AN EXPLORATION OF 21ST CENTURY PRACTICES IN THE UPPER ELEMENTARY CLASSROOM: HOW COVID-19 IMPACTED IMPLEMENTATION PDF Free Download
1 / 141/141
100%
AN EXPLORATION OF 21ST CENTURY PRACTICES IN THE UPPER ELEMENTARY
CLASSROOM: HOW COVID-19 IMPACTED IMPLEMENTATION
BY
SHELLEY MARIE JENKINS
DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Education in Education Policy, Organization and Leadership
with a concentration in Learning, Design, and Leadership
in the Graduate College of the
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 2021
Urbana, Illinois
Doctoral Committee:
Professor William Cope, Chair
Professor Mary Kalantzis
Professor Christopher Span
Professor Yu-Ling You, National Changhua University of Education
ii
ABSTRACT
The Common Core State Standards require students to showcase their learning through
performance standards, yet from the limited literature that is currently available there is not much proof
that students have been able to raise to the rigor of these new requirements. Using Ryan and Deci’s self-
determination theory, research has shown that when students are offered high levels of autonomy in a
supportive learning environment there is more engagement, allowing for deeper conceptual learning,
more transference of knowledge to other learning, resulting in a positive effect on achievement, as
measured through state standards. Through the use of a mixed-methods explanatory sequential design, the
research has found to what degree Illinois educators carry out 21st century practices within their upper
elementary classrooms, and how the global COVID-19 pandemic affected this. Further, it has determined
what supports are needed to carry out these practices successfully. It offers insights and recommendations
for school districts, professional development curators, and teacher preparation programs seeking to
design their content and classroom practices in ways that best meet the needs of 21st century educators
and learners.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I dedicate this dissertation to those, who without their love and support, would not have made it
possible. First and foremost, to my husband, Brian, who showed excessive support and patience, made an
abundance of charts, edits and loved this piece as much as I. To my parents, who always cheered me on.
To those who came before me, who always believed in me and are not here to celebrate this
accomplishment. To Dr. Katlin Davis, who first planted the seed to start this journey many years ago. To
my cheerleaders and support network, Spencer, Maggie, and all of my neighbor family, thank you. To all
of my coworkers, who helped in a myriad of ways, from listening, to offering me time to focus on my
schoolwork and for always encouraging me. To Dr. Kalantzis, Dr. Cope, Dr. Francis, your wisdom,
guidance, endless email responses and genuine appreciation for education will not be forgotten. To the
other members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Span and Dr. You, thank you for your time and pushing
me to grow throughout this journey.
Last, to my three children, Elle, Jackson, and Emily, may you always dream big and see how hard
work pays off. Go for your dreams and do not let anyone tell you that you cannot achieve it all. Being
your mom will always be my greatest accomplishment and I look forward to watching each of your own
journeys for I know you each will be destined for great things.
iv
Table of Contents
Chapter One: Introduction…………………………………………………………………..1
Study Rationale …………………………………………………………………… 1
Purpose, Research Questions, and Theory ………………………………………... 2
Significance ……………………………………………………………………….. 2
Methodology Summary and Research Plan …….………………………………… 3
Definition of Key Terms ……………………………………….………… ………..4
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ……………………….………………………....... 5
The Common Core State Standards …………………………………………........ 5
Motivation and Learning ………………….………………………………..…….. 9
Teacher Preparation: Campus Teaching …………………………………..……. 18
Effective Teaching ………………………………………………………..……… 23
Gaps in the Literature ……………………………………………………….……. 28
Chapter Three: Theory and Methodology ………………………………………………... 31
Purpose of Study ……………….…………………………………………..……... 31
Theory ……………………………………………………………………..……... 32
Methodology Overview …………………………………………………………... 44
Methodology Implementation ……………………………………….…………… 54
Chapter Four: Results, Findings, and Discussion …………………………………………. 62
Chapter Five: Implications, Further Research and Conclusions ………………………….. 106
References ………………………………………………………………………………… 114
Appendix A: 21st Century Practices Survey …………………...………………………….. 124
Appendix B: Recruitment Script ………………………………………………………….. 132
Appendix C: Interview Questions ………………………………………………………... 133
Appendix D: IRB Letter …………………………………………………………………... 135
Appendix E: Waiver of Documentation of Informed Consent …………………………… 136
Appendix F: Notice of Exempt Determination Amendment ……………………………... 137
1
Chapter One: Introduction
Study Rationale
After the publication of “Benchmarking for Success” in 2008, the United States was able to see
itself compared to other first world counterparts, shedding light on a need to revamp our education system
to ensure learners were ready to compete in a global world (Achieve, 2008). This report also highlighted
the large disparity between demographics in relation to performance; showcasing America’s learners who
are from disadvantaged backgrounds performing the least when compared to other countries measured.
Additionally, the publication discussed areas that would need to be given focus: updating standards,
realign learning materials to the new standards, revise teacher recruitment policies, hold school systems
accountable for high achievement, and finally, measure students on a global scale (Achieve, 2008). By
taking these actions, Achieve, Inc., together with the National Governors Association (NGA) and the
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) assert that students would become equipped with higher
skills that not only allow them to compete with others from the United States, but around the world as
well (2008). As a result of these findings and assertions, the Common Core State Standards Initiative was
developed, which state the standards are to focus, “on developing the critical-thinking, problem-solving,
and analytical skills students will need to be successful,” creating a need for educators to implement
effective, research backed ways of helping students succeed.
Since Illinois’ full implementation of the Common Core State Standards in 2013, it has become
apparent that students are struggling with 21st century skills. Even more, Song (2018) describes that
despite the limited research the available findings from the standards have shown no significant
improvement of scores; going further, in year one and three of adoption, there were significant negative
effects on Grade 4 reading. With this concern, what is the best way to engage students and increase
autonomy while still relating to prescribed standards? John Dewey long criticized prescribed curriculum
that hinders curiosity, stating that when students are forced to follow a particular curriculum, they lose
meaning in their education (Goldman et al., 2018). Keeping the standards in mind while also taking into
2
account student's needs through the self-determination theory, this dissertation has focused on the link
between student autonomy and feelings towards school engagement, leading to achievement.
Purpose, Research Questions, and Theory
The purpose of the present study was to determine to what degree upper elementary educators
implement 21st century practices, and thus, increase student autonomy. The study aimed to identify where
educators feel they need further support at implementing such practices with fidelity so that it could be
carried out for the entirety of a school year.
Research Questions
Main Research Question
To what degree do Illinois teachers implement 21st century practices within the upper
elementary classroom?
Supporting Research Questions
1. What is the perception from teachers regarding autonomy practices in the 21st century
upper elementary classroom?
2. In what ways are teachers being supported (by administration, curricular innovations,
continued education courses, professional developments) in meeting the needs of 21st
Century learners?
Theory
Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000b) supports the enhancement of intrinsic
motivation in learning. With a heightened personal stake in learning, students will learn to a deeper level,
due to increased engagement and enjoyment in the tasks presented.
Significance
The significance of this study is that it has filled a gap in the literature by focusing on the upper
elementary grades (4th-6th) as these particular students have been shown to have a dip in intrinsic
motivation. By obtaining more background on what 21st century practices are being implemented in these
3
grades, as well as where teachers state they need further support, steps can then be taken in school
districts, teacher preparation courses, as well as professional development. Using the Common Core State
Standards as the focus is relevant as Illinois public schools are expected to adhere to these. Further, these
standards have increased rigor involved in both reading and writing, requiring students to read to a much
deeper level. The literature already suggests that students with higher amounts of intrinsic motivation, as
seen in self-determination theory, perform to higher levels than other students. The same 21st century
practices can be used to increase such intrinsic motivation.
The present study is even more relevant as the research gathered will focus on the 2020-2021
academic school year, during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was a year that was unlike any other for
teachers and students alike. Determining which practices were successful, and where teachers noticed the
greatest struggles will be instrumental as school districts plan for the future of education. If educators are
not supported in the implementation of such practices, surely students will be unable to develop these to
the deepest levels.
Methodology Summary and Research Plan
The present study used a mixed-methods explanatory sequential methodology. Quantitative data
was gathered through a minimally modified West Virginia 21st Century Teaching and Learning Survey
(Hixson, Ravitz, & Whisman, 2012) due to its high validity rate. The qualitative data derived from a
semi-structured interview, where Illinois educators were able to voice their implementations of the 21st
century practices they were asked about on the survey.
The proposed study started on August 6, 2021 and extended for eight weeks, with the interviews
beginning at week four. Participants came from Illinois’ public schools; however, were recruited through
both social media groups as well as school district emails in one specific district. All teachers were upper
elementary educators. Social media was used as a way to reach the largest number of educators over the
summer. Further, this allowed contact to educators from multiple school districts. Having a single school
district group, plus data from a myriad of others allowed for themes to be developed which were then
substantiated by the Literature Review.
4
Definition of Key Terms
Common Core State Standards: "The Common Core is a set of high-quality academic standards
in mathematics and English language arts/literacy (ELA). These learning goals outline what a student
should know and be able to do at the end of each grade. The standards were created to ensure that all
students graduate from high school with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in college, career,
and life, regardless of where they live. Forty-one states, the District of Columbia, four territories, and the
Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) have voluntarily adopted and are moving forward
with the Common Core" (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2020)
Motivation: "To be motivated means to be moved to do something. A person who feels no
impetus or inspiration to act is thus characterized as unmotivated, whereas someone who is energized or
activated toward an end is considered motivated" (Ryan & Deci, 2000a, p 55)
Intrinsic Motivation: "doing of an activity for its inherent satisfactions rather than for some
separable consequence" (Ryan & Deci, 2000a, p 56)
Extrinsic Motivation: "doing something because it leads to a separable outcome" (Ryan & Deci,
2000a, p 55)
Self-Determination Theory (SDT): "SDT is the investigation of people’s inherent growth
tendencies and innate psychological needs that are the basis for their self-motivation and personality
integration, as well as for the conditions that foster those processes. Inductively, using the empirical
process, we have identified three such needs--the needs for competence (Harter, 1978; White, 1963),
relatedness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Reis, 1994), and autonomy (deCharms, 1968; Deci, 1975)--that
appear to be essential for facilitating optimal functioning of the natural propensities for growth and
integration, as well as for constructive social development and personal well-being" (Ryan & Deci,
2000b, p. 68)
Autonomy: "Within SDT, autonomy refers not to being independent, detached, or selfish but
rather to the feeling of volition that can accompany any act, whether dependent or independent,
collectivist or individualist" (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 74)
5
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The Common Core State Standards
With an increasingly globally centered world, learners need to have skills that will allow them to
compete for a share in the marketplace. To be part of this new job market, students need to be diversified
in a range of skills that require higher levels of math and literacy, technical skills, problem solving, and
effective communication (NGA, CCSSO, and Achieve, 2008). As noted in the original publication
"Benchmarking for Success" (2008) which led to the new standards:
Countries and states have good reason to make the effort. Technological,
economic, and political trends have combined to increase demand for higher skills
while heightening competition for quality jobs. Rulebound jobs on factory floors and in
offices are being automated and outsourced. The world’s knowledge-and-innovation
economy favors workers who have postsecondary education or training, strong
fundamental skills in math and reading, and the ability to solve unfamiliar problems
and communicate effectively.
At the same time, new technologies and corporate strategies have opened the
global labor market to billions of people from places like Eastern Europe, India, China,
and Brazil who had been left out. An increasing variety of work tasks can be digitized
and performed nearly anywhere in the world. More jobs are going to the best educated,
no matter where they live, which means that Americans will face more competition
than ever before (p.5).
Due to a need to revitalize our education system's framework, the Common Core State Standards
were adopted in 2009 and states were urged to create uniform standards, textbooks that aligned to such
standards, along with tests and curricula, while also being incentivized to do so from the federal
government (Achieve, 2008a). The overarching goals of the Common Core was to create a ubiquitous set
of standards for the entire nation, where all students, regardless of geographical location, would be
offered similar opportunities that would prepare them for college and beyond (Lee & Wu, 2017; Swanson
6
et al., 2019). According to Achieve (2013b), the standards are supposed to influence student learning and
achievement through five areas: (1) high-quality curriculum and instructional materials aligned with new
standards, (2) professional development for teachers and school leaders, (3) development or revision of
student assessment system aligned with the new standards, (4) raising performance standards on existing
or new assessments, and (5) holding schools and teachers accountable for the results of student
assessments (Lee & Wu, 2017).
The shift has not come without some push back from states. Although the Common Core State
Standards were developed in 2009, it took until the 2014-2015 school year for them to be fully
implemented in most states, with 9 states (Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia) no longer taking part in the standards (Common Core State
Standards Initiative, 2020; Lee & Wu, 2017). For the states that did adopt them, there appeared to be large
variables to the extent that the standards were implemented as there was a large learning curve for
teachers to adjust their instruction accordingly (Swanson et al., 2019).
The standards require students to unpack increasingly difficult texts, with a heavy emphasis on
informational reading (Kamil, 2016; Rimm-Kaufman & Jodl, 2020). Students are now expected to think
far more critically about their learning, requiring more engagement while reading (Neem, 2016). There is
a large push for problem solving, where students work collaboratively and must be able to articulate the
solutions well (Achieve, 2008).
Since the inception of the Common Core State Standards, United States students' have been
making gains; however, students seem to be moving from the 'below basic' level to 'basic,' with little
movement from 'proficient' to 'advanced', as shown in Table 2.1. While this movement is essential,
especially with disadvantaged groups, students are not demonstrating a movement to higher levels, which
would allow them to compete against students of other nations (Lee & Wu, 2017; Polikoff, 2017;
Rentner, 2013). As noted in Polikoff’s 2017 work, the lack of movement in student’s scores could be due
to a gap in teacher’s understanding of how to implement the rigorous standards. This was supported by
Rentner (2013) which found that 34 states have found it difficult to secure high-quality resources for
7
implementation. Both Rentner (2013) and Swanson et al. (2019) express how teaching the new standards
requires a shift in teaching pedagogy, which also translated into a significant amount of money having
been spent on professional development for not only teachers but also administrators on how to align
teaching to the new requirements.
Table 2.1
Movement of Reading Gains from 1992 - 2009
(Note. Changes in reading ability from 2002 to 2009. From “Common Core State Standards and Adaptive
Teaching,” by M.L. Kamil, 2016, Theory Into Practice, 55, p. 236. Copyright The College of Education
and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University.)
Furthermore, the new standards have a heavy focus on student performance, as measured by
assessments. In order to measure these benchmarks, the US Department of Education launched a
competition called Race To The Top (RTTT) in 2009 which offered a grant to create assessments in line
with the new standards, leading to two high-stakes tests: Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for
College and Careers (PARCC) and Smarter-Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) (Lee & Wu,
2017). Both of these assessments not only provide the country with information on whether students are
making gains, but also are used to hold teachers and districts accountable for their students. Even still,
Lee and Wu (2017) note that, "The Common Core has helped America race to the top for performance
standards, but not for performance outcomes yet" (p. 13). This can be seen in Table 2.2, where recent
cross-national tests from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), still show that
United States students are behind the pack despite some progress from 2015-2018 (Walker, 2019).
8
Table 2.2
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2018
(Note. Reading, Mathematics, Science 2018 PISA Results. Retrieved form "PISA 2018: Slight U.S.
Progress, But What Do the Results Really Tell Us?" by T. Walker, 2019, NEAToday.org)
When schools must report their student data, this has left many teachers and students feeling
demoralized, accumulating more pressure to succeed. Success, shown through the work by De Laet et al.
(2015), Jacobsen and Hofmann (1997), and Ryan and Deci (2000b), needs to be supported through the
development of intrinsic motivation. Their work posits when outcomes are tied to state tests, diplomas, or
threats, long lasting, deep learning (as promoted by CCSS) will not occur. Because the Common Core
Standards are the benchmark in most states, teachers will need to use best practices to enhance student
learning, develop intrinsic motivation, and increase engagement; by doing such, students will improve
their conceptual thinking and thus, gains will be made. More importantly, students will find meaning in
their learning (Ryan & Deci, 2000b).
9
Motivation and Learning
There has been much research around motivation, with the research reviewed for this work being
centered around intrinsic motivation and its link to achievement. From the literature reviewed, there was
ample support that by increasing autonomy, while enhancing self-regulation, students display more
intrinsic motivation, leading to more satisfaction in school as well as positive outcomes in performance
(Broussard & Garrison, 2004; Cock & Halvari, 1999; Guay & Bureau, 2018; Spinath et al., 2006).
Broussard and Garrison’s (2004) work displayed a moderate correlation between intrinsic motivation and
academic achievement in reading and writing, especially mastery motivation, where students feel
competent in their knowledge. While intrinsic motivation was related to overall achievement in Broussard
and Garrison’s work, Spinath et al. (2006) states that motivation in one domain should not be used to
determine outcomes in another domain. However, in Guay and Bureau’s (2018) study, it was found that
certain types of motivation, namely intrinsic and identified regulation, were linked to outcomes across
domains.
For the present study, motivation was described through Ryan and Deci's (2000) Self-
Determination Theory which is grounded in the needs of a learner. In order to learn to a deep and
meaningful level, the learner must have their three needs met: competence, relatedness, and autonomy.
Competence is defined as a student's ability to successfully complete school-related tasks, and engage and
manipulate the environment. Relatedness is forming bonds with others in a social world, and feeling
connected. Finally, autonomy is feeling that one's actions are determined by the self (Deci & Ryan,
2000b; Wehmeyer et al., 2017; Mouratidis & Michou, 2011). When these needs are met, motivation
increases and the learner will have more "interest, excitement, confidence, which in turn is manifested
both as enhanced performance, persistence, and creativity and as heightened vitality and general well-
being," (Deci & Ryan, 2000a, p. 69). For autonomous motivation to be maintained, there needs to be
continued satisfaction from the three needs through supportive conditions (Deci & Ryan, 2008b).
To fully understand self-determination theory, one must be able to differentiate between
motivational types. According to Deci and Ryan (2008b), there is both autonomous motivation and
10
controlled motivation. Autonomous motivation is when people experience intrinsic motivation where they
have "volition, or a self-endorsement of their actions" (p. 182). McClelland, in Human Motivation (1988),
emphasizes how motivation, when linked with achievement, is an activity that is done due to intrinsic
motivation. However, autonomous motivation also comprises the type of extrinsic motivation that people
have identified as having value within their sense of self, or integrated regulation. The types of extrinsic
motivation are described under a sub-theory of self-determination theory called organismic integration
theory (OIT), and include: external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, and integrated
regulation (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). The types of motivations, as well as what regulates them, can be seen in
Table 2.3. Extrinsic motivations are considered to be the least autonomous and are performed to satisfy an
external demand or contingency, with the exception of integrated regulation mentioned earlier (Ryan &
Deci, 2000b).
