively communicate
to reach all learning styles of teachers, regardless of their educational level and experience.
Some professional characteristics necessary to fill the role of the master teacher included
being knowledgeable of data, understanding the characteristics of adult learners, and having a
104
strong pedagogy of effective research-based instructional strategies. In addition, master teachers
should be organized and effective in time management to utilize every minute to best meet the
needs of students and teachers. “Being organized means having some kind of system in place,
however foreign it may appear to others, to stay focused and on track, which facilitates being
able to handle the myriad responsibilities necessary for teaching and leading” (Gabriel, 2005, p.
16). These characteristics helped the master teacher serve as an effective professional
development leader and support structure to all teachers and students.
An essential personal characteristic of the master teacher included being able to build
relationships with peers to effectively coach them on the skills needed. “A coach needs to be
able to reflect on his integrity, intentions, and communication skills in order to effectively build a
relationship” (Aguilar, 2013, p. 78). According to the data, having a trusting relationship with
the master teacher will ensure teacher and student growth occurs. Forming these relationships is
a crucial step in being a successful master teacher; without these relationships, teacher buy-in
will be limited and minimal student gains will be achieved. This is one reason why, according to
Jack (personal communication, September 3, 2014), schools should spend the first few months
with a new master teacher solely focusing on supporting teachers to form these trusting
relationships. “Master teachers are trained to focus, say the first month or two months of school,
on building rapport and doing what is needed to be able to ultimately help the teacher see that
they are a support structure and not a mini administrator” (Jack, personal communication,
September 3, 2014). Having the personal and professional characteristics discovered in this case
study will allow master teachers the opportunity to excel as an instructional leader in their
school.
105
Discussion
This instrumental case study confirmed previous research on distributed leadership theory
(Spillane, 2006) and furthered research on the topics of professional development (DuFour,
2014; Guskey, 2014) and instructional leaders (Hoy & Miskel, 2008; Mangin & Stoelinga, 2010)
while showcasing the results of one school reform model, the SC TAP system. The study adds
to the limited empirical research available on the role of the master teacher and certified teachers
as instructional leaders in schools as well as the characteristics necessary to be a successful
master teacher. The following discussion will look at each of these topics in comparison to the
data obtained through this study.
Distributed Leadership Theory
The focus of this case study was on the role of a master teacher as an instructional leader,
which increases the research available on certified teachers as instructional leaders, rather than
relying solely on administrators. While focusing on the TAP master teacher, the data included
findings on how the master teacher interacts simultaneously with the TAP leadership team,
which reinforced empirical research on distributed leadership theory. “Education policymakers
who view leadership from a distributed leadership perspective must acknowledge that the work
of leading schools involves more than the leadership of the school principal” (Spillane, 2006,
p.103). A group of teacher leaders must support the administrator in meeting the needs of the
adult learners in the building, which is the case of TAP master and mentor teachers. “Just as
there is no single theory that explains all of human learning, there is no single theory of adult
learning” which is why a team approach is necessary to ensure all learner needs are met
(Knowles, Horton, & Swanson, 2014, p. 2).
Master teachers, alongside the TAP leadership team, focus the school on an instructional
106
goal geared towards individualized support for teachers and students. Their combined efforts
added to the available research on Spillane’s (2006) Distributed Leadership theory. Having
multiple leaders in a building helping all teachers feel supported was the overarching theme
established in this case study and would not have been achieved without the Distributed
Leadership theory. Ava reiterates this by saying:
I think the best part of a having a master teacher is having that support system because I
think about when I was in a school that was not a TAP school, I didn’t have anybody that I
could go to or someone to support me but in a school that is a TAP school with a master
teacher, the master teacher goes around collaborating with everyone, trying to get them on
the same page; because of this you become more of a family and not just in that room by
yourself doing your own thing without knowing if you are doing something correctly or
incorrectly. (personal communication, September 3, 2014)
The multiple leaders (masters, mentors, administrators, and sometimes career teachers) in
SC TAP schools collectively work together to ensure students achieve at least one year’s growth
and teachers effectively implement research-based strategies presented in weekly cluster
meetings and follow-up coaching sessions. Using a distributed leadership model as in TAP
schools ensures the opportunity to grow multiple leaders in a school without overwhelming one
or two administrators. According to Jack:
The data clearly shows the support for career ladders to allow the master teacher to
support teachers. When you are looking at 92% - 95% of schools saying that collegiality
increases because of the support structure designed by the TAP leadership team, but also
the one-on-one support from the master teacher to the career teacher, as well as the
overall professional learning community in the teachers working together; that cannot be
107
done without the instructional leadership of the master teacher in general. (personal
communication, September 3, 2014)
Without the use of distributed leadership theory, the master teacher would not excel as
the support system in SC TAP schools. This instrumental case study provided an insight into
how the distributed leadership model is used over consecutive years in one elementary school
and how it evolved over the course of 12 years. The collegiality formed in SC TAP schools by
master teachers provides the foundation for professional development to occur for the adult
learners in the building and demonstrated in this instrumental case study the impact of distributed
leadership theory on one elementary school system.
Professional Development For Adult Learners
According to Knowles et al. (2014), adults are motivated to learn as they experience
needs and interests that learning satisfies, prefer a life-centered orientation to learning where
experience is the richest source of learning, need to be self-directed, and increase individual
differences with age (p. 166). Master teachers address these needs of adult learners as they
embed authentic application of skills into clusters and have teachers implement them into their
own classrooms. The results of the first and third research questions show the role of the master
teacher was similar to that of an instructional leader who develops teachers and improves student
achievement through professional development (Darling-Hammond, 2000; McCoy, 2013);
however, the master teacher position differed in the type of support provided to classroom
teachers as follow-up to the professional development. Robert Marzano (personal
communication, March 21, 2015), stated schools are not jumping into effectiveness because of
their lack of implementation, which is generally the hardest part. The TAP master teacher offers
a new model of teacher leadership that addresses the implementation process for adult learners to
108
increase teacher efficiency and student achievement through a unique support model where job-
embedded professional development is entrenched with authentic application of skills, in
addition to working in the trenches with teachers following cluster meetings. The follow-up to
the professional development is the crucial difference with the TAP master teacher. Drs.
Raymond & Julie Smith (personal communication, March 21, 2014) believe you have to follow-
up on feedback provided to teachers weekly to ensure implementation occurs. While Guskey
(2014) believed professional development should begin with student learning outcomes, the SC
TAP master teacher begins professional development and support each year focused on building
relationships and best practices of instruction before shifting the focus to a student-learning
outcome. This was a different mindset than what is currently offered in research. Support on the
basic pedagogy of teaching helps to ensure all teachers grow students at least one year every
school year, but more importantly, that they continuously improve their craft of teaching. “The
majority of teachers and principals want professional development; they want to improve their
craft, be more effective, implement new skills, and see students learn more” (Aguilar, 2013, p.
7). This trend of desiring improvement of one’s skills was acknowledged in this instrumental
case study.
Having a strong understanding of adult learners was a required professional characteristic
that was revealed in this case study through the interview process. According to Venables
(2014), “PLCs that flourish and accomplish high results for themselves and for their students are
almost without exception led by a well-trained coach” (p. 104). In SC TAP schools, the master
teacher is charged with being a well-trained coach who leads professional development and
offers follow-up support. Characteristic trends of highly effective professional development
leaders that were obtained in this study and that reinforced current research included high levels
109
of content pedagogy and procedural knowledge, data analysis skills, communication skills, and
respect among colleagues (Mangin & Stoelinga, 2010). Characteristics that added to the current
research included someone who is non-judgmental, an encourager, supportive, and a learner and
researcher.
Where this study challenged the literature was to ask if the master teacher was truly
serving as a support system for the teachers and not just an instructional coach focusing on
student achievement. According to Kouzes and Posner (2003), “leadership is not about
personality; it’s about behavior” (p. 15). The behavior of the master teacher in this case study
showed how important it is for professional development leaders to form trusting relationships to
best meet the needs of the adult learners in a school. Once these relationships are formed it is
essential for the master teacher to remain at the forefront of best practices in teaching as well as
instructional strategies to help boost student achievement and teachers’ pedagogical
understanding of best practices.
Instructional Leaders
The results of the third research question, how is the master teacher an instructional
leader, had varying answers based on the current position of the participant and their experience;
however, all participants did share the same underlying tone of supporting career teachers in
leadership team meetings, in the classroom, outside of the classroom, and through professional
development and field-testing. According to Gabriel (2005), “there is scant realistic material
explaining how to be an effective teacher leader” (p. ix). This instrumental case study answers
this for the TAP master teacher role. Master teachers must offer support not only to the career
teachers in the building but also to the administrators and the mentor teachers. The goal of the
master teacher is to ensure staff members feel supported while increasing their knowledge of best
110
teaching practices and student achievement. “Teachers ultimately feel alone because of the
singular nature of the job; they need to feel supported; they need to believe they are supported”
(Gabriel, 2005, p. 105). The master teacher ensures the principal and teachers feel supported on
a daily basis. The master teacher assists the principal in creating agendas and compiling research
used for facilitating TAP leadership team meetings.
The data revealed the master teacher stood out as the most significant support structure in
SC TAP schools. The TAP master teacher serves as an instructional leader by supporting
teachers through increasing teacher efficiency and student achievement, which is accomplished
through professional development and individualized support. While some of the research on
instructional leaders mentions support (Gabriel, 2005; Knight, 2007), they do not provide a
thorough description of the support provided as revealed in this instrumental case study.