Table 2.3
The Self-Determination Continuum Showing Types of Motivation with their Regulatory Styles, Loci of
Causality, and Corresponding Processes
(Note. Motivational Types. Retrieved from "Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic
Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being," by R.M. Ryan and E.L. Deci, 2000, American
Psychologist, p. 72.)
In their work around self-determination theory, Deci and Ryan (1985a) also described events as
either controlling or informational, with controlling being considered actions done for someone else's
purposes rather than for their own. Informational motivation was described as events which allow choice.
McClelland (1988) goes so far to say that those with high achievement will not perform as well when they
11
are controlled, or are being interrupted often. Both scholars were clear that a permissive environment was
one that was not without structure, but rather where feedback was integrated so learners knew where they
stood; teachers were instructed that feedback should be sure to remain positive, as this increased intrinsic
motivation while negative forms diminished it. Deci and Ryan (2008b) confirmed this in their research,
using self-determination theory, to determine that there are great differences in the outcomes from
autonomous motivation and controlled motivation, where autonomous motivation lead to long term
effects in persistence and well-being.
Goldman et al. (2018) posit that if students do not see how the learning relates to themselves and
their lives they disengage. Wehmeyer et al. (2017) confirmed through their research that autonomous
motivation to read decreases through school, beginning with the upper elementary grades. This is also a
time where students seem to be given high-stakes testing readily, which may further demotivate learning,
as noted in studies by Andreano and Wolfe (2019) and Yu et al. (2018).
Hofferber et al.'s (2014) study further showcased the effect of placing students in either a
controlling or supportive teacher environment. While there were not marked differences in the
performance of low-level knowledge, there was a significant difference in the performance when looking
at conceptual understanding, which is a large basis of the Common Core State Standards. What makes it
difficult for upper elementary teachers is that from Gillet et al.'s (2011) research, teacher autonomy
support sharply decreases up to 12 years old then slowly stabilizes through middle and high school. They
also found age was to be linearly and negatively related to both intrinsic motivation and non self-
determined extrinsic motivation meaning that students seem to dip in their intrinsic motivation around the
upper elementary age. In addition to having less intrinsic motivation, students of this age are also
developing more awareness with their social standing amongst their peers (Gasparini, 2014; Mouratidis &
Michou, 2011).
Waterschoot et al.'s (2019) research sheds light on the role of an educator in meeting student’s
needs, where they [the teacher] encourage independent decision making while also being aware of their
social development. The literature conveys students with more intrinsic motivation "related positively to
12
overall school achievement and high-quality learning, they had more positive attitudes for doing
homework, greater conceptual learning, and higher achievement when their interest for school-related
activities was induced experimentally" (Waterschoot et al., 2019, p. 2). Not only does enhanced intrinsic
motivation lead to life-long learning, but as show in in Guay and Bureau's (2018) research having high
motivational intensity predicted positive math achievement and achievement in noncorresponding
subjects, such as English. Their work also found that intrinsic motivation positively predicted
achievement for English; conversely, their findings showed that introjected regulation (which is described
through an internal pressure to perform) were weak in all school subjects.
On the other side, when needs are not supported, or students feel pressured to perform a certain
way, their motivation and their long-term learning seems to diminish (McClelland, 1988; Vecchione et
al., 2014; Waterschoot et al., 2019). Yu et al. (2018) studied the effects within the Chinese culture, where
students are administered the Gaokao, an achievement test that places them into career and university
tracks. With such emphasis on a test, students report having high anxiety, depression, amotivation, and
low self-esteem. Even more significant, after students have taken the Gaokao, many students report not
knowing what their personal interests are when they have more free choice in college, which is seen in the
low levels of engagement once students reach this educational level (Yu et al., 2018). Raftery-Helmer and
Grolnick (2018) saw similar findings with their research where 6th grade students who felt they were in
controlling environments experienced failure as threatening versus students who felt autonomous and
related viewed failure as a challenge and something to be overcome.
The Upper Elementary Child
While upper elementary students are considered to be those in grades 4th through 6th, the
developmental term for this group of learners is middle childhood. Middle childhood is characterized by
children moving from an egocentric view to a more global approach, while being able to think more
abstractly, and learning about their place within a social context (Del Giudice, 2018; Mah & Ford-Jones,
2012; Finnan, 2009). The years from 9-11 are described with the following characteristics:
13
Your child’s growing independence from the family and interest in friends might be
obvious by now. Healthy friendships are very important to your child’s
development, but peer pressure can become strong during this time. Children who
feel good about themselves are more able to resist negative peer pressure and make
better choices for themselves. This is an important time for children to gain a sense
of responsibility along with their growing independence. Also, physical changes of
puberty might be showing by now, especially for girls. Another big change children
need to prepare for during this time is starting middle or junior high school (CDC,
2020).
Both Finnan (2009) and Mah and Ford-Jones (2012) refer to the upper elementary years as the
'forgotten' years, as much research has been conducted on early childhood as well as adolescents, leaving
this age group less studied; however, this is a very crucial time in development that can shape the rest of a
young person's life. During this developmental period, children should "practice adult behavioral patterns
and acquire essential social and foraging skills" (Del Giudice, 2018, p. 96). According to Mah and Ford-
Jones, play should continue to be seen as a critical component of development.
Mah and Ford-Jones (2012) discuss the development in the brain during middle childhood in a
constant state of flux. During this period myelination is occurring within the corpus callosum and
subcortical areas, and the cortical gray matter is actively adapting. This development leads to the
advancement of brain activity and behavioral responses; this declines with age. Table 2.4 offers a graphic
of the development happening during this period, further supporting why this age is so important, as these
are the opportunities that shape the brain for long-lasting positive responses.
14
Table 2.4
Development of Middle Childhood
(Note. Middle Childhood Development. From "Middle childhood: An Evolutionary-Developmental
Synthesis," by M. Del Giudice, 2018, Handbook of Life Course Health Development, p. 96. Copyright
Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque)
Jacobsen and Hofmann (1997) explain how this time in a young person's life requires a new sense
of autonomy, they are learning their interests and finding they enjoy some things more than others.
15
Offering a supportive environment, where students interests are enhanced, leads to higher levels of
intrinsic motivation. Ryan and Deci (2000a) define intrinsic motivation as a "natural inclination toward
assimilation, mastery, spontaneous interest, and exploration that is so essential to cognitive and social
development and that represents a principal source of enjoyment and vitality throughout life" (p. 70). An
increase of intrinsic motivation has been linked to overall school achievement, high-quality learning,
greater conceptual learning and higher achievement which are all needed to succeed at the rigor of the
Common Core State Standards (Waterschoot et al., 2019).
The decrease in intrinsic motivation as mentioned in Gillet et al.'s 2012 work could be explained
with the developmental transition that is occurring further highlighting why creating supportive
environments where students can "practice" their skills without fear of failure is ever more important. In
Leptokaridou et al.'s (2016) study of upper elementary physical education students, there was not a
difference in students' motivational experiences until time had passed within the school year, namely a
trimester, then a significant deterioration was found. In an earlier study conducted by Mouratidis and
Michou (2011), 5th and 6th grade students within a good quality motivation group showed more
enjoyment as well as pride (key aspects of intrinsic motivation) than students in a low-quality motivation
group. Students who performed out of controlled motivation, or extrinsic motivation, displayed more
negative emotions. Their research also emphasized the importance of social motivation, with it being
positively associated with autonomous motivation.
Finnan (2009), Mouratidis and Michou (2011), and Ryan and Deci (2000a) all emphasize how
students of this age group are extremely susceptible to peer pressure, as they are more aware of their place
within their environment. Ryan and Deci (2000a) state these social and environmental factors have the
power to either facilitate or undermine intrinsic motivation. While De Laet et al.'s (2015) longitudinal
study shed light on the link between popularity and student performance starting in grade 4, it was found
that students who felt both accepted by their peers and supported by their teachers displayed less declines
in behavioral engagement as they progressed through upper elementary school, through grade 6. Notably,
their study also found that students who were perceived as more popular in Grade 5 were less engaged in
16
Grade 6, making a clear distinction between being accepted by peers and feeling a part of the classroom
community versus being popular and often looked at as powerful, well known throughout the school, and
having social central positions. Boys were found to be less accepted than their female counterparts.
In another longitudinal study by Vecchione in 2014, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation was
catalogued in students from elementary school all the way through university, external regulation (such as
rewards or coercion) showed a detrimental effect at the lower levels, supporting the need for educators at
this level to be cognizant of what hinders achievement. Ryan and Deci (2000b) discuss how children,
from the time of birth, are at their healthiest when they are active, inquisitive, curious, and playful, even
in the absence of specific rewards. Guiding children to their interests, without the threats of grades,
deadlines, or rewards is a way to create lifelong learners, as well as enhance critical thinking (Admiraal et
al., 2019; Goldman et al., 2018; Andreano & Wolfe, 2019).
Practices for Enhancing Autonomy
The research around motivation and creating intrinsically motivated learners requires an environment
where best practices are implemented (Chan et al. 2014; De Laet et al., 2015; Goldman et al., 2018). And
while children’s school motivation is impacted by their home lives, based on findings from both Deci et
al. (1991) and Raftery-Helmer and Grolnick (2018), there are ways that teachers can create ample
opportunities for students to engage with school in a manner that leads to lifelong learning. John Dewey,
dating back to 1916, emphasized creating an environment where learners feel supported, rather than
controlled. Dewey stated learners would then have more opportunity to feel comfortable in taking risks,
this would also require the teacher to assume the role of a facilitator, guiding and supporting them
throughout the student's self-selected learning journey (Andreano & Wolfe, 2019). Jacobsen and
Hofmann (1997) further support this in their findings of children feeling more secure in themselves when
they are taken seriously and responded to in a sensitive manner versus children who feel ignored or
rejected. Many scholars have stressed how developing autonomy is no easy feat and should be taught
using proven strategies (Admiraal et al., 2019; Chan et al. 2014, Wehmeyer et al., 2017). Chan et al.
(2014) offers the following advice for what a supportive classroom would look like:
17
• Learning targets, written in student-friendly language posted in the classroom
• Student goals (individual and class wide) and progress charts posted around the room
• Students actively engaged in lessons that are clearly focused on the learning targets
• Students self-assessing their work using rubrics, checklists, and self-monitoring forms
• Students giving each other effective feedback and serving as resources to each other
• Students recruiting feedback from teachers and peers
• Teachers sharing examples of strong student work so that students are clear about what quality
work looks like
• Students who are becoming self-reliant learners by knowing what they need to do next to advance
their learning (p. 111-112).
Scholars, including Ryan and Deci (2000b), Schuitema et al. (2016), and Wehmeyer (2017), explain
when students know what is expected of them, they feel more confident to take risks. This support aligns
to relatedness as expressed in self-determination theory, which states by allowing students to guide their
own learning path, or offering choice in their learning, autonomy would be increased (Leptokaridou et al.,
2016; Schuitema et al., 2016; Wehmeyer et al., 2017). Reeve (2002) noted the difference between
supportive and controlling actions from a teacher:
These teachers used a number of strategies including: avoiding giving directives,
consistently praising mastery, avoiding criticism, giving answers less often, and
responding to student-generated questions and statements with empathy and
perspective taking. Autonomy-supportive teachers are responsive, are flexible, and
motivate through interest. Controlling teachers take charge, shape students toward
a right answer, evaluate, and motivate through pressure. Autonomy-supportive
classrooms are learning communities in which students have meaningful roles in
setting classroom rules, feel safe to explore and take risks, are supported to solve
18
problems and set personal goals, and are responsible for monitoring and
evaluating their progress (as cited in Wehmeyer et al., 2017, p. 296).
Admiraal et al.'s (2019) study highlighted why these strategies are important for educators to be
aware of as often times they believe they are giving more autonomous opportunities than what their
students’ perceive. Their findings noted that, “teachers and their students differed strongly about the
extent to which attention is paid to the six aspects of autonomy: teachers were much more positive about
what they do in the classroom to support their students’ autonomy compared to students’ feeling of
autonomy in class” (p.7). The results from the study, along with the six aspects can be seen in Table 2.5.
Table 2.5
Teachers and students’ perceptions of autonomy in the Netherlands
(Note. This table displays teachers and students perceived autonomy scale. Adapted from "Perceived
autonomy support in primary education in the Netherlands: Differences between teachers and their
students", by Admiraal et al., 2019, World Journal of Education, 9, p. 6. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1222890 Copyright 2019)
Teacher Preparation: Campus Teaching
Once undergraduates decide to enroll in the teacher preparation program through their university,
they typically follow a program that consists of campus courses followed by a mentorship
(Christophersen et al., 2016; Goldhaber, 2019). Christophersen et al. expresses a challenge between
integrating these two aspects of the degree program, stating there seems to be a disconnect once
prospective teachers are placed into actual classrooms. Goldhaber discusses the growing body of evidence
around where teachers earned their credentials, with regard to the institution’s framework of coursework
19
and mentorship, and the influence this has on their student's achievement. This is why Bryk, Harding and
Greenberg (2012) emphasized the responsibility universities have in training their future graduates to be
able to use curriculum and instructional strategies well. Brown, Morehead and Smith (2008) also
discussed that it is no secret the burdens that are placed on new teachers, and therefore, campus courses
need to prepare educators for this. Christophersen et al. (2016) concluded if teachers are better prepared,
there is likely to be less turnover in the profession.
By developing a preservice program that prepares our educators to teach in a way that aligns with
the new 21st Century demands, teachers will feel less overwhelmed and students would benefit
(Goldhaber, 2019). To do this Bryk, Harding and Greenberg (2012) suggest being more strategic with
placement of teacher's and having colleges develop partnerships with surrounding districts. By partnering
with districts, Bryk, Harding and Greenberg state that preservice teachers are able to learn the specific
curriculum, data measures, and interventions that are usually left to be learned post hire. Rust and Bergey
(2014) offer a similar example of this in preservice teachers then being able to better understand the
neighborhood and can engage right away with their students. This is supported by Christophersen et al.'s
(2016) study which found when preservice teachers found their campus courses to be relevant to their
student teaching experience, their affective commitment to the profession was strengthened. In Guan’s
(2021) study, student teachers were placed with an in-service teacher, and together, were part of action
research where they discussed completing research collaboratively, involving problem-finding, data
collection, data analysis and tools for data collection (p.77). The results from their research showed that
both the pre-service and in-service teachers benefited from this partnership where they needed to reflect
on their teaching practices for the benefit of their student’s learning.
Bryk, Harding and Greenberg (2012) suggested the need for campus courses to focus on three
areas: (1) specific pedagogical content knowledge of the content to be taught, (2) the academic and
cultural backgrounds of the students who comprise the particular classroom assignment; and (3) an
understanding of how best to use the specific instructional resources (p.101). This is what Rust and
Bergey (2014) describe as, "learning to teach" (p.65). However, Rust and Bergey emphasize a need for
20
assessment inquiry, where prospective teachers create a portfolio to document their learning and use it as
a reflective tool for growth. Bryk (2015) emphasized how especially important this was for today's
teachers as the expectations are far greater than they have been in the past, where teachers are expected to
have their students learn to much deeper levels than ever before (p.470).
Teacher Preparation: Mentorship
The final stage for prospective teachers is the mentorship, or student teaching. Christophersen et
al. (2016) found in their research this placement has a larger influence on teacher's turnover intention than
does campus courses. If society cannot mentor their incoming teachers well, then this will be a waste of
valuable resources, according to Christophersen et al. This is why Brown, Morehead and Smith (2008)
argued for developing a better mentorship program, as this is the place that preservice teachers seem to
develop much of their image of what teaching is (p. 170). Goldhaber (2019) suggested preservice teachers
spend time in the schools they are to be hired in, as this would enable them to be more familiar and
comfortable once they obtain their own classroom.
Both Christophersen et al. (2016) and Bryk, Harding and Greenberg (2012) discussed how there
is not enough training for the mentors that are taking on this important role. Mentors need to be offering
feedback that is rooted in theory as well as offer emotional support, guidance, dialogue, and, most
importantly, insight on classroom management (Christophersen et al., p. 282). It is important that the
mentor is offering specific feedback, tailored to the prospective teacher's content, if they are going to be
prepared to lead their own class (Bryk, Harding & Greenberg).
Both Guan (2021) and Wexler (2020) made the argument for facilitating the mentors and not just
the mentor teachers. Guan’s study was a dual partnership where both the student teacher and in-service
teacher completed action-research together. By doing this, both the novice and veteran teacher were able
to refine and update their practice, as they were gathering the latest research on effective teaching; this
gave them confidence to take risks and try new modes. In Wexler’s study, the mentors underwent
professional development while they had a student teacher in their service. The mentors were to watch
and listen to sample mentoring conversations during study groups. Doing so allowed these tenured
21
teachers to be provided sound training on how best to lead their pre-service educators in both how they
handled the teaching as well as the follow up reflective conversations. Wexler went on to follow the pre-
service teachers into their first-year experience, with their own classroom, it was found these teachers
applied much of what they learned during their student teaching experience. Both Wexler and Darling-
Hammond, Hyler, and Gardner (2017) suggested the use of recording teacher lessons to use as a tool for
reflection and future planning. When teachers followed through, guided by the intent to improve their
craft, a link to improved student performance was found.
School Culture
The literature asserts once prospective teachers are hired; the learning must not stop. It seems as
if most educators, both veteran and novice alike, are becoming knowledgeable about 21st century
teaching practices through either professional development, or by taking it upon themselves to learn
through other sources (Ayscue & Siegel-Hawley, 2019; Christophersen et al, 2016; Huberman et al.,
2011). Bryk (2015) discusses the challenge this is for some new educators, with it being quite daunting
being confronted by "a professional knowledge explosion" (p. 470). Due to this demand, both Ayscue and
Siegel-Hawley (2019) and Huberman et al. (2011) agree that most successful professional development's
incorporate time to collaborate with other educators, time to reflect on the teaching, as well as time to
observe other educator's practice. Clayton and Kilbane (2016), Darling-Hammond, Hyler and Gardner
(2017) and Naeghel et al. (2016) all found in their research that when professional development is only
focused on the content, without a reflective component after applying models to the teacher's own lessons,
there were fewer gains on the student's achievements.
Hargreaves and Elhawary (2019) took an approach in their research where teacher learning teams
were utilized. Senior teachers were in charge of leading professional development for other staff. Each
month these leaders would meet and reflect on how the professional development was going. These
teachers were also observed to see how their innovation was carried out in the classroom. This particular
study showed how when there is continual support and structure set up for reflection and fine-tuning of
teaching modes, there can be success for both novice and senior teachers alike. Naeghel et al. (2016)
22
found a similar result when teachers were able to apply their new learning immediately for their inquiry
teaching of reading; they noted that "teachers are more likely to value, adopt, and implement a motivating
teaching style when they have participated in a similarly-modeled teacher workshop" (p.237).