“Master teachers work to enhance the school environment by providing a lot of support in
the way of encouragement as well in the way of resources and tools that benefit both teachers
and students” (Natalie, personal communication, November 5, 2014). “The master teacher
position offers teachers another support structure to continue to do what is best for students and
improve instruction. It gives teachers a “coach” to help lead them and support them as they
make instructional decisions” (Abby, personal communication, September 24, 2014). This coach
supports teachers with elements of TAP as well as taking into consideration personal need and
general competency. According to Jack:
The key is that a master teacher has to be a teacher first; has to be seen as a teacher, has
to be seen as a curriculum leader/a strategic leader, but as a teacher; a teacher of adults
and a teacher of students. Sometimes what we see is that master teachers forget what it's
like to be in the trenches and when this occurs you see a ineffective master teacher, so
111
they have to be seen as someone who truly understands the needs of learners, whether
that be an adult or a child. (personal communication, September 3, 2014)
The authentic application of skills from field-tested and research-based strategies
provided by the master teacher in weekly cluster meetings ensure that students and teachers are
receiving instruction geared towards their needs. “Master teachers enhance the school by
analyzing data and helping teachers see weaknesses within the school and specific classrooms.
They work to pull strategies that will help eliminate the gap between student performances and
expectations” (Lucy, personal communication, November 6, 2014). These findings are
consistent with research available on instructional leaders (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Mangin &
Stoelinga, 2010; McCoy, 2013; Tivnan & Hamphill, 2005).
According to Barbara:
When a school is lucky enough to have a hard working, knowledgeable, go-getter as a
master teacher, everything dances with harmony. Teachers adore the support master
teachers provide. Administrators like that instruction is front and center and the heart of
decision making, even when I am being pulled in one million directions, I know that the
master teachers are working on instruction and keeping that time sacred. Master teachers
are able to coach and refine teachers in a less threatening way than school administrators.
(personal communication, September 24, 2014)
Characteristics such as these distinguish master teachers as instructional leaders and ensure
teachers and students continue to achieve success. Therefore the findings of this case study
extend current research on instructional leaders and provide new research on master teachers as
instructional leaders. This study provided detailed descriptions of the role of the TAP master
teacher and how she served as an instructional leader in her school.
112
Implications
This instrumental case study focused on one bounded case, providing an in-depth look at
the role of a TAP master teacher as an instructional leader. The implications of this research
provided an understanding of the role of a TAP master teacher and added to the limited empirical
research on this topic. Data obtained had implications for various stakeholders in education
including policymakers, administrators, teachers, and especially for those currently working with
TAP or prospective TAP schools. The implications of this instrumental case study will increase
the support that is available to teachers and students in all schools, not just SC TAP elementary
schools.
For Policymakers
According to the results of this study, providing authentic application of job-embedded
professional development and follow-up support should be at the forefront of all educational
policies. Teachers and students alike thrive when differentiated job-embedded professional
development is provided that meets the needs of their teachers and students. As policymakers
are looking at reform models in education, it is essential that they provide funding for positions,
such as master teachers, to allow support of teachers and job-embedded professional
development to occur. Job-embedded professional development that should occur at all schools
includes: understanding how to effectively use data, how to design and create daily classroom
assessments, and effective teaching practices such as grouping and providing academic feedback.
Once this professional development is provided, there must be a person assigned to provide the
necessary support to ensure implementation occurs.
Weekly job-embedded professional development opportunities that embed authentic
application of skills from field-testing will assist teachers in strengthening their teaching abilities
113
to best meet the needs of their students. Without school reform models, such as TAP, schools
will continue to struggle to provide the support needed to increase teacher efficiency and student
achievement because funding is often not allowed for these positions in public education
budgets. Without master teacher positions, schools will continue to institute PLCs that offer no
follow-up support model to ensure implementation occurs from the actions determined in the
PLC.
For Administrators
Data obtained in this case study show that administrators no longer need to be the sole
instructional leader in a school. By utilizing the findings of this study, in correlation with
Spillane’s (2006) Distributed Leadership theory, principals can form leadership teams who work
to develop others in their building to create an environment of shared leadership. Through shared
leadership, leadership team members can support teachers by providing individualized
instruction and support such as team teaching, modeled lessons, and coaching sessions. This
individualized support will positively impact the career teachers in the building and also increase
student achievement and strategy implementation across the school.
In addition to the support offered to career teachers, administrators should look for
opportunities to empower teachers to grow in their profession by encouraging teachers to take
leadership role positions such as the TAP master teacher. The more teachers are empowered by
an administrator to take a leadership role, the easier the administrator’s job becomes because he
or she knows everyone in the building has a shared focus of instructional best practices. This
shared focus on instructional best practices will allow all students to achieve their highest levels
of success. Having this support system in place will ensure all students and staff grow
academically each year and encourage teachers to stay in the profession longer.
114
For Teachers
Through the analysis of data in this case study it is evident there is a strong need for
teacher support in schools. Teachers are overwhelmed with the pressure placed on them by
policymakers, district personnel, and administrators of ensuring each student grows; yet teachers
often are not provided the skills or tools needed to ensure this happens. Providing teachers with
a support person or team of support leaders gives the teachers an opportunity to improve their
instructional abilities alongside a pedagogical expert and broadens their knowledge of research-
based strategies to increase student achievement. This collaborative partnership ensures teachers
are given an opportunity to implement administrator’s initiatives with the support of a trusted
leader on the staff. Lily emphasized this by stating:
I guess that’s the theme throughout this process is the support, that’s the key. That’s
what’s going to make it successful instead of being the gotcha, it’s got to be a support
system and so if you can build that support and understanding and collaboration and you
can build that support system then a school can be successful in TAP. (personal
communication, September 3, 2014)
In schools across South Carolina and many other states, teachers are required to teach grade
levels or subjects they are unfamiliar with and given little support to be successful. Through this
case study, teachers are shown the level of support that can be provided to them in TAP schools.
The support model offered in SC TAP schools will help current teachers stay in the field longer
and grow in effective teaching practices and instructional strategies to move their students
forward. The pedagogical knowledge gained when working within a support model such as TAP
also provides teachers with opportunities to apply their newfound knowledge in leadership
positions while still staying in the classroom.
115
For Current & Future TAP Schools
For those currently involved in TAP schools across the United States or prospective TAP
schools, this instrumental case study provides a foundation for understanding whom would best
serve the role of the TAP master teacher. When conducting interviews, it is important to note the
personal and professional characteristics necessary to be an effective master teacher. These
characteristics, along with the master teacher model of providing support, explain how the
master teacher serves as an instructional leader. Embedding authentic application of skills into
cluster meetings also ensure the master teacher serves as an instructional leader.
The support model designed in SC TAP schools works to enhance the whole teacher by
supporting personal and professional needs affecting teacher efficacy and student achievement.
This instrumental case study provides an understanding of what prospective TAP schools can
expect when implementing this school reform model. It also assists current TAP schools in
understanding how the role of the master teacher grows by the 12th year of implementation.
For Master Teachers
Current and future master teachers can gather a firm understanding of the role of a master
teacher as an instructional leader from these findings. This study revealed the characteristics
necessary for master teachers to be an instructional leader in their school. Current master
teachers can reflect on their skills and contributions compared to those discovered in this
instrumental case study. They can receive support on their areas of weakness from their regional
master teachers and professional development designed for instructional leaders. Current master
teachers can also achieve a deeper understanding of their position and how they can support
teachers through follow-up support and differentiated professional development embedding
authentic applications from field-testing.
116
Future master teachers can decide if the master teacher role is something they want to
pursue after understanding the characteristics and pedagogy necessary to truly be a support
system for teachers and students in SC TAP schools. They can also form an understanding of the
necessary characteristics and choose to develop these skills prior to applying for a position.
Future master teachers can also learn from Lily’s experience of being an instructional leader and
the necessary requirements of the job. The implications provided in this section provide an
understanding for how the findings of this study can impact policymakers, administrators,
teachers, TAP schools, and TAP master teachers.
Limitations
Limitations are present in all studies. In this instrumental case study seeking to
understand the role of the TAP master teacher there were several limitations that existed. The
researcher served as a regional master teacher for SC TAP while completing the dissertation
process. The researcher’s knowledge of TAP and the master teacher position may have created
bias in the self-reporting of data analysis and discussion. Although the researcher has never
served as a master teacher, the researcher has worked extensively with master teachers for the
last four years. To address this issue, reflective journaling was used and triangulation of data to
ensure accuracy and non-bias.
In addition to the researcher serving as a regional master teacher for SC TAP, the focal
participant, Lily, also took a position as a regional master teacher during the time this
dissertation was completed. Lily taking the position of a regional master teacher added several
limitations to this study. First, this meant that she was no longer at Sarolina Elementary as the
master teacher, which meant no direct observations, could be conducted. According to Yin
(2009), direct observations are one form of data that should be used in an instrumental case
117
study. A second limitation for this study caused by Lily’s job advancement meant that the
participants were answering questions about Lily’s role of the master teacher as an instructional
leader six months after working with Lily in that position. These limitations could have skewed
the perceptions of participants as they may have forgotten some of the roles or characteristics
pertaining to this case study.
Another limitation of the study is that the boundaries of this case may not permit
naturalistic generalizations (Stake, 1995). While these findings were true for this master teacher,
findings may differ across schools based on the characteristics, pedagogy, and support provided
by other master teachers. The findings from this study focused on a seasoned master teacher
who pioneered the position in the state of South Carolina. Readers may identify with only parts
of the findings and must make comparisons to their own situation.
A final limitation of this case is that relies on some subjective data: the opinions of
participants interviewed. The participants’ descriptions, opinions, and feelings provided a large
amount of the findings in this instrumental case study. To address this limitation, these opinions
were cross-referenced with data from documents and artifacts to ensure the opinions were valid.