Clayton and Kilbane (2016), Koh, Chai and Lim (2017), and Naeghel et al. (2016) all found that when
professional development was carried out simultaneously with implementation teacher's confidence grew,
having a greater impact on student outcomes. Koh, Chai and Lim (2017) go on to explain how teacher's
need a voice in their lessons, so they can take ownership and see its effects (this can be seen in Figure 2.1
below). Koh, Chai and Lim do this through the use of rubrics, as a way to structure the teacher
collaboration and hold accountability. These rubrics are assessed during designated times for teachers to
collaborate and redesign their lessons ensuring they are student-centered and uphold 21st Century
learnings.
Figure 2.1
Effects of Professional Development and Student Outcomes
(Note. From "Teacher Professional Development for TPACK-21CL: Effects on Teacher ICT Integration
and Student Outcomes," by J.H. Koh, C.S. Chai, and W.Y. Lim, 2017, Journal of Educational Computing
Research, (55)2, p. 177 https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116656848)
Ayscue and Siegel-Hawley (2019) found in their research of effective schools, the top indicators
were educators' commitment to curriculum and project-based learning was of great importance. From the
literature reviewed, it was highlighted how these types of implementations are time consuming and not
23
found in a ready-made curriculum, which has left many educators feeling as if they need to recreate the
wheel (Ayscue & Siegel-Hawley; Bryk, Harding & Greenberg, 2012; Koh, Chai & Lim, 2017).
Huberman et al. (2011) determined schools that previously were labeled as failing, then turned around
had common themes: (1) instructional strategies focused on student subgroups, (2) an emphasis on
teacher collaboration, (3) strong instructional leadership, (4) regular use of assessments and data analysis,
(5) increased parent involvement, (6) guidance and support provided by the district, and (7) use of student
engagement strategies (p. 11). Turnaround schools also implemented instructional approaches of project-
based learning or inquiry-based learning (Ayscue & Siegel-Hawley, 2019). And yet, from Ayscue and
Siegel-Hawley's (2019) research it seems like the schools that are most routinely flagged as failing are
those that are high-poverty, high-minority and fail to implement these types of strategies; they defer to
rote memorization over social constructionism. Across the education system, though, Bryk, Harding and
Greenberg (2012) state, "pretty much every classroom that I go into is nowhere where I think it needs to
be. I actually don't think we're even close to what we need to be doing to get people ready for these sorts
of intellectual demands" (p. 97).
Effective Teaching
From the literature reviewed, the definition of an effective teacher remains subjective; however,
there were some commonalities of qualities that constitute one. These are: belief in student's capabilities,
personal commitments of time and effort to advance student learning, basic practices around the
organization and management of classroom activities, routines for promoting student engagement, and
norms about classroom work (Bryk, Harding & Greenberg, 2012, p. 90; Brown, Morehead & Smith,
2008). In addition to those listed, Brown, Morehead and Smith also listed professionalism in their
findings. The ability to measure these qualities is where it was more difficult, and most districts measure
their educators, in some capacity, based on standardized tests. Doing so has been seen to have the effect
of dumbing down teaching in the effort to "teach to a test" (Bryk, Harding & Greenberg, p. 99). Bryk
(2015) even went so far as to say there could be a real problem of encouraging the scripted lesson, in an
effort to make lessons the same across contexts (p. 473).
24
Additionally, Bryk (2015) describes effective teachers as those that can manage heterogeneous
classrooms. He goes on to emphasize how today's classrooms are filled with students from various
backgrounds and are coming with a far larger range of skills than ever before, leaving the teacher to
manage more than in the past. This is why Christophersen et al. (2016), Bryk (2015), and Bryk, Harding
and Greenberg (2019) all mention the effects of ill prepared teachers and the link to retention, especially
in hard to staff contexts. In Brown, Morehead and Smith's (2008) research of prospective teachers'
thoughts on what makes a teacher effective, most stated a student-centered environment. Even so,
subjects were unprepared for how to actually implement these strategies, leaving them without the tools to
best make their students successful. Both Christophersen et al. and Pourshafie and Murray-Harvey (2013)
suggest if there was a better connection between campus learning for prospective teachers and the
instructional approaches that are best for students, there would not be such a learning curve.
Some of the practices that would enhance student autonomy were described in Baranek's (1996) thesis,
who cited Alfie Kohn's (1993) work. The practices were:
What they learn:
• The students choose the next trade book the class will read out of five choices.
• After brainstorming, the class chooses which area of a topic to study further.
• Within a required unit, the class picks one other related topic or problem to study.
• Begin units by letting children talk about their knowledge of a topic, using their comments to
structure lessons.
• Have students help design classroom tasks and learning centers.
How they learn:
• Let students choose groupings: along, partners, groups, whole class.
• Let students decide where they will work: desk, table, computer, floor.
• Students decide how to present work: reading aloud, written format.
25
• Include a block of time during the day when students choose how to spend time: homework,
reading a library book, art project, computer.
• Let students choose how to respond to a lesson: poem, essay, collage, painting.
• Give students some control over the difficulty of a task.
How well they learn:
• Give students a choice in which questions to answer on a test.
• Let students help choose the criteria by which work will be judged: what makes a story
interesting, what makes an argument convincing, what makes a paragraph complete. Design a
rubric together.
• Evaluated work two times: once by the teacher, and once by the student.
• Students help decide what should be covered on a test, or when a test should be given. This
allows the students to judge curriculum for importance.
Why students learn:
• Demonstrate why the skills covered are important. Discuss, brainstorm, list, read, and write about
the purpose of school.
• Use graphic organizers to show students the connections between sub-skills and larger concepts,
and to the real world.
• Use arguments for what is and is not important to learn in school as a basis for working on
speaking skills, writing skills, and listening skills.
• Invite people representing different professions to speak to students about the skills they need on
the job (pgs. 23-24).
These types of practices increase intrinsic motivation, as well as student engagement, which is
supported by Ryan and Deci's (1985) self-determination theory. Using autonomy practices was found, in
Diseth and Samdal's (2013) research to be positively correlated to achievement goals in secondary
students. This was also shown in the general field in work done by Broussard and Garrison (2004), Cock
26
and Halvari (1999), Guay and Bureau (2018), and Spinath et al. (2006). Knowing these practices are
effective, it is troubling why so many educators rely on practices which reduce intrinsic motivation,
especially through the use of rewards and punishment. According to Clayton and Kilbane (2016)
educators perceive themselves to understand inquiry and how to implement it; however, their results
showed that even after much professional development, teachers’ ability to implement inquiry in the
classroom remained novice at best throughout the first year, with many educators tending to fall back into
a didactic teaching approach (2016).
Garte (2017) examined progressive education, namely where student autonomy was a focus and
students were in learning environments where they had ample intrinsic motivations. It was found that
schools serving our poorest students had the least progressive supports. Rather, there was a heavy
emphasis on intensive drill-based instruction, and the instruction was all teacher directed. Matera (2009)
also found that a heavy reliance on external rewards led to an increase in motivation only acutely and
once the reward was obtained, behavior would actually worsen. This is why, if the purpose of education is
deep, life-long learning, it is necessary to prepare educators in educational practices that are conducive to
such learning. Ayscue and Siegel-Hawley (2019) focused their research by observing schools which were
labeled failing and went through as successful turnaround process. It was found these schools’ principals
removed these unsuccessful practices, and instead, focused on community building and developing
responsible, intrinsically motivated students.
Learning Environment
Bryk (2015), Bryk, Harding and Greenberg (2012) and Garte (2017) all outline the learning
environment, where students are spending their time in the learning process, is crucial to attaining high
achievement and deep learning; without this, students will continue to be unprepared for what lays ahead
in the workforce and the achievement gap will widen between the rich and poor and Black and White
students. With the growing demand of 21st Century skills and deeper learning than ever before, there
seems it is no surprise that how teachers lead their learning spaces can have a tremendous impact on the
outcomes of their students (Bryk, Harding & Greenberg). To achieve this, Huberman et al. (2011)
27
suggested using Explicit Direct Instruction (EDI) which focuses on: (a) instructional grouping (flexible
groups rather than "tracking") (b) instructional time (increasing academic learning time) and (c)
continuous assessment (providing ongoing, in-classroom assessment to inform instructional practice
(p.15). Huberman et al. go on to explain this means more work needs to be put on the student through
accountable talk and less didactic teaching. Similarly, Koh, Chai and Lim (2017) assert that students need
various dimensions in a learning environment were the "Authentic dimension emphasizes the need to
situate learning in real-world tasks, cases, or problems where learning can be applied. Their intentional
dimension emphasizes students' self-management of learning, while their cooperative dimension
articulates the need for social engagement and interdependency among students during learning" (p.177).
Finally, Pourshafie and Murray-Harvey (2013) found in their research the necessity of educators having
the ability to hold back and create space so that their students can direct their own learning (p. 177).
Ayscue and Siegel-Hawley (2019) chronicle how these types of learning environments can be
seen in many classrooms; however, where it was most promising was in schools that were labeled as
"turnaround". Their research asserted when project-based learning was implemented in schools where
students seemed to struggle the most, those same students had the most gains, presumably because they
were more engaged in their learning (Ayscue & Siegel-Hawley, 2019). In this environment, Pourshafie
and Murray-Harvey (2013) described the teacher as a facilitator where they have both the knowledge of
the content and process, but their role was to guide students after modeling problem solving strategies.
This is similar to the Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR) model that Huberman et al. (2011)
researched involving four components: (1) demonstration by the teacher, (2) shared demonstration with
moderate teacher support; (3) guided practice with low teacher support; and (4) independent practice with
little to no teacher support (p. 15). Garte (2017) necessitates how direction in the early learning stages is
instrumental in making sure students do not get lost, however. Pourshafie and Murray-Harvey argue that
maintaining these learning environments takes commitment as well as the educator to view their students
as "competent, capable co-constructors with a learning community" (p. 175).
28
According to Matera (2009), one way to increase this mindset, as well as to shift the students' role
in the classroom, was by developing a strong classroom community. Matera (2009) explained how
developing a strong community would promote and increase cooperation among students. Naeghel et al.
(2016) adds that there are seven strategies that could be used to provide autonomy support: (a) dedicating
time to listen to students, (b) dedicating time for student talk, (c) asking what students want, (d) taking
student’s perspectives, (e) providing students time to work in their own way, (f) providing choices, and
(g) offering a rationale (p.237). They found that when these strategies were implemented there was
significant progress in students’ recreational autonomous reading motivation. It should be noted that to
carry these types of strategies out, teachers needed consistent professional development.
Gaps in the Literature
From the literature reviewed, some gaps have been highlighted that require further study. A
prominent one is that most research done in regard to self-determination theory and autonomy in
education is centered around questionnaire studies, leaving much to be inferred in terms of what
autonomy resembles in practice. While both Chan et al. (2014) and Wehmeyer et al. (2017) offer
suggestions to educators on how to enhance autonomy in the classroom environment, their articles do not
include a study around the effectiveness or whether it increases engagement, and thus achievement.
Looking at the studies which used longitudinal data to garner their findings (De Laet et al., 2015;
Gillet et al., 2012; Leptokaridou et al., 2016; Mouratidis and Michou, 2011; and Schuitema et al.,2016), a
gap is evident in that none of them occur within the United States educational system, meaning they are
not using the same Common Core Standards. Further, only Gillet et al. (2012) and Schuitema et al. (2016)
looked at autonomy support within the general education classroom; however, Gillet et al.’s findings are
the only ones that offered insight into the upper elementary level, specifically using longitudinal data.
This provides room for further studies to be conducted in the United States, using the Common Core
Standards, highlighting this particular student demographic.
Finally, from the literature reviewed, there seemed to be a common trend that upper elementary
students see a dip in their intrinsic motivation, after leaving primary school at the end of third grade. This
29
dip, according to Gillet et al.’s (2012) longitudinal study revealed that intrinsic motivation increased again
in high school. Similar findings were shown in Leptokaridou et al.’s (2016) study highlighting how many
students started with similar levels of motivation in 5th grade physical education class, but as the school
year progressed, there were significant differences between the control and experimental group, where the
experimental group maintained their motivation. These studies suggested a place for further research to
ascertain why the upper elementary demographic is displaying this dip in intrinsic motivation as it relates
to the self-determination theory.
From the literature reviewed in the special field, there were some commonalities. Among the
studies focusing on a learning environment and tailoring lessons to a 21st Century scope, they were rather
small scale. Either only going through one design phase of reworking lessons in Koh, Chai, and Lim's
(2017) study, having only one school represented in Matera's (2009), or a small research group in Hart’s
(2017), Houghton's (2015), Hargreaves and Elhawary (2019) and Guan’s (2021) studies. Allowing for a
larger sample size would provide deeper insight into the effects of enhancing practices to fit new learning
targets.
In both Christophersen et al. (2016) and Brown, Morehead and Smith's (2008) work it was noted
that more research was needed to understand the type of mentoring needed for mentors themselves, as
well as proper teaching styles to be implemented by university instructors. Bryk et al. (2015) suggested
this as well, suggesting more information being gathered on what makes teacher preparation programs
most beneficial for prospective teachers and the end result on their future students. This was also brought
up when looking at professional development design in Guan’s (2021) and Clayton and Kilbane’s (2016)
research with action research. Looking at these, there is room for work to be done to gather what
comprises both quality teacher programs and professional developments and how these impact teaching
practices.
Conclusion
While there is minimal research at the upper elementary level, especially in the United States,
what has been found is that students who are offered more autonomy have shown greater achievement,
30
critical thinking, as well as more enjoyment in school (Hofferber et al., 2014; Schuitema et al, 2016;
Vecchione et al., 2014). If students are being held to higher expectations, through the Common Core State
Standards, and these standards are not going away anytime soon, then teachers must change their
pedagogy to make sure their learners are being given the best opportunity to succeed. By increasing
autonomy in a supportive way, students would have the ability to practice their independence and develop
deeper learning (Finnan, 2009; Gillet et al., 2012; Hofferber et al., 2014; Leptokaridou et al., 2016).
In conclusion, building a stronger foundation in both teacher preparation programs as well as
stronger professional developments for practicing teachers will have significant effects on student
achievement. Additionally, ensuring mentor teachers are providing support in ways which will be carried
into the novice teacher's future classrooms will make certain that teachers are confident and the entire the
profession ready. Bryk (2015) states there are, "two central features of schools as organizations: the
complexity of the work we now ask educators to understand and, in close tandem with this, the wide
variability in performance that regularly results" (p. 469). Knowing this, there is a place for research to be
carried out on how to enhance both novice and tenured teachers alike, to better align with 21st Century
practices.
31
Chapter Three: Theory and Methodology
This chapter outlines the key concepts related to the development of autonomy through the
implementation of 21st century practices, specifically in the upper elementary classroom. Many theories
can be associated with autonomy, however, for the case of this study, self-determination theory will be
forefront, with its subtheory of cognitive evaluation theory. Next, there will be an overview of the current
taxonomies that are being utilized to shape classrooms. Finally, the chapter will explain the research
design, data collection, procedures and data analysis for this study.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to ascertain how Illinois teachers instill 21st century practices
within their classroom, thus preparing their students to be 21st century learners. This skill set is necessary
to be college and career ready, according to the Common Core State Standards, which are the standards
for learning across the state of Illinois. Currently, limited research is available as to what is hindering
teachers from implementing these practices for the duration of the school year. Both teacher preparation
programs and professional developments provide education to teachers on the importance of including
these skills in teaching practices. However, it seems that once educators are within their classrooms many
of these practices fall by the wayside, reverting back to more didactic modes of teaching, especially as the
school year goes on.
The aims of this study were to find out, specifically, what could be improved ways of mentoring
educators so these practices are here to stay. Additionally, this study focused on the specific demographic
of upper elementary students (grades 4th – 6th) as these are the years where intrinsic motivation appears
to wane the most. These particular years of schooling are critical as students are no longer learning to
read, but rather, reading to learn (Finnan, 2009; Mah & Ford-Jones, 2012). If there is a lack of motivation
to do so, academic struggles become ever more apparent. These reasons further support why educators of
this level have the even more important job of enhancing autonomy practices, in the form of 21st century
skills, leading to increased intrinsic motivation.
32
Research Questions
Main Research Question
To what degree do Illinois teachers implement 21st century practices within the upper elementary
classroom?
Supporting Research Questions
1. What is the perception from teachers regarding autonomy practices in the 21st century upper
elementary classroom?
2. In what ways are teachers being supported (by administration, curricular innovations, continued
education courses, professional developments) in meeting the needs of 21st Century learners?
Hypothesis: If upper elementary teachers are better supported through effective, research-based
implementations of autonomous practices for their students, then 21st century skills will be deepened, and
thus, students will be prepared for the requirement of the Common Core State Standards.
Theory
As stated in the literature review, learners who are supported in an environment where their
intrinsic motivations are amplified have more interest, excitement, and confidence. On the other hand, a
reliance on external motivators results in less persistence, creativity, and performance (Ryan & Deci,
2000). To create the environments necessary to support intrinsic motivation, educators need to be
supported through best practices. Therefore, this study aimed to learn the depth of knowledge educators
have on best practices, whether they felt supported on carrying out autonomous practices, as well as
ascertaining what practices were being utilized to educate teachers on these methods.
The literature review indicated a gap in the research on how practices are carried out, especially
in the upper elementary grades. It is known that there are certain conditions necessary to increase intrinsic
motivation within the classroom, as shown through Ryan and Deci’s work (2000). However, there is less
information on whether teachers carry these out with fidelity, if they feel confident on carrying these out,
and what is responsible for either enhancing or hindering these practices in today’s classrooms. Increasing
motivation is something all educators strive for, as stated by Ryan and Deci (2000), “Perhaps more
33
important, in the real world, motivation is highly valued because of its consequences: Motivation
produces” (p.69).
Self-Determination Theory
Being self-determined means a person makes things happen in their own life, rather than having
outside influences (Wehmeyer et al, 2017). This is important in education as deep learning necessitates
learners to make connections and find meaning. When one creates meaning they are then able to perform
to higher levels on Bloom’s Taxonomy, where students showcase their understanding. This can be seen in
Figure 3.1 below and will be further related to teaching in practice in the next section.
Figure 3.1
Bloom’s Taxonomy
(Note. From “Bloom’s Taxonomy,” by P. Armstrong, 2010, Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching.
Retrieved from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/)
Ryan and Deci (2000a) explain that in order for a student’s intrinsic motivations to be fully cared
for, learners must be supported in three main psychological needs: competence, relatedness, and
autonomy (p.76). As noted in their earlier research, Deci et al. (1991) describe ideal school systems as
ones that “succeed in promoting in students a genuine enthusiasm for learning and accomplishment and a
sense of volitional involvement in the educational enterprise” (p.325).