Recommendations for Future Research
This research analyzed the role of a TAP master teacher as an instructional leader.
Through the use of interviews, artifacts, and documents, the researcher gained an understanding
of the role of the TAP master teacher, characteristics necessary to successfully fill this role, and
how the TAP master teacher served as an instructional leader in SC TAP schools. Future
research that may add to the limited literature on master teachers includes conducting another
instrumental case study looking at the role of a master teacher as an instructional leader in
another state, school, or grade level configuration such as a middle or high school. Another
118
suggestion would be to conduct another instrumental case study similar to this yet featuring a
different master teacher. These studies would add to the limited research available on master
teachers and would provide insight into the role of the master teacher as an instructional leader in
these settings with other master teachers.
Another suggestion would be to conduct a phenomenological study featuring multiple
master teachers to determine if similar results are found from multiple participants. This study
could focus on the experiences of master teachers employed in the System for Teacher and
Student Advancement. By looking at multiple master teachers, the results of the study would be
more easily generalized across multiple settings as opposed to this instrumental case study.
A third suggestion would be to conduct a mixed-methods study focusing on qualitative
research as the primary and quantitative as secondary by incorporating surveys and testing
results of schools with a master teacher and those without a master teacher. This could showcase
how having a master teacher as an instructional leader affects student achievement and teacher
efficiency. Incorporating electronic open response surveys into the mixed-method study would
allow participants to share information anonymously to provide a deeper picture of the master
teacher as an instructional leader. The results would hopefully provide similar results yet deeper
insight into the role of the master teacher as an instructional leader. Other forms of data that
could be incorporated into a mixed-methods study would include observation scores of master
teachers to determine their effectiveness. Quantitative research may focus on value-added
measures of teachers who are provided job-embedded professional development.
A final suggestion would be to conduct a case study on TAP master teachers and the
challenges they face as instructional leaders. This study would focus on master teachers as
instructional leaders in their buildings but would extend on the struggles of master teachers as
119
professional development leaders in their schools. The study may include how master teachers
overcome these challenges to assist current and future master teachers in decreasing these
challenges. This study would also provide insight to policymakers when considering
interventions needed to successfully implement job-embedded professional development into the
public education system.
Regardless of the future study conducted, it would be imperative that the study includes
an observational component. According to Stake (1995), “observations work the researcher
toward greater understanding of the case” (p. 60). This understanding is essential to ensure the
empirical research is provided on the TAP master teacher. With the dearth of empirical
knowledge available, observations will provide further insight into this position and how the
master teacher serves as an instructional leader.
Summary
This instrumental case study adds to the knowledge base available on distributed
leadership theory, certified teachers as instructional leaders, and the role of the SC TAP master
teacher as an instructional leader. Through a categorical aggregation of the findings, three
themes emerged. These were: 1). An overarching umbrella of support provided by the master
teacher, 2.) The pedagogy necessary for the master teacher to embed authentic application of
skills into the school environment through cluster meetings and field-testing, and 3.) The
characteristics necessary for master teachers to be successful instructional leaders. Through
these themes some current research was confirmed while other research was challenged. The
limited research that was available on the role of the master teacher as an instructional leader
prior to this instrumental case study, has been further explained through this study. While this
120
study may not be reflective of all master teachers, it does provide a basis for researchers to
understand this role and how it serves as an instructional leadership position.
This chapter provided my interpretation and ideas of the findings and conclusions of this
instrumental case study on the role of a master teacher as an instructional leader. In addition to
these findings and conclusions, the chapter also included a summary of the findings, an in depth
discussion on these findings in relation to the available literature. The chapter closed with
implications for various stakeholders, limitations of the study, and recommendations for future
research. From this instrumental case study it is evident that the master teacher is an effective
instructional leadership position that is needed in all schools to ensure effective implementation
from PLCs is achieved to improve teacher efficiency and student achievement.
121
REFERENCES
Agam, K., Reifsneider, D., & Wardell, D. (2006, March). The Teacher Advancement Program
(TAP): National Teacher Attitudes. Retrieved from
http://tapsystem.niet.org/pubs/2005_national_report_0406.pdf
Aguilar, E. (2013). The art of coaching: Effective strategies for school transformation.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Akiba, M. & Liang, G. (2011). Performance-related pay: District and teacher
characteristics. Journal of School Leadership, 21(6), 845-870.
Annenberg Institute for School Reform. (n.d.). Professional learning communities:
Professional development strategies that improve instruction. Providence, RI: Author.
Armstrong, A. (2011). Rising above the floodwaters: TAP helps Louisiana
school rebuild professional learning program. Learning Forward 32(6),
46-51.
Ballou, D., & Podgursky, D. (2002). Returns to seniority among public school
teachers. The Journal of Human Resources, 37(4), 892-912.
Barrier, M. (1996). Improving worker performance. Nation’s Business, 28.
Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P. & Harvey, J. (2003). Distributed leadership: A
review of literature. National College for School Leadership. Retrieved from
http://oro.open.ac.uk/8534/1/bennett-distributed-leadership-full.pdf
Blankstein (2010). Failure is not an option. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bolden, R. (2011). Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(3), 251-269.
Bond, N. (2011). Preparing preservice teachers to become teacher leaders. The
122
Educational Forum, 75(4), 280-297. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/910326329?accountid=12085
Brazer, D. & Bauer, S. (2013). Preparing instructional leaders: A model.
Educational Administration Quarterly. doi: 10.1177/001316X3478977
Bunting, C. (1999). School reform--does it really matter? The Clearing House, 72(4),
213-216. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/196835207?accountid=12085
Camburn, E., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J. E. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The
case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 347-373. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/197217368?accountid=12085
Carroll, M. (2009). Chartered teachers and the process of professional enquiry: The
experience of five Scottish teachers. Professional Development in Education, 35(1).
Center for Educator Compensation Reform (2013). List of TIF grants. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherincentive/awards.html
Cole, M. & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed
cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational
considerations (1-46). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Common Core State Standard Initiatives (2014). Standards in your state. Retrieved
from http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among
five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crow, T. (2007). Teachers teaching teachers: Coach lends them her ears. National
123
Staff Development Council 2(8), 14-83. Retrieved from
http://learningforward.org/publications/leading-teacher/leading-teacher-blog/the-leading-
teacher/2007/05/01/teachers-teaching-teachers-may-2007-vol.-2-no.-8#.VTUZJaZMzEk
Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A Framework for teaching.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of
state policy and evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1).
Darling-Hammond, L., Bullmaster, M., & Cobb, V. (1995). Rethinking teacher
leadership through professional development schools. The Elementary School Journal,
96, 87-106.
Daly, A., Moolenaar, N., Bolivar, J., & Burke, P. (2010). Relationships in reform: The
role of teachers’ social networks. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(3), 20-49.
Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of
professional development on teacher’s instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal
study. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 81-112.
Dispenzieri, M. (2009). Teacher perception of the impact of the Teacher Advancement
Program on student achievement. (Doctoral thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3342481)
Drago-Severson, E. (2008). 4 practices serve as pillars for adult learning. Journal of
Staff Development, 29 (4), 60-63.
DuFour, R. (2004, May). What is a “professional learning community?”
Educational Leadership, 1-6.
DuFour, R. (2014). Harnessing the power of PLCs. Educational Leadership, 71(8), 30-35.
124
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing. Bloomington,
IN: Solution Tree.
Eckert, J. M., & Dabrowski, J. (2010). Should value-added measures be used for
performance pay? Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 88-92.
Edmonds, R. R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership,
37(1), 15-24.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC:
The Albert Shanker Institute.
Elmore, R., & Burney D. (1997). Investing in teacher learning staff development and
instructional improvement in Community School District #2, New York City. New York:
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.
Fain, A. (2012). Analyzing the South Carolina teacher advancement program’s
effectiveness and its impact on teachers’ professional growth. (Doctoral thesis).
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3541515)
Fullan, M. (1996). Turning systematic thinking on its head. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 597-
604.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. London, UK: Routledge
Falmer Press.
Futernick, K. (2007). A possible dream: Retaining California teachers so all students can learn.
Sacramento: California State University.
Gabriel, J. G. (2005). How to thrive as a teacher leader. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Gallucci, C., Van Lare, M., Yoon, I. & Boatright, B. (2010). Instructional
coaching: Building theory about the role and organizational support for professional
125
learning. American Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 919-963.
Garcia, S., Jones, D., Holland, G. & Mundy, M. (2013). Instructional coaching at
selected middle schools in south Texas and effects on student achievement. Journal of
Instructional Pedagogies 11, 1-17.
Ghamrawi, N. (2013). Teachers helping teachers: A professional development model
that promotes teacher leadership. International Education Studies, 6(4), 171-182.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1447222585?accountid=12085
Gilles, C., Davis, B., & McGlamery, S. (2009). Induction programs that work. Phi Delta
Kappan, 91(2), 42-47. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/218481776?accountid=12085
Gius, M. (2012). The effects of teacher merit pay on academic attainment: An analysis
using district-level data. Journal Of Economics & Economic Education Research, 13(3),
93-108.
Grim, E., Kaufman, T., & Doty, D. (2014). Rethinking classroom observation.
Educational Leadership, 71(8), 24-29.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership Quarterly,
13(4), 423-451.
Gulamhussein, A. (2013). Teaching the teachers: Effective professional development in an era of
high stakes accountability. Alexandria, VA: Center for Public Education.
Guskey, T. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Guskey, T. (2014). Planning professional learning. Educational Leadership, 71(8), 10-16.
Gutek, G. (2005). Historical and philosophical foundations of education: A biographical
introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
126
Hackman, J. (2011, June 7). Six common misperceptions about teamwork [blog post].
Retrieved from http://blogs.hbr.org/2011/06/six-common-misperceptions-abou
Hawley, W. (1985). Designing and implementing performance- based career ladder
plans. Educational Leadership, 43(3), 57-61.
Heineke, S., & Polnick, B. (2013). Pave the way for coaches. Journal of Staff Development,
34(3), 48-53. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1412121206?accountid=12085
Helsing, D., Howell, A., Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. (2008). Putting the “development” in
professional development: Understanding and overturning educational leaders’
immunities to change. Harvard Educational Review, 78(3), 437-465.
Holland, R. (2005). Merit pay for teachers: Can common sense come to public
education? Retrieved from http://lexingtoninstitute.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/11/merit-pay-for-teachers.pdf
Hoy, W., & Miskel, C. (2008). Educational administration: Theory, research, and
practice. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Jerald, C., & Van Hook, K. (2011). More than measurement. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED533382.pdf
Johnson, I. L. (2011). Teacher to mentor: Become a successful cooperating teacher.
Strategies, 24(3), 14-17. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/845247700?accountid=12085
Jones, L., Stall, G., & Yarbrough, D. (2013). The importance of professional learning
communities for school improvement. Creative Education, 4(5), 357-361. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1370723177?accountid=12085.
127
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd
ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Knight, J. (Ed.). (2009). Coaching: Approaches and perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Knight, J. (2012). Instructional coaching. The School Administrator, 63(4), 36-40.
Knowles, M. S., Holton, III, E. F., Swanson, R. A. (2014). The Adult learner: The definitive
classic in adult education and human resource development. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why
people demand it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lavy, V. (2009). Performance pay and teachers' effort, productivity, and grading ethics.
The American Economic Review, 99(5), 1979-2011.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.99.5.1979
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful
school leadership: What it is and how it influences pupil learning. Retrieved from
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https://www.education.gov.u
k/publications/eOrderingDownload/RR800.pdf
Leithwood, K., Tomlinson, D., & Genge, M. (1996). Transformational leadership. In K.
Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.), International
handbook of educational leadership and administration, (pp. 785-840). Dordrecht, the
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Lieberman, A. (2011). Can teachers really be leaders? Kappa Delta Pi Record, 48(1),
128
16-18. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/903978629?accountid=12085.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2004). Teacher leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Linder, R. A., Post, G., & Calabrese, K. (2012). Professional learning communities:
Practices for successful implementation. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 78(3), 13-22.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1030423015?accountid=12085
MacBeth, J., Oduro, G., & Waterhose, J. (2004). Distributed leadership in action: A
study of current practice in schools. Nottingham, UK: National College for School
Leadership.
Mangin, M., & Stoelinga, S. (2010). The future of instructional teacher leader roles. The
Educational Forum, 74(1), 49-62. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/220660508?accountid=12085
Mangin, M., & Stoelinga, S. (2010). Special issue: Instructional teacher leadership in action.
Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership(13), 1-4.
Mann, D., Leutscher, T., & Reardon, R. (2013, September). Findings from a two-year
examination of teacher engagement in TAP schools across Louisiana. Retrieved from
http://www.niet.org/assets/PDFs/interactive-louisiana-student-achievement.pdf
Marsh, J., McCombs, J., & Martorell, F. (2010). How instructional coaches support data-driven
Decision-making: Policy implementation and effects in Florida middle schools.
Educational Policy, 24(6), 872-907.
Mayo, K. (2002). Teacher leadership: The master teacher model. Management in
Education, 16. 29-33. doi: 10.1177/08920206020160030701
McCoy, J. (2013). Instructional leadership: It isn’t just for administrators anymore!
129
Retrieved from http://conference.pixel-
online.net/foe2013/common/download/Paper_pdf/030-SOE15-FP-McCoy-FOE2013.pdf
Murphy, M., & Hart, A. (1986). Career ladder reforms. Teacher Education Quarterly,
13(4), 51-59.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Characteristics of public and private
elementary and secondary school teachers in the United States: Results from the 2011-
2012 schools and staffing survey. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013314.pdf
National Institute for Excellence in Teaching. (2006). Leadership team handbook.