According to self-determination theory, not all environments are equal in developing self-
motivation in students. Heavy emphasis should be placed on fostering self-motivation as it has been
found to lead to the highest educational outcomes, namely intrinsic motivation. Ryan and Deci (2000a)
describe intrinsic motivation as, “the inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and
exercise one's capacities, to explore, and to learn” (p.70). They go on to note, “Yet, despite the fact that
34
humans are liberally endowed with intrinsic motivational tendencies, the evidence is now clear that the
maintenance and enhancement of this inherent propensity requires supportive conditions, as it can be
fairly readily disrupted by various nonsupportive conditions” (p. 70).
Based on the research, it is already known what enhances and hinders these developments, what I
am interested in learning is why teachers stop using these practices throughout the school year. What
factors are preventing educators from carrying these practices out fully? Niemiec and Ryan (2009) discuss
how in order for teachers to facilitate autonomous learning within the classroom, they also need to be
supported and feel they have autonomy in their decision making. When outside factors (such as
curriculum demands, pressures to perform on standardized tests, or when they felt pressure from those
above them) limit their feelings of autonomy, educators often resort to a heavier reliance on extrinsically
focused strategies (Bryk, 2015, Goldman et al., 2018; Ryan 2009). Additionally, Kamil (2016) asserts that
although the Common Core places an emphasis on conceptual learning, the standards themselves define
what a student is expected to know, but does not address how teachers should address this in their lessons.
Even so, in Polikoff and Porter’s 2014 study, it was found that the alignment of teacher’s instruction with
the state standards and/or assessments and students’ achievement on state assessment were very weak
(Lee & Wu, 2017). This leaves room for research as to why this is occurring.
Because of the need for teachers to meet certain standards within the Common Core, it is
necessary for teachers to occasionally use external motivators in an effort to increase a student’s
enjoyment within their learning (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). This is also true in the case of following standards
within a curriculum, with some aspects needing to be understood before one can move on. For example,
knowing the times table, or the meaning of word parts (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009; Reeves, 2002). However,
not all external motivations are equal. As seen in Figure 3.2, there are four types of external regulation,
with the least autonomous on the left.
35
Figure 3.2
The Internalization Continuum Depicting the Various Types of Extrinsic Motivation Posited Within Self-
Determination Theory
(Note. From “Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness in the Classroom: Applying Self-Determination
Theory to Educational Practice,” by C.P. Niemiec, and R.M. Ryan, 2009 Theory and Research in
Education, 7(2), p.137).
This continuum displays the path of how outside influences are seen as either external (rewards
and punishments) or internal (relates to learning) by the learner. Understanding the types of autonomy,
and how it can be applied to the educational setting, will thus lead to the development of 21st century
learning. Koh, Chai and Lim (2017) elaborate, “21st century learning is characterized by experiences that
allow students to develop social skills for collaboration, conflict resolution, and multicultural
communication; cognitive skills to engage in critical thinking for innovation and complex problem
solving; metacognitive skills to engage in self-reflection and self-learning; productivity skills to organize
work effectively and efficiently; and technological skills” (p.174). Reeves (2002) suggested that teachers
strive towards integrated regulation defining it as, “The student accepts the merits of a belief or behavior
because he or she sees its importance or personal utility (“I’ll read this book, because learning what it has
to say will get me one step closer to an important goal of mine.”)” (p.196). With a teacher’s commitment
and understanding to the importance of motivational types, as well as how they can be enhanced, will
impact the ability to which a student will develop these skills for themselves.
36
Cognitive Evaluation Theory
A subtheory of self-determination theory is the cognitive evaluation theory (CET) which was
developed to explain the variability of intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). For the sake of this
study, the three modes of support are described to showcase how it aligns to the development of intrinsic
motivation and the research questions mentioned earlier, with autonomy being the primary focus.
Competence
Deci et al. (1991) describe competence as a person’s ability to know how to achieve outcomes.
Ryan (1982) found that when environmental factors enhanced feelings of competence, the subject’s
intrinsic motivation increased. The opposite was also true, for when the environmental event diminished
their competence, so did their levels of intrinsic motivation (p. 450). From the student’s perspective,
competence can be defined as whether they feel they are “good at school.” In their work, Early, Rogge,
and Deci (2014) were able to support that even if the instruction was not at the highest quality, a student’s
competence is a key component of how much they learn. To enhance competence, Wehmeyer et al.
(2017) suggests that learners need to interact, manipulate and negotiate their environment.
Relatedness
When external motivations must be used within the classroom, for instance when a student might
not be interested in the topic, the component of relatedness allows for the motivation to still be
internalized. Relatedness is the development of a sense of belonging and connectedness to a person,
group, or culture (Ryan & Deci, 2000a, p. 64). By forming an interest in the student, and learning about
their interests, while making them feel safe within the classroom to take risks and ask questions, students’
relatedness strengthens (Wehmeyer et al., 2017; Yu et al., 2018). In practice, building a strong sense of
community both within a classroom and across a school will inevitably increase relatedness.
Autonomy
Having an understanding of the categories that fall under cognitive evaluation theory is necessary
for effective implementation. However, for the purposes of this study, autonomy was the main focus; how
it was enhanced, or hindered, within the learning environment. Ryan and Deci (2000a) define autonomy
37
as “the feeling of volition that can accompany any act, whether dependent or independent, collectivist or
individualist” (p.74). In their other work, Ryan and Deci (2000b) describe autonomy in the context of
cognitive evaluation theory emphasizing that without a sense of autonomy, feelings of competence will
not be increased. Due to this, an autonomy-supportive environment is critical if students are to develop
according to self-determination theory. Findings suggested that perceptions of constraints in the
educator’s workplace negatively predicted teachers’ autonomy support (Yu et al., 2018). Deci and Ryan
(1985) explained the use of informational environments to develop autonomy. These are ones that allow
choice, in addition to feedback. Providing both of these is useful to the learner as they attempt to interact
effectively with the environment (p. 96).
Practices to enhance autonomy:
• Choice
• Acknowledgement of feelings
• Opportunities for self-directions
• Positive competence feedback; self-feedback
• Lack of external rewards and punishments (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Deci et al., 1991; Ryan & Deci,
2000a)
However, even knowing the practices that enhance autonomy, it appears from various studies that
teachers believe they offer more autonomy supports than students perceive. In the study conducted by
Admiraal et al. (2019) of fourth and fifth graders, students indicated significantly lower scores than their
teachers on all aspects of autonomy. This is similar to the study done by Clayton and Kilbane (2016), as
mentioned in the special field, where educators perceived their innovative practices to be much higher
than what was actually implemented, additionally, these practices decreased throughout the school year.
From Reeve’s (2002) study with pre-service teachers, it was found educators can learn to be more
autonomy supportive to their students, if they are not control-oriented. However, if educators come into
an environment where they have pre-existing beliefs, or are resistant to change, they will remain
38
controlling. Huberman et al.’s (2011) study of turnaround schools found similar results, with the largest
barrier in updating teaching practices in a school being reluctant teachers. Even so, in Huberman et al.’s
study (2011), it is worthy to note that when a coach was guiding educators throughout the process, over a
sustained amount of time, a significant amount of development in teaching practices were shown. This
was also found to be the case in Hargreaves and Elhawary’s (2019) study where there was a coaching
relationship developed to enhance teaching practices.
Bloom’s Taxonomy Revisited
As mentioned earlier, Bloom’s Taxonomy is a familiar way that educators and content writers use
to gauge the level of thinking that is required on an educational task. The taxonomy was first presented in
1956 by Benjamin Bloom. The basis of the framework was to develop a classification system for thinking
that was believed to impact learning. Three domains were identified: the cognitive (knowledge, consisting
of six levels), the affective (attitudinal, consisting of five levels) and the psychomotor (skills, consisting
of six levels) (Forehand, 2010). The resulting purpose of the taxonomy was for teachers to classify their
lessons according to objectives and rate the level of thinking required. It is also assumed that as a student
moves up the hierarchy scale, they have mastered the lower levels (Bloom et al., 1956; Forehand, 2010).
This taxonomy was updated in 2001, by Bloom’s student, Lorin Anderson, where the six major
cognitive processes were revised from nouns to actionable verbs (this can be seen in Figure 3.3). The
reason for this was to add relevance to 21st century students and teachers (Forehand, 2010). Forehand
(2010) argues that using the taxonomy relates to 21st century skills in that:
Today’s teachers must make tough decisions about how to spend their classroom time.
Clear alignment of educational objectives with local, state, and national standards is a
necessity. Like pieces of a huge puzzle, everything must fit properly. The revised
Bloom’s Taxonomy table clarifies the fit of each lesson plan’s purpose, “essential
question,” goal or objective (Forehand, 2010, p.44).
Using this structure, which has lasted over 60 years, is a way for there to be a common language
among educators and content writers to determine what their students know and need to know.
39
Figure 3.3
Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy from 1956-2001
(Note. From “Moving Up Bloom’s Taxonomy,” by D. Cochran, 2021, Creative Educator.
https://creativeeducator.tech4learning.com/v02/articles/The_New_Blooms).
This updated taxonomy, Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) explain, offers a two-dimensional
approach incorporating both cognitive processes and knowledge. The cognitive processes are: Remember,
Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, and Create. While the knowledge dimension encompasses:
Factual, Conceptual, Procedural, and Metacognitive. The purpose of the levels are that once an objective
has been labeled, teachers can then identify the ways to enable their students to master said objective
(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). This is important as the Common Core Standards are considered to be
more rigorous than previous expectations (Polikoff, 2017); however, it appears that not all districts are
curriculum aligned with these new expectations (Rentner, 2013). As part of the process of preparing
students to be college and career ready (as outlined in Common Core), teachers need to be informed of
best practices, with Bloom’s Taxonomy being one mode of development. Bloom’s Taxonomy is the way
in which teachers organize their lessons, whereas Webb’s Depth of Knowledge was created to assess how
students demonstrate their understanding of objectives.
40
Webb’s Depth of Knowledge
Norman Webb’s Depth of Knowledge was created in 1997 as a tool to assess the level of
understanding a student needs to have in order to complete an assessment. While Bloom’s Taxonomy is
applied to the learning standard, and the teaching, Webb’s is used to align learning to an assessment
(Hess, 2006). The framework is organized into four levels and can be used alongside Bloom’s Taxonomy,
as noted in Figure 3.4 for English/language arts and social studies, and Figure 3.5 for math and science.
The levels progress from the low level of general recall of information up to the highest levels, where
students are required to make several connections both within a content area, or even among content areas
(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
41
Figure 3.4
Applying Webb’s DOK Levels to Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives
(Note. From “Exploring Cognitive Demand in Instruction and Assessment,” by K. Hess, 2006, National
Center for Assessment. Retrieved from
https://www.nciea.org/sites/default/files/publications/DOK_ApplyingWebb_KH08.pdf)
42
Figure 3.5
Applying Webb’s DOK Levels to Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives
(Note. From “Exploring Cognitive Demand in Instruction and Assessment,” by K. Hess, 2006, National
Center for Assessment. Retrieved from
https://www.nciea.org/sites/default/files/publications/DOK_ApplyingWebb_KH08.pdf)
43
These levels, according to Boyles (2016), need to be taught to educators more thoroughly, as
these also align with the required standardized tests. By just incorporating projects, where students are
offered choice, does not mean students will be utilizing the high-level skills, such as “creating” and
“evaluating” which are incorporated into the exams. Rather, teachers are required to have a deep
knowledge of each level, in addition to the rigor involved, to be sure their teaching mode aligns (Boyles,
2016). This was also seen in Barber’s (2018) study of two science classrooms, where both classrooms
were focusing on the same topic, however; at the end of the unit only the second classroom’s students
could demonstrate their understanding. The difference between the classrooms, Barber (2018) stated, was
that the second classroom’s lesson design involved high levels of Depth of Knowledge that built a
conceptual understanding.
Conceptual understanding is at the heart of self-determination theory’s autonomy aspects. When
students are able to self-regulate and monitor their thinking and learning, they are able to explain what
they know. By doing this, a students’ higher-level metacognitive processes are being enhanced, which has
been shown to increase motivational and performance effects (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Further when
students understand a topic deeply, they are then able to connect this across contents and topics (Bloom et
al., 1956; Boyles, 2016; Early, Rogge, & Deci, 2014; Hess, 2006), which is required on the updated state
assessments.
Conclusions
Self-determination theory does not exist without some weaknesses. In order to develop another’s
autonomy and motivation, it must be done so in a way that is carefully laid out. Allowing students choice
does not mean that there is a lack of structure, but rather an optimal structure (Reeves, 2002). Reeves
(2002) asserts “training programs do an admirable job of providing instruction in how to control student’s
behavior but a comparatively poor job in providing instructions in how to support students’ autonomy”
(p. 191). It is also clear from the literature that without increasing teacher buy in to these practices, the
work will not be a mainstay. This ties into the study at hand, in that by pinpointing where teachers need
44
more support on autonomous practices, development can be made. An end result is intrinsic motivation in
students will increase, leading to deeper learning.
Methodology Overview
Mixed Methods Design
Although mixed methods have been around for nearly four decades now, it remains the newest
type of research method (Corr et al, 2020, Green, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989). Johnson and Onwuegbu
(2004) refer to this method as the “third wave” or third research movement, as it allows researchers to
move past a single paradigm to answer questions that could not be answered through only quantitative or
qualitative means alone. Researchers elaborate on how mixed methods has the ability to address the
limitations of both methods, to provide answers to various problems (Caruth, 2013). Creswell et al.
(2006) explained how qualitative data can be used to expand on quantitative findings, as will be the case
in the study being presented. In the educational setting, Creswell and Garrett (2008), posit the need for a
tool kit for educational researchers, this toolkit would allow researchers to address “complex,
interdisciplinary research problems” educators and social scientists face (p. 321). They go on to define
mixed methods as research that “involves collecting both quantitative and qualitative data, the merging,
linking, or combing of the two sources of data, and then conducting research as a single study or a
longitudinal project with multiple phases” (p. 326). Teddlie and Tashakkori (2015) similarly characterize
mixed methods as the “mediator between conceptual and methods issues within the field, or as the point
of integration between the two” (p.19).
Even though mixed methods have become increasingly popular, especially since the inception of
the Journal of Mixed Methods Research in 2007, there are still very few research studies published within
the 15 top-ranked journals (Corr et al., 2020). This could be because the research demands the researcher
to be an expert in both approaches (Merterns, 2015), and when studies are not held to a high validity,
either in the conclusions or applications, it becomes indefensible (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006). When
done correctly, mixed methods has the power to offer a new category of answerable questions that applies
to who the researcher is, the answers they are seeking, in varying contexts, and under different conditions
45
(Corr et al, 2020). To ensure a study is carried out with fidelity, Greene et al. (1989) suggests that it
should address and articulate the following: (a) purposes, (b) method, (c) phenomena, (d) paradigm, (e)
status, and (f) implementation (described subsequently) (Corr et al., 2020, p. 2). Johnson and
Onwuegbuzie (2004) also propose that if findings are corroborated across modes, greater confidence can
be given to the study.
Mixed methods research allows the researcher to gather the strength of both quantitative and
qualitative methods, and allow research questions to guide the study. Due to this, the researcher has the
job of deciding in what way those modes will be used. There are three design options, according to
Creswell (2015), to choose from when implementing mixed methods research:
1) Convergent design – collection of both qualitative and quantitative, analysis of both, and
then merge the results with the purpose to compare.
2) Explanatory sequential design - using quantitative methods followed by the use of
qualitative methods to explain the quantitative results in more depth.
3) Exploratory sequential design – first explore a problem with qualitative methods as the
questions may be unknown. After the exploration, the researcher uses the qualitative
findings to build a second quantitative phase (p.6).
Some research goes even further and uses one of Creswell’s (2015) advanced design methods.
There are an additional three:
1) Intervention designs – researchers use a convergent design, an explanatory design, or an
exploratory design within a larger exploratory framework. With this, the researcher
gathers qualitative data at some point in the trial with the intent to embed it within the
framework.
2) Social justice or transformative designs – the researcher includes a social justice
framework that surrounds the convergent, explanatory, or exploratory design.
46
3) Multistage evaluation designs – this is a longitudinal study with the objective being a
sustained line of inquiry.
Researchers of mixed methods must be sure they meaningfully integrate the two methods (Corr et
al., 2020). Taking the time to fully understand the design process, using rigor throughout, and explicitly
describing the key features, mixed methods research can certainly provide insight within the educational
realm (Creswell et al, 2006; Corr et al, 2020).
Quantitative Methods
According to Watkins and Gioia (2015) quantitative research is a method that stems from a
positivism worldview where answers are best sought through numbers and “counting things” (p.5).
Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) also highlight how quantitative purists believe that the observers
should be separate from the subject being observed. The benefit of this mode is that a researcher is able to
gather a large amount of data, with a usually higher sample size than can be done within the qualitative
realm (Bryman, 1984; Creswell & Garrett, 2008; Watkins & Gioia, 2015).
Bryman (1984) explains how quantitative research provides more objectivity on the researcher’s
part, as data is typically collected from a survey that could be replicated in another context; there could be
additional external checks, and typically, they can be carried out quicker. Slife and Williams (1995)
encourage researchers to make every attempt to minimize errors and maximize the response rate. An
overview of the characteristics of quantitative research can be seen in Figure 3.6.
Figure 3.6
Characteristics of Quantitative Research
(Note. From “Mixed Methods Research,” by D.C. Watkins & D. Gioia, Oxford University Press, p.5)
47
Quantitative methods help to test and/or verify a theory, according to Watkins and Gioia (2015),
and answer questions such as “what” and “how many”. In the case of the study at hand, I hoped to garner
the prevalence teachers believe they currently implement 21st century practices and autonomy within
their upper elementary classroom. I gathered data from across the state of Illinois, to see if there were any
themes dependent on the school’s demographics. The quantitative data gave an overview of teachers’
current understandings and practices, which lead to what Watkins and Gioia (2015) described as being
able to identify patterns of behavior. Each of these were an element presented in Watkins and Gioia’s
(2015) table above.
Of course, every method chosen has weaknesses. In the case of quantitative methods there is a
possibility for data to mismatched, there is subjectivity in the questions chosen on a survey, or the survey
chosen itself, additionally the reader is unable to understand the story behind the numbers (Corr et al,
2020; Creswell et al., 2006). Further strengths and weaknesses are presented by Johnson and
Onwuegbuzie (2015) in Figure 3.7 below.
48
Figure 3.7
Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantitative Research
(Note. From “Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come,” by R.B.
Johnson, and A.J. Onwuegbuzie, Educational Researcher, 33(7), p. 19).