Retrieved from http://www.tapsystemtraining.org/Portals/0/TAPHandbook.pdf
National Institute for Excellence in Teaching. (2012). Beyond job-embedded
professional development. Retrieved from
http://www.niet.org/assets/PDFs/beyond_job_embedded_professional_development.pdf
National Institute for Excellence in Teaching. (2014). TAP research summary:
Examining the evidence and impact of TAP: The system for teacher and student
advancement. Retrieved from http://www.niet.org/assets/PDFs/tap-research-
summary.pdf
National Institute for Excellence in Teaching. (2013). National institute for excellence in
teaching. Retrieved from www.niet.org
Neumerski, C. (2013). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we
know about principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where should we
go from here? Educational Administration Quarterly 49(2), 310-347. doi:
10.1177/0013161X12456700
130
Newmann, F. M., Bryk, A. S. & Nagaoka, J. K. (2001). Authentic intellectual work and
standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School
Research.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
Nolan, B., & Palazzolo, L. (2011). New teacher perceptions of the "teacher
leader" movement. National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP
Bulletin, 95(4), 302-318. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/928970972?accountid=12085
Patterson, J., & Patterson, J. (2004). Sharing the lead. Educational Leadership, 61(7),
74-78.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Paulmann, G. (2009). Master teachers’ critical practice and student learning strategies: A
case study in an urban school district. (Doctoral thesis). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3393071)
Petersen, S., & Conway, J. (2011). I can see clearly now: Teacher leaders invoking
reaction. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 6(3), 175-186.
Podgursky, M., & Springer, M. G. (2007). Credentials versus performance: Review of
the teacher performance pay research. Peabody Journal Of Education, 82(4), 551-573.
Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (2003). The 35th annual phi delta kappa/Gallup poll of the
public's attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 41-56.
Schacter, J., Thum, Y., Reifsneider, D., & Schiff, T. (2013). The teacher advancement
program report two: Year three results from Arizona and year one results from South
131
Carolina TAP schools. Retrieved from
http://www.tapsystem.org/pubs/tap_results_azsc2004.pdf
Slavin, R. (2014). John Hopkins School of Education Best Evidence Encyclopedia. Retrieved
from www.bestevidence.org
Smylie, M., Allensworth, E., Greenberg, R., Harris, R., & Luppescu, S. (2001). Teacher
professional development in Chicago: Supporting effective practice. Chicago, IL:
Consortium on Chicago School Research.
South Carolina Department of Education. (2012). SC Annual School District Report
Card Summary. Retrieved from http://ed.sc.gov/data/report-
cards/2012/district/s/d3056999.pdf
South Carolina Department of Education. (2013). South Carolina TAP. Retrieved from
www.ed.sc.gov.
Spillane, J. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Spillane, J., Diamond, J., & Jita, L. (2003, April). Leading classroom instruction: A
preliminary exploration of the distribution of leadership practice. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Spillane, J., Diamond, J., Sherer, J., & Coldren, A. (2004). Distributing leadership. In
M. Coles & G. Southworth (Eds.), Developing leadership: Creating the schools of
tomorrow (pp. 37-49). New York, NY: Open University Press.
Springer, M. (2009). Rethinking teacher compensation policies: Why now, why again?.
Performance incentives: Their growing impact on American K-12 education, 1-22.
Retrieved from
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/press/books/2009/performanceincentives/performanc
132
eincentives_chapter.pdf
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Timperley, H. (2005). Distributed leadership: Developing theory from practice. J.
Curriculum Studies, 00(0), 1-26. Retrieved from
http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/westbury/papers/timperley.pdf
Tivnan, T., & Hamphill, L. (2005). Comparing four literacy reform models in high-
poverty schools: Patterns of first grade achievement. The Elementary School Journal,
105(5), 419-441.
United States Department of Education (2013, September 18). U.S. Department of
Education Awards $30 Million in Grants to Support Teacher and Principal Development.
Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-awards-
30-million-grants-support-teacher-and-principal-d
United States Department of Education. (2014). Teacher Incentive Fund. Retrieved
from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherincentive/index.html.
United States Department of Education. (2014). Elementary & secondary education.
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html#sec1001.
Van Tassell, R. (2014). The trouble with top-down. Educational Leadership, 71(8), 76- 78.
Venables, D. (2014). How teachers can turn data into action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Waller, W. W. (1932). The Sociology of teaching. New York, NY: Wiley.
West, L., & Cameron, A. (2013). Agents of change: How content coaching transforms
teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Wetzler, J. (2010) Developing teachers as leaders. Change, 42, 25-32.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/851367534?accountid=12085
133
Williams, T. (2009). Teacher leaders in formal roles: A qualitative study. (Doctoral thesis).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3382137)
Yin, R. (2009). Case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
134
APPENDIX A
Interview Guide
1. Tell me about yourself, your job/work, what you do.
2. How long have you been in your current position/education field?
3. What led you to your career choice?
4. How long have you been associated with TAP?
5. Describe a “typical” day at work.
6. Describe your understanding of the master teacher position. (Prompts: cluster, leadership
team, field testing, student achievement)
7. What characteristics are needed to be a master teacher?
8. With whom does the master teacher interact?
9. What support is offered to master teachers?
10. How is the master teacher an instructional leader at your school?
11. Based on your experience, what concerns do you feel master teachers face as
instructional leaders?
12. How does the master teacher position enhance the school environment?
13. Is there anything else significant about master teachers that you would like to share?
Mention/request a follow-up interview
135
APPENDIX B
IRB Approval
136
APPENDIX C
Case Subject Consent Form
137
138
139
APPENDIX D
Participant Consent Form
140
141