Qualitative Methods
While quantitative methods focus on numbers and gathering a wealth of information, qualitative
focuses on forming a narration of the lived experiences of people (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006).
Watkins and Gioia (2015) describe how qualitative data addresses the “why,” “how,” and “under what
circumstances” as related to a problem. Creswell (2013) discussed the need for qualitative research when
a problem or issue needs to be explored. He went on to say how this allows readers to hear silenced
voices. In the study at hand, the silenced voices are the teacher’s themselves, and what their day-to-day
experiences were and how that either enabled them to carry out practices, or what was preventing them.
49
This allowed teacher’s stories to be shared, and their experiences to be empowered, as described by
Creswell (2013).
According to Creswell (2013) there are five types of qualitative methods that could be used with a
given study: narrative research, phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, case study. Each of these
will briefly be defined, for the sake of understanding where this study fit into the research methods
available:
Narrative: The researcher tells the stories and experiences of the subjects they are seeking to
study. These are small scale; in that they only focus on one or two individuals and then the researcher will
gather data through the collection of their stories and then chronologically ordering their experiences.
Phenomenological: The researcher tells the lived experiences of several individuals through a
concept or phenomenon. The researcher will then focus on what all the individuals had in common.
Grounded Theory: The researcher will develop a general explanation of a process, an action, or
an interaction shaped by the views of a large number of participants. All of these participants would have
lived through the same experience.
Ethnography: The researcher will focus on an entire culture-sharing group, with the intent to
describe and interpret the shared and learned patterns of values, behaviors, beliefs and language of the
group.
Case Study: The researcher explores a real-life, contemporary bounded system or multiple
bounded systems over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of
information.
For the study at hand the qualitative component was a phenomenological one. The purpose of this
was educators were interviewed, across districts throughout the state, to see what they had in common,
with the purpose to develop themes. This allowed the researcher to assess the supports educators have in
implementing 21st century practices with fidelity. The results built off of the quantitative study, as those
interviewed also took the survey.
50
Limitations that have plagued qualitative research are that it lacks generalizability, it is subjective
(therefore, researchers have some influence on the findings), and although it can be reduced, there will
always be some form of bias (Watkins & Gioia, 2015). Further limitations are presented by Johnson and
Onwuegbuzie (2015) in Figure 3.8 Below.
Figure 3.8
Strengths and Weaknesses of Qualitative Research
(Note. From “Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come,” by R.B.
Johnson, and A.J. Onwuegbuzie, Educational Researcher, 33(7), p. 20).
Pragmatism
When mixed methods research became more prominent mid 1980s there was much debate among
sciences on its reliability both Green, Caracelli and Graham (1989) and Bryman (1984) state. On the one
hand, there is the positivist approach generally associated with quantitative data. Bryman (1984) and
Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2105) outline this approach on its basis of objectivity, replicability, and
causality. On the other side is the qualitative positivism purists who believe that science involves
confirmation and falsification (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2015), and view events from the outside
(Bryman, 1984).
However, when the two methods are united a theory is certainly there. Creswell and Garrett
(2008) discuss how pragmatism was a philosophical approach that was embraced. This dates back to
51
scholars such as Dewey, Meade, and James, with the underlying focus being on the research question
followed by using different methods to answer it (Creswell & Garrett, 2008; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie,
2015). Merterns (2015) contends how this theory places emphasis on the inclusion of viewpoints and
values, especially marginalized groups, as the driving forces for research. Corr et al. (2020), similar to
Merterns (2015), explains how in the educational setting pragmatism allows for researchers to stay
focused on a shared commitment to asking questions that will be most influential, then choosing the
modes that are most appropriate. Below, in Figure 3.9, are the characteristics of this theory.
Figure 3.9
Characteristics of Pragmatism
(Note. From “Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come,” by R.B.
Johnson, and A.J. Onwuegbuzie, Educational Researcher, 33(7), p. 19).
52
As with any other paradigm, there are strengths and weaknesses. Knowing these, and addressing
them throughout a study, will deliver more trustworthy results. Figure 3.10 displays the common
weaknesses of this theory.
Figure 3.10
Weaknesses of Pragmatism
(Note. From “Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come,” by R.B.
Johnson, and A.J. Onwuegbuzie, Educational Researcher, 33(7), p. 19).
Limitations in Mixed Methods
Onwuegbuzie and Johnson (2006) discuss problems in mixed methods with representation (the
difficulty of capturing the lived experiences of individuals), integration (having two methods means there
are two sets of weaknesses that could be exacerbated), and legitimation (obtaining findings and/or making
inferences that are credible and trustworthy) (p. 52). Other issues that limit mixed methods are that it can
53
be time consuming (Caruth, 2013), authors may not be explicit enough in their decisions (Corr et al,
2020), or the design quality may not be where it should be (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006). In Figure
3.11 below, there are other strengths and weaknesses offered.
Figure 3.11
Strengths and Weaknesses of Mixed Research
(Note. From “Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come,” by R.B.
Johnson, and A.J. Onwuegbuzie, Educational Researcher, 33(7), p. 21).
In relation to the study at hand, the key weaknesses were that there could be bias, in that I am an
upper elementary educator myself. This was limited in that I used a key set of questions, which directly
applied to the quantitative data. Further, by collecting interviews across different districts, I was able to
reduce bias as it was not solely within my own school district.
Another limitation is the collection of quantitative data. As my goal was to use social media and
educator social media groups to access teachers across the state of Illinois, my study was only so strong as
the number of individuals who were willing to take the survey to begin with., the aim was to have at least
200. Being this number was not accrued, it was decided to reach out to a single suburban district, as a way
to reach educators through their school district email, to obtain a higher response rate. For both survey
requests, a limitation was the honesty of the individuals who completed them.
54
Methodology Implementation
Methodology Plan
The first part of this chapter focused on the theory that drove the research, as well as the
background of the taxonomies that shaped it. This section will go into detail on the study itself, including
the participants as well as the researcher’s role. This section will present the methodology for the present
study in seven sections:
1. Study Overview
2. Researcher Role
3. Mixed Methods, Explanatory Sequential Design
4. Data Sources and Data Collection Procedures
5. Analysis Procedures
6. Ethical Assurances
7. IRB
Study Overview
The present study began on August 6, 2021, for a period of eight weeks, aiming to recruit at least
200. It included teachers across the state of Illinois, as those teachers all have to adhere to the Common
Core State standards. Eight weeks was allotted to give the most amount of time for educators to respond,
before they started their next year of teaching. The survey was reflective of their 2020-2021 academic
term, and with August being the proposed month, respondents were reflecting on their last year as they
started to plan for a new one.
After a low response rate, the IRB was contacted to make an amendment in order to use a single
southwest suburban school district. This single district was chosen as it would allow direct contact with
upper elementary teachers, through their school district emails. Once the amendment was processed, all of
the upper elementary teachers within the district were contacted through their school district provided
emails, a total of 65 teachers were reached emailed. Then, a follow up reminder email was sent as a way
to encourage late participants.
55
To address the purpose of the study, finding out in what ways educators implement 21st century
practices, a mixed-methods, explanatory sequential design was used. The format was a quantitative
survey followed by a qualitative interview. The present study aimed to give voice to educators’ needs as
well as to develop a baseline for where they felt successful with their current implementation of such
practices.
This design required the researcher to look at themes in response from both the survey and
interviews and then triangulate this with the literature presented in the Literature Review. Use of multiple
layers was able to provide an opportunity for triangulation to identify these themes, as well as any
relevant gaps that should be addressed.
Researcher Role
Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) explain how a researcher must use empirical observations
when deploying a mixed methods design. In the educational realm, Corr et al. (2020) explain mixed
methods allows researchers to answer questions that are most influential at making change in educational
practice. The researcher in the present study was intimately familiar with the study topic, as they were an
upper elementary educator themself. They were not a part of the research study; however, it was
imperative for the researcher to not allow their own background to provide any bias to the outcome. Even
so, Watkins and Gioia (2015) explain a limitation of qualitative methods is inevitable as the researcher
may influence the findings.
Onwuegbuzie and Johnson (2006) stated that “a primary focus is for researchers to capture
authentically the lived experiences of people” (p.49). This was done through the interview, which was
recorded and heavily noted, to capture the voice of those involved.
There were no intended conflicts of interest in the present study. The researcher did not intend to
shape any of the results. This was established through using an already developed quantitative survey to
build the qualitative interview. The researcher questioned the interviewees for examples of the use of each
of the types of 21st century practices, to determine the scope of understanding of such practices. The
researcher avoided asking leading questions, but rather allowed the interviewees to simply tell their
56
experience and voice where they felt constrained in their practice. Additionally, the researcher did not
partake in the survey, to limit bias. Finally, all those who chose to complete the survey, and the
subsequent interview, provided consent and understood their answers were anonymous.
Mixed-Methods, Explanatory Sequential Design
A mixed-methods, explanatory sequential design was chosen to identify themes, and provide
voice to the educators’ lived experiences. The research at hand included three components: quantitative,
qualitative, and corroboration from the literature. Green, Caracelli, and Graham (1989) explain this as a
complementarity design, where the results from one method “elaborate, enhance, or illustrate the results
from the other” (p.269). Such is the case here where the survey offered a clear map of what practices were
currently in place, as it was easy to see through the use of the 5-point Likert scale. Next, the qualitative
portion offered an explanation to the map created. Bryman (1984) explains qualitative investigations
where the researcher, “embarks on a voyage of discovery rather than one of verification, so that his or her
research is likely to stimulate new leads and avenues of research that the quantitative researcher is
unlikely to hit upon, but may be used as a basis for further research” (p. 84). This justifies the research at
hand in that the response from the interviews has provided specific limitations educators felt they faced,
as well as where they felt prepared to meet the current standards.
Data Sources
Three sources of data are included in the present study, including:
1. West Virginia 21st Century Teaching and Learning Survey
2. Follow up interview to survey respondents
3. Findings from Literature Review
Participant confidentially was assured throughout, for interviewees, as their comments were
anonymized.
Amongst both sources of data, the researcher made observations on how responses should be
included in the data collection and data analysis part of the study. The findings of the Literature Review
were used to substantiate results.
57
Surveys
The use of a survey is justified in the study at hand, as has provided an objective data source
(Bryman, 1984; Creswell, 2015; Merterns, 2015).
The researcher implemented a minimally modified 78-question version of the West Virginia 21st
Century Teaching and Learning Survey (Hixson, Ravitz, & Whisman, 2012). The modification within the
survey was a wording change, from “TARGET CLASS” to “in your upper elementary class,” this was
done so the survey participants were clear to whom they are considering as they responded. This
particular 5-point Likert survey was chosen as it has excellent reliability and validity (Hixson, Ravitz, &
Whisman, 2012) and directly related to the research question at hand, to what degree teachers currently
implement 21st century skills (see Appendix A). By learning about what was taking place most recently,
followed by discussing ways in which teachers implemented these practices, specifically, the researcher
was be able to make inferences to what degree practices were carried out. Further, the researcher was able
to make inferences about how educator background and school district demographics play a role in the
implementation of these practices. This fits the study, as noted by Creswell et al. (2006), because the
quantitative findings provided the highest amount of data to analyze, which allowed the researcher to
notice and offer trends. Refer to Appendix A for specific survey questions and Appendix B for the script to
be posted.
As a part of the survey, each participant was asked their particular grade level within the upper
elementary grades, how many students were in their class, whether they had students in their class of
various abilities (students with Individualized Education Plans, enrichment students, students who are on
Response to Intervention Plans, or English Language Learners) and whether their school was labeled Title
1. These questions were significant so the researcher was able to notice any patterns amongst respondents
based on their classroom’s makeup. Additionally, the interview was used to capture the voice of the lived
experience of the educators, as noted in Onwuegbuzie and Johnson (2006).
58
Interviews
As surveys were being completed, the researcher took note of any individuals who were willing
to complete the follow-up Zoom interview. Recorded interviews began at week 4. This time frame was
chosen as enough data should have been collected at this point to see themes amongst the responses. The
researcher used a semi-structured interview to interpret in what ways the 21st century practices were
being implemented and where the educators’ voiced they needed the most support. The researcher also
used the interview responses to observe the depth to which educators understood 21st century practices;
for example, if the examples of implementations matched up to the particular learning skills. At the
culmination of eight weeks, data was finalized. The researcher reviewed results using the lens of
interpretation, identifying any themes or categories that appeared. Creswell (2013) describes
interpretation to be worthy in qualitative research in that it “involves abstracting out beyond the codes and
themes to the larger meaning of the data” (p. 187). See appendix C for semi-structured survey questions.
Next, the researcher used triangulation to determine the findings. Green, Caracelli, and Graham
(1989) describe triangulation as a way to lower biases from a given research method as both qualitative
and quantitative methods have their own limitations. Through the use of triangulation, these biases can be
counteracted strengthening the inquiry results (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2015). For the present study, the
qualitative interviews have expounded on the quantitative results, with the Literature Review
corroborating findings. By this, the researcher has provided a voice to what was answered on the survey,
giving further depth. This is supported by Bryman (2021), where the information from the three data
sources came together to provide a deeper response to the research questions posed. The interviews
displayed whether educators were clear on 21st century practices, as examples were given, and provided
evidence to implementation, or showed areas of weaknesses, suggesting where further education is
needed. Additionally, the interviews provide contexts as to teacher’s feelings towards their student’s
readiness to showcase Common Core standards as well as to voice what hindered them from increasing
student autonomy. Next, the Literature Review drew on the findings to substantiate the results. From this
triangulation stakeholders are provided areas where interventions are most necessary.
59
Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis
Data collection has derived from the survey, which was converted into a Google Form for access
to a range of participants. This was linked to various social media groups, on Facebook, which were
targeted towards upper elementary teachers. Social media was chosen as this would allow a way to
quickly reach a wide range of educators, across the state. This allowed for numerous school districts
across the state to be included and offered deeper insight into the research questions. It was thought that
by using social media, respondents would be able to quickly partake in the research, heightening the
response rate. However, the response rate was not large enough, therefore, a single comparison district
was sought out, to reach teachers through their school email addresses. Teachers who were out of the 4-
6th grade level range were excluded from results, as were any educators who were from outside of
Illinois. See Appendix C for the script which was posted to social media groups.
Surveys were linked for eight weeks, starting August 6th. Teachers were asked to reflect back on
their previous year of students, during the 2020-2021 school year. It is important to address that the 2020-
2021 school year was different for all educators, as it was amid the Coronavirus Pandemic. Many
educators did not see students in person for much of the school year, or if they did, many educators were
teaching under incredibly different conditions. This will be discussed further, in the limitations section.
Eight weeks was allotted for the chance to connect with the largest number of respondents. Surveys were
analyzed using a the 5-point Likert scale, based on participant results. Then, the findings were
disaggregated across the different 21st century practices, to see where trends appeared showing high or
low levels of integration, taking into account the classroom dynamics.
Strengths and Limitations
Mixed methods research fits the study at hand, as it provided data on how educators felt they
implement 21st century practices. Further, it provided guidance to school districts as to what supports are
currently missing, in order for these practices to be implemented. The limitations of the study include the
fact that the last school year, which is the most recent at hand for study participants, was a school year
that did not look like a traditional one due to the Coronavirus Pandemic. The research collected still holds
60
significance to the field as it highlights what areas were still successful and where schools can go from
here, as districts plan for the years ahead.
The limitations to the study at hand, which was mentioned earlier in methodology, are first and
foremost the response validity. It is important respondents answered as truthfully as possible to receive
the most accurate results. Also, there was researcher bias, in that the researcher is also an upper
elementary educator. Bias was limited in that the primary data came from a multiple-choice survey. The
qualitative data was recorded and the researcher limited question bias throughout the interview by
avoiding leading questions and trying to keep the questions as simple as possible. The structure of the
interview followed the same order from the questions on the survey and the questions were open ended,
which reduced participant bias.
Analysis Procedures
The goal of analyzing the data was to provide a reliable and valid way to report the findings
obtained and to further describe it in a meaningful and useful way. The data was analyzed in multiple
ways. This section briefly describes the analysis plan, while Chapter 4 will expound on the analysis and
correlate it to the findings and results. The data analysis will include the following:
1. Survey results/grouped by demographics (teacher tenure/class make up/class size)
2. Qualitative Interview data
3. Findings from the Literature Review
Overall participation conveys the dependent variables of this study, including how many
participants responded to the survey and attended interviews. The survey results methodology was
outlined in data collection, processing, and analysis. Qualitative data was recorded and coded throughout
to support findings from the quantitative data.
Ethical Assurances
The main ethical assurance was no harm would be done during this research. As this was a study
grounded in assessing depth of skill integration, no participants would be in harm. Further, participants
remained anonymous, so they were more prone to answer honestly. With the results, the researcher was
61
sure to provide a clear and in-depth report, to limit the concern of trustworthiness, as described in
Onwuegbuzie and Johnson’s (2006) mixed methods writings. In taking the survey, respondents were also
submitting their informed consent, which limited ethical issues on those willing participants.
IRB
An IRB application was completed and pending submission. IRB Materials can be found in
Appendix D, E, and F.
62
Chapter Four: Results, Findings, and Discussion
This interpretive, mixed-methods study ascertained the level to which Illinois teachers
implemented 21st century practices in their upper elementary classroom in addition to discovering the
ways teachers learn best practices for implementation. The results and findings from this review provide a
snapshot to the larger population of educators who are teaching under the direction of the Common Core
State Standards.
The first part of the research was conducted through a survey, in which willing participants
answered questions on the frequency to which their students, during the 2020-2021 school year, were
guided to implement 21st century practices. These practices are broken into eight categories: critical
thinking, collaboration, communication, creativity and innovation, self-direction, global connections,
local connections, and technology as a tool for learning. The survey was distributed via Google Forms
and sent out through social media sites that focused on one of three domains: upper elementary educators,
Illinois teachers, or generally had a large quantity of participants (1,000+). After low participation, the
survey was sent through school district email, to one Illinois southwest suburban school district.
Additional responses were utilized to focus on a group of teachers who were under the same guidelines
and see if they differed from the broader group of respondents from other districts.
The second component of the mixed-methods data was gathered through interviews. Those
interviewed were also part of the survey. The findings, which will be discussed in detail within this
chapter, offered a voice to the teacher’s practices, as well as the policies within their districts that either
enabled or hindered them from implementing the 21st century practices. There was a total of seven
interviewed, which followed a semi-structured format over Zoom, allowing the interviewer to focus on
the conversation rather than trying to note take throughout. Those interviewed were all teachers during the
2020-2021 school year, with two being 4th grade, two 5th grade and the other three being 6th grade
teachers. This further allowed the findings to capture snapshots of differences amongst the grade levels
within the upper elementary range.
63
Research Project Execution
The present study involved the rate to which upper elementary educators in Illinois implemented
21st century practices. The research was formally carried out from August 6, 2021 through October 1,
2021; however, the teachers were asked to reflect back on their previous year’s teaching, during the 2020-
2021 school year.
This section will describe the research sites, why they were chosen and justified. Next, it will
provide an overview of the participants. Additionally, it will include a summary of the data collection
procedures along with the challenges that were faced in the present study. Finally, it will relate the
findings back to the original research questions:
Main Research Question
To what degree do Illinois teachers implement 21st century practices within the upper elementary
classroom?
Supporting Research Questions
1. What is the perception from teachers regarding autonomy practices in the 21st century upper
elementary classroom?
2. In what ways are teachers being supported (by administration, curricular innovations, continued
education courses, professional developments) in meeting the needs of 21st century learners?
Research Site – Case Details
The location of research was split between social media and a single school district, where
teachers were reached through their school district emails. Social media was used in the initial wave, as it
was thought that a large number of educators could be reached in a neutral environment (i.e. not from
administration). Additionally, it was thought social media would be a place to reach teachers from across
the state, quickly, to obtain vast data on 21st century practices. Unfortunately, there were only a small
number of participants who agreed to take the survey, with a total of 12. Noteworthy though, only two
participants were from the same school district, with the other ten representing an additional ten districts
64
around the Chicagoland area. Having a range of districts allowed for there to be comparisons made using
the breakdowns of the school’s characteristics.
Next, after the small response rate to the social media posts, a modification was made to the
methodology. After an amendment was granted through the IRB, one specific district was used. The use
of a single district allowed for not only a higher response rate, but also provided a comparison. The
comparison of a single district allowed for it to be seen if one district, under the same curriculum, student
demographics and professional developments, differed from the other ten districts that were represented
from the social media respondents.
The chosen district was in the southwest suburbs of Chicago. It is considered mid-size, with three
primary, three intermediate, and three middle schools. Total it served 5,198 students, of these 19% were
considered low income, 15% were students with Individualized Learning Plans (IEPs), and 15% were
English Language Learners (ELL). However, the 23 participants only came from the intermediate and
middle school buildings, as this study targeted 4th through 6th grade educators.
Sample/Participants
The participants for the study at hand focused on Illinois upper elementary teachers from public
schools. Illinois was chosen as it would ensure that all would have adhered to the Common Core State
Standards. This target group of upper elementary teachers directly related to all three research questions,
highlighting the main research question of the degree to which 21st century practices are implemented.
The supporting research questions, of teacher’s perceptions of student autonomy as well as how teachers
are supported in implementing such practices, were addressed through the interviews. Total, 35 teachers
participated, with 23 from the single district, and another 12 from across the state. There was an even
distribution amongst the three grade levels.
Those who participated ranged in teaching experience, whether their school was considered Title
1, as well as their classroom makeup (the needs of their students) which allowed themes to be observed.
From the 35 who participated in the survey, 31.4 % stated they would complete the follow-up interview,
however, only seven responded to the emails sent. That being said, the seven who participated were from
65
a range of different schools, with two each in 4th and 5th grades and three in 6th grade, this facilitated
collecting interview responses in each of the upper elementary grade levels. The seven interviewees
ranged in teaching experience, three had between 5-10 years, two others had between 15-20, while the
next two had 20+ years.
Looking at the classroom dynamics of the teacher’s, from both the survey and the interviews, all
but two had some type of cluster in their class, meaning they had groups of students in at least one of the
following: special education, enrichment, English as a second language, 504 (defined as “other health
impairment”), Tier 2 or Tier 3 students (defined as students who fall below expected levels of
accomplishment and are targeted for small group instruction). Many of the respondents had multiple
clusters in their classrooms, which can be seen in the Chart 4.1. The results of how this impacted
implementation of practices will be discussed further in the data analysis section of this chapter.
Chart 4.1
Classroom Dynamics
Procedures and Data Collection
The 35 surveys were collected in real time. Once all data was collected, the surveys were
converted into PIVOT tables, as a way to see themes amongst the demographics (grade level, classroom
make-up, years’ experience, class size, and whether a school was considered Title 1). By converting the
Google Forms to the Pivot table, the rate to which 21st practices were implemented was clearly visible,
66
based on the 35 respondents. In depth discussion will be captured in the summary of results section. Each
table was displayed on a 5-point scale, as the questionnaire had the five ratings (See Appendix A for the
questionnaire). The eight practices had sub questions which were broken into two parts, implementation
examples which were categorized using the scale of 5 being an answer of “Almost daily,” 4 being “1-3
times per week,” 3 being “1-3 times per month,” 2 being “A few times a semester,” and 1 being “Almost
never”. Next, each practice also asked the teacher the rate to which they felt they tried to develop the skill,
the rate to which they felt their students learned the practice, and how confident they were in assessing the
skill. These three questions were also on a 5-point Likert with 5 being “to a very great extent,” 4 being “to
a great extent,” 3 being “to a moderate extent,” 2 being “to a minor extent,” and 1 being “not really.”
While the survey was open, the recruitment of interested parties for the qualitative portion via
interview was also pursued. A total of 11 (31.4%) stated that they would participate; however, after
reaching out via email, a total of seven individuals responded and were subsequently interviewed. After
the initial seven interviews, it was decided to not continue making contact, as each of those who were
interviewed were from different grade levels, with largely different demographics, and there were various
school districts represented. Consequently, some modification was required to the original research plan
with the decision to treat the responses from the seven interviews as in-depth examples of classroom
practice. It was thus determined the results would contribute to the narrative analysis in support of the
quantitative portion of research.
Each of these interviews were conducted via Zoom over an average of 20 minutes. Scripted
questions (see appendix C) were followed, while use of a recording feature allowed conversation, without
the distraction of note taking. This also allowed a chance to go back and review the responses and
compare across the seven respondents and then substantiate with the Literature Review.
From the data gathered, the interview and survey, eight categories emerged that related to the
research questions:
The first category, entitled Overall Ratings in 21st Century Practices Implementation, elicited
responses about the frequency to which the participating educators had their students practice 21st century
67
practices during the 2020-2021 school year. Next, the qualitative data expounds on the survey response in
that it provides context of these implementations, to see if they align with the categories themselves as
well as to shed light on how this was carried out in a classroom setting. Also, the Literature Review is
used to substantiate all findings. The survey’s intention was to examine the general practices, their
understanding, their frequency and if there were certain practices which were implemented more than
others.
The second category, entitled Practice Implementation Based on Grade Level, was data gathered
from the quantitative survey data as well as the qualitative interviews. The purpose of this section was to
shed light on the characteristics of teacher’s practices, based on their years teaching. The intention was to
examine the degree to which students are offered opportunities to practice such skills, to gauge the
students’ experience.
The third category was entitled Practice Implementation Based on Classroom Dynamics. This
category focused on the range of student abilities that are present in these 35 Illinois classrooms, where
students with varying needs are placed in a heterogenous setting. This category also relied on the
assumption that teachers need to have a clear understanding of their students’ needs and various learning
levels. The intention was to see if a students’ experience in a classroom with a more homogenous setup
would differ from that of a heterogenous one.
The fourth category was entitled Practice Implementation Based on Class Size. Results from this
category were designed to examine the degree to which practice implementation may be increased or
hindered based on the number of students in a single classroom. This category also accounted for the
difference in schedules from that of an elementary teacher, who taught in a self-contained setting to that
of a middle school teacher, who had a short time period before classes changed and new students arrived.
The intention here was to examine the rate to which class size impacted the implementation of practices.
The fifth category was entitled Practice Implementation Based on Teacher’s Experience. This
category was focused on understanding to what degree the participating teacher’s tenure impacted the
implementation of 21st century practices. The intention was to shed light on which teachers should be
68
targeted the most when it comes to the supports that are being needed, that emerged from this study,
based on its findings.
The sixth category was entitled Practice Implementation Based on School’s Title 1 Status. Here
quantitative data was broken down and categorized based on whether the respondent stated they taught in
a Title 1 school or not. This particular category examined the rate to which students in low-income
schools received the same opportunities to practice and increase their 21st learning practices as students
from affluent schools. Being that Title 1 schools receive government funding, this section sheds light on
the degree to which this funding is supporting the practices that are deemed to make a student “college
and career ready.”
The seventh category was entitled Common Core Readiness. This category examined the responses
garnered through the seven qualitative interviews. The intention here was to ascertain whether the
participating teacher’s felt their students were ready to meet the state standards, as well as in what areas
the seven teachers thought the students were more prepared than others. The intention of this section is
that it directly relates to the main research question of what supports participating educators claimed they
needed to implement 21st century practices. Further, it examined the degree to which the COVID-19
pandemic impacted teaching and learning at the sites studied during the 2020-2021 school year.
The eighth category was entitled Student Autonomy. This, again, provided data from both the
qualitative and quantitative sources, while also referring to the literature. This section examined in which
ways student’s autonomy in the site schools was provided throughout the 2020-2021 school year. The
intention was to investigate in what ways the upper elementary educator participants enhanced their
student’s autonomy, as well as to bring forth areas that teachers stated they needed further support.
Response Rates
An important issue in survey-based research is how to obtain satisfactory response rates.
Response rate is determined by dividing the number of people that partook in either the interview or
survey by the number that were given the chance to participate in the research but chose not to do so.
69
Manfreda et. al (2008) discusses the increasing rate of lower response rates on web-based surveys in
recent years. Possible reasons, as discussed by the literature, will be discussed in the next section.
In understanding response rates, it is necessary to look to the literature and get an understanding
of sufficient rates, in relation to surveys. It can be assumed that the larger the sample, the more precise the
effect size estimates will be (Manfreda et. al, 2008). However, Nguyen (2000) provides context to the
history of telephone surveys having difficulty reaching a response rate greater than 60%, and face-to-face
surveys barely gaining 70%. Having this understanding, in relation to the study at hand, where there was
no face-to-face interaction, a lower response rate could be expected, as long as the other features of the
research design are thoroughly described through the narrative (Couper, 2000).
Finally, it is essential to note that half of the quantitative survey data was collected through
Facebook groups as this created a non-response rate scenario. Being there was no personal connection, or
other method of tracking those whom were offered and declined to respond, there was no way to measure
the non-response rate in this scenario. The social media component comprised a list-based sample of a
high covered population, as described by Couper (2000). In this instance all those that were viewing the
survey request were teachers, as they had to be approved into the various closed groups, this made up the
frame population. However, in the case of the present study, the response rate cannot be gathered from the
Facebook groups due to the request to participate was entirely on it being viewed and opened by members
of the group. Being it was unknown how many people were active in the group at the times the survey
was posted, nor can it be determined whether the post was seen, a response rate cannot be gathered from
this subset of data.
Response Rate for Interview
Those contacted to be part of the interview responded affirmatively to the final question of the
survey which asked, “Are you willing to participate in a follow up phone interview of 30 minutes or
less? (You will be contacted through the school email you provided)”. Of the 35 participants, 11
responded “yes” to this final question providing a response rate of 31.4%. Eleven teachers were
contacted through the email they provided when they filled out the survey; of those, seven agreed to be
70
interviewed, giving a response rate of 63.6%. This response rate was considered a worthy response rate
because, according to the previous discussion, it leads to an adequate generalizability of the studies’
results, achieving over 60% (Nguyen, 2007). Their consent to participate was provided through them
providing their email and, secondly, responding yes to the interview follow-up question. Table 4.1 reports
the teachers’ interview response rate.
Table 4.1
Teacher’s Interview Response Rate
School
Teacher
Agreed to
Participate
Response
Rate
A
1
Yes
100%
B
1
Yes
100%
C
1
No
0%
D
1
No
0%
E
1
Yes
100%
F
1
Yes
100%
G
1
Yes
100%
F
1
Yes
100%
D
1
Yes
100%
H
1
No
0%
I
1
No
0%
Total
11
7
63.4%
Response Rate for the Survey
On August 6, 2021, an online survey was distributed via social media, using Facebook. Specific
groups were chosen before posting, containing one of three criteria: they were geared towards Illinois
teachers, group members were upper elementary educators, or the group was a teacher group with over
1,000 members. After 2 ½ weeks, only eight teachers had responded.
On August 23, 2021, it was decided that other respondents should be sought out. After obtaining
an amendment to the original IRB, it was decided to include a single school district with the purpose to
obtain a larger sample (see appendix F). On September 1, 2021 an email was electronically sent to 65
upper elementary teachers through their school district email. By the end of that week, 10 surveys had
been completed and returned for a response rate of 16.9%. A follow-up email was sent on September 26,
71
2021. An additional 12 surveys had been completed and returned by October 1, 2021, for a response rate
of 33.8%. It should be noted, prior to reaching out to the single district, a teacher from the single school
district completed the survey, after viewing the original social media posting. Though the response came
via the original social media survey, the response was included in the analysis as being from the single
school district response group as that is where she taught.
During this time, additional teachers were responding through the social media groups, which
were being reposted weekly, in the hopes of adding responses from additional teachers across the state.
On October 1, 2021, when the survey was officially closed, there were a total of 35 respondents. Of the
35, 12 were from districts across Illinois, with the other 23 coming from the single suburban district.
Non-Response Participants
A brief discussion must be given regarding the teachers who chose not to participate in the study,
since non-participants do shape a study’s results to a degree. With the study at hand, there was a low
response rate, which impacted the amount of data able to be collected. In terms of the social media
platform, it was expected that a multitude of teachers would respond; however, this was not the case.
Of the 13 who responded through the social media platform, seven stated they would participate
in the follow-up interview. After these seven were contacted, four scheduled interviews, providing a
response rate of 57%. Looking to the comparison district, of the 22 respondents, four stated they would
partake in the follow-up interview. Three of these participants partook in the interview, thus giving a
response rate of 75%. Based on the literature concerning this issue, the overall response rate provides a
worthy result in every survey was completed to the fullest extent; as noted by Cook, Heath and Thompson
(2000) in their study of surveys, the mean response rate for 56 surveys that had no missing data was
34.6%, putting the current study in line.
To provide further context, it is necessary to evaluate the nonresponse rate. For the purpose of
this study, the research was carried out in two waves. The first wave opened August 6, 2021, then the
second wave was conducted starting September 26, 2021. When overall results of practice
implementation were compared between the first and second wave, it could be determined that the second
72
wave respondents share commonality with nonrespondents, as they have late effort and needed additional
reminders, as noted by Kano et al. (2008). When the Pivot table was generated between the initial and
secondary, each breakdown was evaluated by its average response, to determine whether there was a
difference in practice implementation based on the respondents who took the survey. As displayed in
Table 4.2, it is clear to see that all responses were within 1 standard deviation of each other, leaving the
secondary data not significantly different than the initial.
Table 4.2
Standard Deviation Rate Between Original and Secondary Respondents
Possible Reasons for Non-Response in the Study
There are likely several reasons for why teachers chose not to respond. First and foremost, timing
could have been a factor, as the survey was not released until the weeks leading up to the beginning of the
new school year, making it a hectic time period for planning and other school related.
Further, teachers could have thought that their particular classes did not meet the given
requirements. One respondent, who went on to be interviewed, reached out to ensure that he was part of
the chosen demographic as he taught self-contained behavior students who all had Individualized
Learning Plans (IEPs). This may have been a factor for other educators, and therefore, they did not
respond.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
C&I CB CM CT GC LC SD TTL
INITIAL
SECONDARY
C&I: Creativity and Innovation
CB: Collaboration
CM: Communication
CT: Critical Thinking
GC: Global Connections
LC: Local Connections
SD: Self- Direction
TTL: Technology as a Tool for Learning
73
In reviewing the nonresponse from the social media platform, Couper (2000) posits that the
overwhelming number of surveys that now flood the internet may be to blame. Couper (2000) goes onto
to explain how “persons are so bombarded with survey (or other) requests that they either tune out
completely or base their participation decisions on the content, topic, entertainment value, or other
features of the survey” (p. 465).
Another issue could have been one of confidentiality. Even though the survey introduction
outlined the anonymity of the responses, it asked respondents to use their school district email, as a way
to cross-check school demographics and to point to geographic differences. Respondents may not have
wanted to tie their work email to a response, which is an issue raised by Couper (2000), Cook, Heath, and
Thompson (2000) as well as Nguyen (2007) in why web-based surveys have been on the decline.
Descriptive Univariate Statistics
In this study, the quantitative survey data was described using descriptive statistics. By doing this,
a summary was able to be drawn based on each of the eight 21st century practices, as well as breaking
down the various possible influencing factors (grade level, classroom demographics, class size, teachers’
experience and a schools Title 1 status). By looking at one variate at a time, a richer description can be
offered around the data and influencing factors. Specifically, Pivot tables were used as a way to break
down each of the data clusters, to find the average of the responses. This means the primary goal of using
descriptive statistics in this study was to describe quantitative survey data through the use of numbers by
graphically representing them in a way that is clear to understand.
Survey’s Quantitative Data
This section will describe the specifics of the findings from the quantitative results related to the
implementation of 21st century practices in an Illinois upper elementary public Common Core classroom.
The survey was distributed both on Facebook to teacher groups, as well as through school district emails
of the single school district. Subjects invited to participate were upper elementary teachers, teaching in
grades 4th-6th grades. Being that the use of social media was used, a response rate was unattainable as this
was a situation where the denominator of possible participants was unknown before research began.
74
Couper (2000) describes this situation stating the overall frame is unknown, outside of who the specific
groups were geared towards, and thus, the nonresponse rate cannot be given a particular value. Total 13,
teachers responded to the social media post. An additional 23 teachers responded from the single district.
Chart 4.2 breaks down the percentile of participants from each grade level. Later, this breakdown will be
described in depth.
Chart 4.2
Response Rate Based on Grade Level
First, the overall practice implementation will be discussed. Then each of the eight practices will be
described based on:
• Grade level
• Classroom makeup of clusters
• Class size
• Teacher years’ experience
• Title 1 status
Overall Ratings in 21st Century Practices Implementation
This study’s findings related to the implementation of 21st century practices within the upper
elementary classroom, which was collected from 35 survey respondents. From the data received, most of
the findings were similar, the average amongst the practices were all close to a score of 3 on the 5-point
Likert scale, with three representing implementation “1-3 times per month.” These results are shown in
75
Table 4.3. In reviewing these results, much work still remains to be done in ways in which students have
additional opportunities to practice these skills. Based on the literature of Lee and Wu (2017), Polikoff
(2017), and Rentner (2013) this is what is hindering students from moving from a ‘basic’ level of
proficiency, as measured by the Common Core Reading standards, to a ‘proficient’ or ‘advanced’ level.
Without the necessary practice, students will not develop to mastery. Additionally, of the 21st century
practices examined by this study, two practices are implemented at a much lesser degree than the others,
global connections (GC) and local connections (LC). Both of these practices were rated below a 2, with a
2 meaning implementation “A few times a semester.”
Table 4.3
Average of all Responses from each of the Practices
C&I: Creativity and Innovation
CB: Collaboration
CM: Communication
CT: Critical Thinking
GC: Global Connections
LC: Local Connections
SD: Self- Direction
TTL: Technology as a Tool for Learning
Creativity and Innovation. The quantitative data from the survey points to certain creativity and
innovation skills being less incorporated than others. Most of the responses were similar across the eight
sub questions; however, it can be seen that having students create original products and asking them to
derive solutions were the least used examples of creativity and innovation (C&I). This is illustrated in
Table 4.4.
0
1
2
3
4
5
C&I CB CM CT GC LC SD TTL
Overall Implementation
76
Table 4.4
Overall Response to Creativity and Innovation Implementation
Table 4.6 represents the average ratings of the 35 respondents across the entire category of
creativity and innovation. The lowest area was in having students create original products or
performances the least. To provide a deeper description of the data, this particular sub category was
examined closer. Of the 35 respondents 11 (31.4%) marked this was done almost never, 14 (40%) marked
a few times a semester, 8 (22.9%) marked 1-3 times per month, 1 (2.9%) marked 1-3 times per week, and
1 (2.9%) marked almost daily. The percentages are shown in Chart 4.3. This particular subcategory
presents an area where more work needs to be done on best ways to enhance student choice in their
learning.
Chart 4.3
Teacher’s Response to the Frequency of Implementation of Original Products
0
1
2
3
4
5
C&I-1-How often have
you asked students to
use idea creation
techniques such as
brainstorming or
concept mapping?
C&I-2-How often have
you asked students to
generate their own
ideas about how to
confront a problem or
question?
C&I-3-How often have
you asked students to
test out different ideas
and work to improve
them?
C&I-4-How often have
you asked students to
invent a solution to a
complex, open-ended
question or problem?
C&I-5-How often have
you asked students to
create an original
product or
performance to
express their ideas?
C&I-6-I have tried to
develop students'
creativity and
innovation skills.
C&I-7-Most students
have learned creativity
and innovation skills
while in my class.
C&I-8-I have been able
to effectively assess
students' creativity
and innovation skills.
Creativity and Innovation
77
In review of the literature, Jacobsen and Hofmann (1997) explain how the upper elementary years
is a time requiring a new sense of autonomy, where learners are solidifying their interests. They posit that
offering a supportive environment, where students’ interests are enhanced, leads to higher levels of
intrinsic motivation. This literature supports why students need the opportunity to make their own
decisions when they are asked to showcase their learning, as defined through creativity and innovation.
From the results gathered in this study, students are not being given this chance often enough.
Collaboration. The next skill addressed was collaboration, and the ways in which students were asked to
work together when goal setting, providing feedback and when completing tasks. This was the second
highest rated of the eight skills, seemingly occurring more often throughout these 35 classroom settings.
According to the literature, collaboration is a very sensitive skill which must be practiced. The breakdown
of average responses can be seen in Table 4.5. From this data set, it can be seen which collaboration skills
are implemented more often than others. The least used skill was having students work as a team to
incorporate feedback on group tasks or products. This particular subcategory had 11 (31.4%) teachers
respond this was done almost never, 10 (28.6%) respond a few times a semester, 10 (28.6%) respond 1-3
times per month, 3 (8.6%) respond 1-3 times per week, and 1 (2.9%) respond almost daily. Feedback, as
noted by the literature from McClelland (1998), should be integrated within the learning so learners
always know where they stand.
Table 4.5
Average of Teacher’s Response to Implementation of Collaboration Skills
0
1
2
3
4
5
CB-1-How often have
you asked students
to work in pairs or
small groups to
complete a task
together?
CB-2-How often have
you asked students
to work with other
students to set goals
and create a plan for
their team?
CB-3-How often have
you asked students
to create joint
products using
contributions from
each student?
CB-4-How often have
you asked students
to present their
group work to the
class, teacher or
others?
CB-5-How often have
you asked students
to work as a team to
incorporate feedback
on group tasks or
products?
CB-6-How often have
you asked students
to give feedback to
peers or assess other
students' work?
CB-7-I have tried to
develop students'
collaboration skills.
CB-8-Most students
have learned
collaboration skills
while in my class.
CB-9-I have been
able to effectively
assess students'
collaboration skills.
Collaboration
78
Table 4.7 does show where these 35 educators were implementing certain collaboration skills, in
the use of having their students work in pairs or small groups to complete tasks. Specific examples of this
will be given in the qualitative section; however, this does showcase an overall strength these particular
teachers had despite the limitations the COVID-19 pandemic placed on them.
Communication. Communication skills refer to times where students need to convey their learning in new
and original ways. With reference to Bloom’s taxonomy, there is a difference between understanding a
concept and being able to teach it. What is notable in the findings related to this skill, as seen in Table 4.6,
is the participating teacher’s responses to how they feel they have developed, and to what degree they
believe their students learned communication skills versus the scores received from the various
communication skills as expressed through a 21st century outline. For the teacher development question
of, “I have tried to develop students’ communication skills’ 10 (28.6%) of the 35 respondents chose “to a
very great extent,” 10 (28.6%) chose “to a great extent,” 10 (28.6%) chose “to a moderate extent,” 4
(11.4%) chose “to a minor extent,” and another 1 (2.9%) chose “not really.” The next question related to
students learning, “Most of my students have learned communication skills while in my class.” That data
show that of the 35 respondents, 5 (14.3%) believe this “to a very great extent,” 12 (34.3%) “to a great
extent,” 11 (31.4%) “to a moderate extent,” 5 (14.3%) “to a minor extent,” and 2 (5.7%) “not really.” This
survey data displays that while the participating teachers may be having their students practice
communication, it is not the type of communication as expressed through the 21st century skills. This
particular subcategory is an area requiring attention based on Huberman et al.’s (2011) study outlining the
need for students to be given more opportunities for accountable talk and less didactic teaching by the
teacher. The data provided shows that the participating teachers believe they are providing these
opportunities more frequently than is the case.
79
Table 4.6
Teacher’s Response to Implementation of Communication Practices
Critical Thinking. Critical thinking was rated by the participating teachers as the highest skill among all
of the 21st century practices. This finding suggests the need for greater implementation on this skill. The
literature reviewed affirms that students who students who struggle, try, and succeed are typically in types
environments where teachers are acting as facilitators and allowing their students to work through
problems (Ayscue & Siegel-Hawley, 2019; Pourshafie & Murray-Harvey, 2013; Garte, 2017; Matera,
2019). As shown in Table 4.7, the lowest marked response was for completing a persuasive argument,
which is a skill that requires more time to implement.
Table 4.7
Teacher’s Response to Critical Thinking Implementation
Global Connections. As mentioned above, global connections were the lowest implemented of all the
eight 21st century practices. Voice will be given to possible reasons why this is the case via the qualitative
analysis. In examining the raw data, it was found that every single sub-section of this practice is
implemented to no more than a few times a semester. According to the literature in the Achieve (2008)
0
1
2
3
4
5
CM-1-How often have
you asked students to
structure data for use in
written products or oral
presentations (e.g.,
creating charts, tables or
graphs)?
CM-2-How often have
you asked students to
convey their ideas using
media other than
written paper (e.g.,
posters, video, blogs,
etc.)?
CM-3-How often have
you asked students to
prepare and deliver an
oral presentation to the
teacher or others?
CM-4-How often have
you asked students to
answer questions in
front of an audience?
CM-5-How often have
you asked students to
decide how they will
present their work or
demonstrate their
learning?
CM-6- I have tried to
develop students'
communication skills.
CM-7- Most students
have learned
communication skills
while in my class.
CM-8-I have been able
to effectively assess
students'
communication skills.
Communication
0
1
2
3
4
5
CT-1-How often have
you asked students to
compare information
from different sources
before completing a
task or assignment?
CT-2-How often have
you asked students to
draw their own
conclusions based on
analysis of numbers,
facts, or relevant
information?
CT-3-How often have
you asked students to
summarize or create
their own
interpretation of what
they have read or
been taught?
CT-4-How often have
you asked students to
analyze competing
arguments,
perspectives or
solutions to a
problem?
CT-5-How often have
you asked students to
develop a persuasive
argument based on
supporting evidence
or reasoning?
CT-6-How often have
you asked students to
try to solve complex
problems or answer
questions that have
no single correct
solution or answer?
CT-7- I have tried to
develop students'
critical thinking skills.
CT-8-Most students
have learned critical
thinking skills while in
my class.
CT-9-I have been able
to effectively assess
students' critical
thinking skills.
Critical Thinking
80
publication, students need to be prepared for a global world. As stated in the publication, jobs are no
longer just based on geography, rather, many have the same access despite where they live, and thus, jobs
are going to the best educated. Due to this, students need to be prepared to engage in a global
marketplace. However, in line with the Common Core State Standards, which was created to ready
students to be college and career ready, global connections are not assessed. Based on the data from the
35 respondents, it is clear that this is the practice which is given the least amount of attention. Using the
sub question, I have tried to develop students’ skills in making global connections, 11 (20%) responded
“almost never,” another 18 (51.4%) responded “a few times a semester,” 9 (25.7%) responded “1-3 per
month,” and 1 (2.9%) responded “1-3 times per week,” no respondents stated they did this “almost daily.”
Table 4.8 displays the sub question average rates for full set of questions in this practice.
Table 4.8
Teachers Response to Implementation of Global Connections
Local Connections. The next lowest overall rating was in the area of local connections. Local connections
refer to how students tailor their learnings to their own communities. This particular category focuses on
having students making connections as well as develop and understanding and appreciation of their local
community. Like global connections, local connections were implemented rarely. Being a school is a part
of a community, it is important for students to see where they fit in where they currently live (Deci &
Ryan, 2000b; Wehmeyer et al., 2007; Mouratidis & Michou, 2011). The data shows that the participating
teachers did not know how to effectively assess their student’s skills in making these connections. This
0
1
2
3
4
5
GC-1-How often have you
asked students to study
information about other
countries or cultures?
GC-2-How often have you
asked students to use
information or ideas that
come from people in
other countries or
cultures?
GC-3-How often have you
asked students to discuss
issues in relation to global
interdependency (for
example, global
environment trends,
global market economy)?
GC-4-How often have you
asked students to study
the geography of distant
countries?
GC-5-How often have you
asked students to reflect
on how their own
experiences and local
issues are connected to
global issues?
GC-6-I have tried to
develop students' skills in
making global
connections.
GC-7-Most students have
learned to make global
connections while in my
class.
GC-8-I have been able to
effectively assess
students' skills in making
global connections.
Global Connections
81
was represented through the 35 respondents who responded to the survey question I have been able to
effectively assess students’ skills in making local connections. The data revealed that of those
participating, 18 (51.4%) stated “not really,” 10 (28.6%) stated “to a minor extent,” 5 (14.3%) stated “to a
moderate extent,” 2 (5.7%) stated “to a great extent,” and 0 (0%) stated “to a very great extent.” From this
data it is clear to see that the participating teachers were not confident in their abilities with this 21st
century practice. Notable, this is not a practice that is a component on standardized tests. If it is not tested,
teachers may not prioritize it; however, Ryan and Deci (2000b) articulate that when learning is only tied
to state tests, diplomas or threats, then long-lasting learning will not occur. The literature reviewed posits
that (Ryan and Deci) local connections should still be addressed, and students should be offered
opportunities to practice these skills. Table 4.9 reports the averages of all the sub questions for the local
connections 21st century practice, this table displays how in every category, the average is not
implemented more than a few times a semester.
Table 4.9
Teachers Response to Implementation of Local Connections
Self-Direction. Self-direction skills are those where students are able to monitor their own learning, as
well be able to stay focused on the task at hand. From the literature reviewed, it was noted, “When
students are able to self-regulate and monitor their thinking and learning, they are able to explain what
they know. By doing this, a students’ higher-level metacognitive processes are being enhanced, which has
been shown to increase motivational and performance effects” (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Looking at the
survey response, students have been able to practice their self-direction skills to a limited degree. In
0
1
2
3
4
5
LC-1-How often have you
asked students to
investigate topics or
issues that are relevant
to their family or
community?
LC-2-How often have you
asked students to apply
what they are learning to
local situations, issues or
problems?
LC-3-How often have you
asked students to talk to
one or more members of
the community about a
class project or activity?
LC-4-How often have you
asked students to analyze
how different
stakeholder groups or
community members
view an issue?
LC-5-How often have you
asked students to
respond to a question or
task in a way that weighs
the concerns of different
community members or
groups?
LC-6-I have tried to
develop students' skills in
making local connections.
LC-7-Most students have
learned to make local
connections while in my
class.
LC-8- I have been able to
effectively assess
students' skills in making
local connections.
Local Connections
82
particular, for the question asking, “How often have you asked students to choose their own topics or
questions to pursue?” Of the 35 respondents 6 (17.1%) stated “almost never,” 15 (42.9%) stated “a few
times a semester,” 10 (28.6%) stated “1-3 times per month,” 3 (8.6%) stated “1-3 times per week”, and 1
(2.9%) state “almost daily.” This showcases the lack of autonomy which was present during the 2020-
2021 school year for the participating sites. Table 4.10 displays that of the six types of practice
implementation (when teacher’s assessment for implementation is removed), only two of the practices are
implemented 1-3 times per month on average, the rest fall in the average of only being implemented a few
times a semester on average.
Table 4.10
Teachers Response to Self-Direction Implementation
Technology as a Tool for Learning. Based on the districts involved in the responses, it appears that
teachers surveyed were in a one-to-one setting, meaning all students had their own devices to use each
day (either a laptop or iPad). This certainly played a role in the data received. This particular set of skills
was a close second overall on the implementation. From the results of the qualitative component, which
will be discussed in the following section, all content was made digital, as a way to reach students
virtually. The difference between using a device and using it as “a tool for learning” is that students need
to not just recreate material online, but rather use their device in a way that results in higher-order
thinking. This is supported by the literature in the publication “Benchmarking for Success” (2008) which
describes students needing to be ready for a global market, where many tasks are now digitized and
0
1
2
3
4
5
SD-1-How often have
you asked students to
take initiative when
confronted with a
difficult problem or
question?
SD-2-How often have
you asked students to
choose their own topics
of learning or questions
to pursue?
SD-3-How often have
you asked students to
plan the steps they will
take to accomplish a
complex task?
SD-4-How often have
you asked students to
monitor their own
progress towards
completion of a
complex task and
modify their work
accordingly?
SD-5-How often have
you asked students to
use specific criteria to
assess the quality of
their work before it is
completed?
SD-6-How often have
you asked students to
use peer, teacher or
expert feedback to
revise their work?
SD-7-I have tried to
develop students' self-
direction skills.
SD-8-Most students
have learned self-
direction skills while in
my class.
SD-9- I have been able
to effectively assess
students' self-direction
skills.
Self-Direction
83
technology needs to be used in deeper ways. Table 4.11 displays the results of teachers’ responses to their
implementation of their technology practices.
Table 4.11
Teachers Response to Technology as a Tool for Learning
Implementation Impact Based on Sub Categories
Practice Implementation Based on Grade Level. The responses were generally consistent by grade level,
as shown in Table 4.12. All but one of the 4th and 5th grade teachers taught in a self-contained setting,
meaning they had their students with them for the duration of the school day, except when they went to
specials. The last 4th grade teacher was departmentalized, like the 6th grade teachers, and only taught one
subject, with a rotation of students. All of the departmentalized teachers had a high number of students of
99+. One other 6th grade teacher, who was also interviewed, only had 18 students, but he was a resource
teacher for students with Individual Education Plans (IEPs) for behavior.
Table 4.12
Teacher Distribution by Grade Level
0
1
2
3
4
5
TTL-1-How often
have you asked
students to use
technology or the
Internet for self-
instruction (e.g.,
Kahn Academy or
other videos,
tutorials, self-
instructional
websites, etc.)?
TTL-10-Most
students have
learned to use
technology as a tool
for learning while in
my class.
TTL-11-I have been
able to effectively
assess students'
skills in using
technology for
learning.
TTL-2-How often
have you asked
students to select
appropriate
technology tools or
resources for
completing a task?
TTL-3-How often
have you asked
students to evaluate
the credibility and
relevance of online
resources?
TTL-4-How often
have you asked
students to use
technology to
analyze information
(e.g., databases,
spreadsheets,
graphic programs,
etc.)?
TTL-5-How often
have you asked
students to use
technology to help
them share
information (e.g.,
multi-media
presentations using
sound or video,
presentation
software, blogs,
podcasts, etc.)?
TTL-6-How often
have you asked
students to use
technology to
support team work
or collaboration
(e.g., shared work
spaces, email
exchanges, giving
and receiving
feedback, etc.)?
TTL-7-How often
have you asked
students to use
technology to
interact directly with
experts or members
of local/global
communities?
TTL-8-How often
have you asked
students to use
technology to keep
track of their work
on extended tasks or
assignments?
TTL-9-I have tried to
develop students'
skills in using
technology as a tool
for learning.
Technology as a Tool for Learning
C&I: Creativity and Innovation
CB: Collaboration
CM: Communication
CT: Critical Thinking
GC: Global Connections
LC: Local Connections
SD: Self- Direction
TTL: Technology as a Tool for Learning
0
1
2
3
4
5
C&I CB CM CT GC LC SD TTL
4th
5th
6th
84
Looking at the results from Table 4.14, there was a close to even distribution across the three
grade levels. Across the results, 6th grade teachers scored the lowest in all areas except global and local
connections, which could allow room for exploration.
Practice Implementation Based on Classroom Dynamics. Many of the participating educators had
multiple clusters in their class, meaning they had a range of student needs to be address. While tracking
has been found not be academically sound for students, teachers do need to be provided proper training to
meet the diverse range of students that are now commonplace within their classroom. Only one teacher
(4%) had a homogenous classroom. The rest of the participating teachers had varying levels of clusters. In
each of the following make-ups: one cluster, two clusters, three and four clusters, there were three
responses for each, making up 14% for each of the groups. The last eight respondents indicated they had
five (four reported, or 19%) or even all six of the cluster types (four reported, or 19%). Using the Pivot
table to break down all of the response averages for each of the 21st century skills, it can be seen how
number of clusters can impact implementation.
Table 4.13
Average Response, Based on Number of Clusters
0
1
2
3
4
5
C&I CB CM CT GC LC SD TTL
0
1-2
3-4
5-6
C&I: Creativity and Innovation
CB: Collaboration
CM: Communication
CT: Critical Thinking
GC: Global Connections
LC: Local Connections
SD: Self- Direction
TTL: Technology as a Tool for Learning
85
From the results gathered, communication (CM) was implemented to a higher rate when there
were no clusters. However, when examining the range, most of the findings provide similar results.
What’s notable here is that with no clusters the lowest rating is in global connections (GC) and local
connections (LC) as well as self-direction (SD). Having three to four clusters seems to have the lowest
rating across the board, when the 0 cluster is taken out of consideration, but then those with the most
diverse range of students are having a higher degree of practices in place. Of the participating
respondents, those who stated they had 0,1, or 2 clusters as well as those with 5-6 clusters were
essentially equal, therefore supporting that teachers in these particular schools are sufficiently trained to
teach in a heterogenous classroom.
Practice Implementation Based on Teacher’s Experience. The purpose of this study, was to find out if
there were any other factors that could enhance or inhibit the implementation of 21st century practices,
which directly relates to the first research question. Respondents were asked in which year of the
profession they were in. These questions were grouped by: 1-5, 5-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, and 25+, as
this was the breakdown based on Hixson, Ravitz and Whisman’s (2014) original survey. In Chart 4.4, the
percentage of each can be viewed.
Chart 4.4
Percentage of Respondent’s Years Teaching
Before discussing the results, it is important to take into account that there were more respondents
in the 25+ (9 respondents or 25.7%), 5-10 (8 respondents or 22.9%) and the 21-25 grouping (7
respondents or 20%). Because of this, there was more data from these two areas. In the area of 1-5 years,
86
these educators are typically still learning the curriculum and are non-tenured (districts typically give
tenure at the start of the 4th year) which may provide different motivations and drives to ensure that such
practices are carried out. As displayed in Table 4.14, the youngest teachers are more comfortable
implementing creativity and innovation (C&I), collaboration (CB), and technology as a tool for learning
(TTL); however, it is only marginally higher than the other groupings.
Table 4.14
Overall Responses by Number of Years Teaching
Practice Implementation Based on Class Size. Examining the class size table, the data reveals that no
matter the class size, the two practices that are given the least amount of attention once again are local and
global connections. Of note here is that classes which have students from anywhere between 21-29
students have the least amount of attention put on these two areas. Both the lowest and largest class size
do not have results that are as low as those classrooms with the middle number of students. The results
can be seen in Table 4.15.
0
1
2
3
4
5
C&I CB CM CT GC LC SD TTL
Year 25+
Years 1-5
Years 11-15
Years 16-20
Years 21-25
Years 5-10
C&I: Creativity and Innovation
CB: Collaboration
CM: Communication
CT: Critical Thinking
GC: Global Connections
LC: Local Connections
SD: Self- Direction
TTL: Technology as a Tool for Learning
87
Table 4.15
Teachers’ Response to Implementing 21st Skills, Based on Class Size
The findings from this study indicate that the skills, regardless of class size, which receive the
most attention are: collaboration (CB), communication (CM) and technology as a tool for learning (TTL).
Of note here is that teachers who responded they had more than 30 students teach these students in more
than one class, meaning the teachers were in a departmentalized setting, seeing their students for a set
time frame, one class at a time. From the participating teachers, the overall findings tend to point to a
slight benefit of smaller class size, though perhaps insignificant, as it is such a small amount.
Practice Implementation Based on School’s Title 1 Status. Title 1 is a rating a school receives when a
high percentage of their students are from low-income families. It was put into place through the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and amended under the Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA). This is to germinate the research of those participating teachers as it addresses the extent to
which these practices are implemented. Additionally, it provides insight into whether practices are being
equally implemented to all students, regardless of geography and school demographics, within these
particular schools. Looking at Table 4.16, it is clear to see that students who attend non-Title 1 schools
are being offered more opportunities to develop the critical 21st century skills.
C&I: Creativity and Innovation
CB: Collaboration
CM: Communication
CT: Critical Thinking
GC: Global Connections
LC: Local Connections
SD: Self- Direction
TTL: Technology as a Tool for Learning
0
1
2
3
4
5
C&I CB CM CT GC LC SD TTL
0-20
21-24
25-29
30+
88
Table 4.16
Teachers’ Response to Implementing 21st Skills, Based on Title 1 Status
Qualitative Analysis
In this study, the main source of qualitative analysis was the follow-up Zoom interview. In total,
seven teachers agreed to partake in the survey, which lasted an average of 20-25 minutes. The purpose of
the interview was to have teachers provide examples of implementation, to see if and how they matched
the description of each of the eight 21st century practices. Another purpose of the qualitative interviews
was to hear the teacher’s viewpoint as to whether they believed their students were ready to meet the
demands of the Common Core State Standards. This provided a chance to hear, from teachers, what
hindered them from increasing 21st century practices. To get an outline of the sampling, or the
recruitment, refer to the sections entitled Sample/Participants and Procedures/Data Collection.
Teacher Interviews
The seven interview participants have been given pseudonyms and are described in greater detail
below.
Teacher School A
Teacher of school A, Alice, identifies as a White female. She taught a self-contained 4th grade
general education class during the 2020-2021with it being her 32nd year. This district resided in an
affluent suburb on the North side of Chicago. Her district was not labeled Title 1, with only 1% low
income.
C&I: Creativity and
Innovation
CB: Collaboration
CM: Communication
CT: Critical Thinking
GC: Global Connections
LC: Local Connections
SD: Self- Direction
TTL: Technology as a Tool for
Learning
0
1
2
3
4
5
C&I CB CM CT GC LC SD TTL
No
Yes
89
The school district which Alice worked for had a makeup of 2,889 students, distributed across
one preschool, two middle schools, and four elementary schools. The district has had a balanced budget
for the past 17 years. All six of the schools earned Blue Ribbon Status, which is an award presented to
schools which demonstrate overall academic excellence or excellence in their progress in closing
achievement gaps (https://www2.ed.gov). The district had 296 teachers, with 69% having a Master’s
degree and above, and 31% having a Bachelor’s degree.
Alice’s particular school serves 496 students across the grades of kindergarten through 5th grades.
The demographics of the school’s students are 83% identify as White, 7% Hispanic, 6% Asian.
During the 2020-2021 school year, Alice’s classroom was a mixed ability classroom of 25
students, with some students on 504s (characterized as other health impairment), students on
Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), and Tier 2 (these students receive small group pull out math and
reading with a math or reading interventionist).
Alice categorized her students as wealthy, with much background knowledge in the world as they
were well traveled. Many of them take multiple trips throughout the year, often times to places abroad.
Alice explained that the COVID-19 pandemic caused the district to start in a full remote setting at
the beginning of the school year. In this format all students signed on for a full school day, through Zoom
to receive their lessons. Teachers were expected to teach from their classrooms. By the second week in
October a hybrid model was put into place, where students were split into either Group A or Group B.
One group would attend in-person in the morning, while the other came in the afternoon. In this format,
the group who was not in person was to complete asynchronous work, which was posted on Google
Classroom. This setup was continued until winter break when it was decided to go back to a full remote
setting, as many families were getting together for the holidays.
By the second week of February, all staff were vaccinated, voluntarily, after the district provided
a nonattendance day for students to allow staff to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Following this, on
March 8th, 2021, full in person learning began. Students still had the choice to remain in a remote setting;
however, none of Alice’s students chose this option.
90
Throughout the 2020-2021 school year, all families were offered the opportunity to choose a
remote learning model. These students were given a remote teacher, that would have been different than
their original teacher. Once the students were able to attend in person, Alice explained that if a student
was only to be out for a day or two, they could watch the class through a live stream of the lessons.
However, Alice was not expected to engage with these children. If a child was to be out for a week or
more, these students would go to the assigned remote teacher. Due to students having to possibly switch
teachers, all teachers across every grade level were expected to be on the same lesson every day to ensure
fluidity for students. Alice mentioned that this made it difficult as all of her autonomy was removed. It
also hindered many of the normal “fun” things she would do with students, in addition to the directive
that students should be six feet apart and unable to share any supplies.
Teacher School B
The teacher of school B, Mary, identifies herself as a White female. She was a 6th grade teacher
who taught in a departmentalized format, focusing on the subjects of science and social studies. The
2020-2021 school year marked her 10th year teaching.
Mary’s school district was located in a southwest suburb of Chicago. It was comprised of 6
schools; five of these are elementary schools serving preschool through 5th grade, and one middle school
serving grades 6th-8th. Total, there were 3,280 students across these six schools. The district has
maintained a balanced budget for the past four years. It was reported that 78% of teachers had advanced
degrees.
In Mary’s particular school, there were 1,076 students across the grades 6th, 7th, and 8th. The
demographics were 50.4% of the student population identified as White, 38% identified as Hispanic,
7.6% as Black, 1.9% as Asian, 0.2% as Native American, and 2% as two or more races. Her school was
labeled Title 1, with 43% low income.
Mary taught in a virtual setting for the entirety of the school year, where she was able to teach
from home. She had a total of 99 students with some having a 504 (other health impairment) and others
91
on Individualized Learning Plans (IEPs). She was to teach both science and social studies. In a typical
school year Mary would teach an 80-minute block of science on one school day, then an 80-minute block
of social studies the next day. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and her district’s guidelines, this time
dropped down to only 40 minutes, broken between the two subjects, or 20 minutes per subject.
At the beginning of the school 2020-2021 year, she had all 99 students live, on Zoom, at one time
for the entirety of each 20-minute block. After this became unmanageable, she reached out to
administration and requested a change for the next trimester. For the 2nd and 3rd trimesters, Mary’s
schedule was adjusted and the sessions were broken into smaller classes of 32 students, which was what
Mary was accustomed to in previous years. Here, she had more live instruction, as she had two groups
instead of one. However, the students themselves did not receive any additional live instruction, they just
had less people on Zoom with them, offering more opportunity to engage with each other and Mary.
Teacher School E
Teacher of school E, Carla, identifies herself as a White female. She was in her 8th year of
teaching during the 2020-2021 school year. She taught 5th grade in a self-contained general education
classroom, with 24 students. Her class was heterogenous, comprised of students labeled as English
Language Learners (ELL), Tier 2 (these students receive small group pull out math and reading with a
math or reading interventionist), and Tier 3 (these students receive small group pull out math and reading
with a math or reading interventionist for a longer duration).
Carla’s school district served a total of 5,198 students across 10 schools. Total, there are four
primary schools (serving kindergarten through 3 grades), three intermediate buildings (serving 3rd – 5th
grades) and three middle schools (serving 6th-8th grades).
Her particular school was an intermediate building, which had a total of 481 students. This school
was categorized as Title 1, with 19% being low income. The student demographics were 71.9% White,
17% Hispanic, 4.6% Black, 4.8% Asian.
92
Carla started the 2020-2021 school year teaching in a full remote setting, where students logged
onto Zoom every morning. Carla was expected to teach from her classroom. This was a full day of online
learning. Beginning November 2nd, students were able to come into school for half days. In this format,
families that chose to send their students to school would have students in person until lunch time.
Students then returned home for lunch, participated in previously recorded specials classes (art, music,
and gym), then signed back on for live instruction for the last hour of the day with the expectation that the
student focus on either science or social studies and social emotional learning (SEL). During the 90
minutes when students were having their lunch or specials, teachers were able to use this time to plan,
adjust curriculum to a digital format, or provide feedback to students.
Families who chose not to send their students to in person learning, and wanted to continue in the
remote setting were allowed to utilize Zoom each day. Carla explained that she was responsible for
teaching in this hybrid live streaming setting. One of her students stayed virtual for the entirety of the
year; however, many others would fluctuate between virtual and in person when they had to quarantine.
Carla explained how difficult this mode of teaching was as she had to try to engage both those in person
and at home at the same time, feeling a constraint of always having to be at her computer while still trying
to help the learners in front of her. She described her teaching as, “teaching in a crisis mode constantly,”
expressing how overwhelming and stressful it was.
After winter break, in January, students were able to come to school full day, without the 90-
minute break and could begin to eat lunch at school. This was the format for the remainder of the year,
continuing with the live streaming format and students frequently toggling between the two.
Teacher School D
Kerry was a fifth-grade self-contained general education teacher, who identifies as a White
Female. She was the second person interviewed from this school district, with Carla, mentioned above,
being in her same school.
93
The difference between Kerry and Carla’s classroom was that Kerry also had Enrichment
students, as well as English Language Learners (ELLs), 504 students and Tier 2 students. Kerry was
responsible for teaching high math. Total, Kerry had 27 students. Kerry explained her student’s transition
back to in person learning as such, “Right when we started in November, so 25 out of 27 I had were going
to be in person, and then a couple more ended up going remote after a week or so, so I’d say I had like
five or six remote and then by March I had everybody back.”
Kerry did speak to her enrichment students and why she liked having heterogenous classes with
them, “Just having those 12 boosted the expectation level. The students who were not enrichment were
able to beat the challenge.”
Teacher School F
Teacher of school F, Sam, identifies himself as a White male. The 2020-2021 school year was his
10th year of teaching and his class that year was a 6th grade self-contained behavior class. Sam explained
that all of his students had Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) due to their inability to control their
behaviors, and this had impacted their learning. He would see all of his students in a pull-out format,
where they would come to his room for a class period each day. His students would then go throughout
their daily schedule of the middle school, moving to different teachers depending on the class, as this was
a departmentalized school. Total he had 18 students.
Sam also taught in the same school district as Carla and Kerry (school E), however, he was in a
different building. The make-up of his particular building was that it served 554 students across the
grades 6th, 7th, and 8th. The demographics of students were that 70% identified as white, 17.1% Hispanic,
6% Asian, 5.2% Black, and 1.6% identified as two or more races. This school was categorized as Title 1,
with 16% labeled as low income.
Sam followed the same outline as Carla, in terms of the pandemic teaching setup, where he
started teaching fully virtual, then students came in through a hybrid setting starting November 2nd. The
difference with Sam’s school was students were placed in groups A and B. Group A would attend school
94
Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and then group B would attend Tuesday and Thursday, then the next
week it would flip. The students who were at home would live stream into the classroom, so Sam was
responsible for half of his students in person and half online on a daily basis. Additionally, his normal 49-
minute period was reduced down to 30 minutes, further adding a time constraint to what he could
accomplish.
In January, when students could return to full day in person, all of Sam’s students chose to come
back full time. None of his students were required to quarantine after returning full time, or elected to live
stream, which, he said made it significantly more manageable as his students were there every day.
Teacher School F
A second teacher was interviewed from school F, Cathy, who was a general education science
teacher to 6th graders. Cathy also identified herself as a White female and the 2020-2021 school year was
her 21st year teaching. The school, as mentioned in Sam’s descriptive analysis, was a departmentalized
middle school. Cathy had a total of 35 enrichment (honors) students during the 2020-2021 school year.
Although the same rotation as Sam (virtual, hybrid and in person learning), Cathy had a general
education class, with more students, and a total of seven stayed remote for the duration of the school year.
These students were expected to live stream into class each day to receive their lessons.
The two biggest areas which Cathy discussed were time and live streaming. A typical class
period, in other school years, was 49 minutes long. Due to the half day schedule, classes were reduced to
30 minutes. Cathy described how this time went very quickly, “That half hour went by really fast, because
the first 10 minutes we’re dealing with attendance and technical issues, getting kids engaged to begin
with, like showing up on your camera, so then you’re down to like 22 minutes to actually teach.”
Cathy discussed live streaming, where she was expected to teach both in person and Zoom
students simultaneously as “horrible.” Many students were disengaged, doing other things off the camera,
or just not showing up for lessons.
95
Teacher School G
Teacher of school G, Kelly, identifies herself as a White female. The 2020-2021 school year
marked Kelly’s 16th year teaching. She was teaching a self-contained 4th grade class of 25 students. Her
classroom was a heterogenous one, and all six of the cluster possibilities were represented within its
make-up.
Kelly’s school district is in a northern suburb of Chicago. The district is comprised of nine
schools, serving grades preschool through high school. There is a kindergarten building, five elementary
schools, two middle schools, and one high school. Total, there are 6,697 students.
Kelly’s particular school is an elementary school, serving grades 1st – 5th. Total, there were 498
students in the school. 79.5% of the students were Hispanic, 9% were White, 6.8% were Black, 2.4%
were two or more races, 1.8% were Asian, and 0.4% were Native American. Her school was labeled Title
1, with 82.7% categorized as low income.
Kelly also started her 2020-2021 school year in a full remote setting, being able to do so at her
own home. Students were not invited back to in person learning until April, at which point a hybrid
situation was implemented, for half day sessions (8:00 a.m. -11:30 a.m.). When the students did come
back, only 9 of the 25 families chose to send their child. Kelly reported she felt the reason so few came as
follows: “I don’t think they fully understood to be quite honest. I mean they were getting lots and lots of
surveys in multiple languages, but for a lot of them I don’t think that they really view them and then I
think they were confused by the timing because it was only supposed to be from like 8:00 a.m. until 11:30
two days a week, and so, for parents who are working it’s not a very convenient thing. Even if they were
offered buses, they still had to figure out childcare, and it’s just not conducive to a working parent. And
some of them actually did tell me that they were too afraid to send their kids. For safety reasons, they
wanted them at home. So, it was a wide range, yeah. Kelly described how many of her students who were
at home were often not on Zoom, or the live stream, which she was expected to use: “The ones that never
showed up on line at all, I think those were the parents who just didn’t know what was going on.”
96
Qualitative Analysis Interpretation
The qualitative analysis was guided through the lens of interpretation. Creswell (2013) describes
this as a valid source as the qualitative expounds on the quantitative. Earlier, each of the eight 21st century
practices were broken down individually, noting where there were lower responses, based on the
quantitative results. This section will focus on the qualitative data which was accumulated. Additionally,
the interviews were coded, to display themes. The themes were organized in thematic categories and
represent a rich description on how teachers implement 21st century practices, to what extent they believe
their students are ready to meet the demands of the Common Core, as well as in what ways they were
hindered in offering their student’s autonomy. Once these themes were identified, interview transcripts
were reviewed again to code statements belonging to these themes. The literature supports using
qualitative research in this way, as stated by Creswell et al. (2006) in that it “explains the results of
quantitative surveys; giving voice to different perspectives; and generating a theory or model that is
grounded in viewpoints of the participants that is subsequently tested or refined using quantitative
methods” (p. 3). In the case of the present study, the qualitative data provides examples of the
quantitative, and the voice is that of the teachers, articulating what supports they still need to increase
their students’ autonomy, as well as to have them college and career ready, as stated by the Common Core
State Standards. Four major themes became present after a revisit to the seven interview transcripts.
These themes can be seen in Table 4.17.
Table 4.17
Thematic Categories
Instructional Design
Technology
Curriculum
Autonomy
Times Mentioned
25
17
26
11
Instructional Design
The purpose of this study was to measure the degree to which upper elementary educators
implement 21st century practices. From this, the quantitative survey data showed the frequency to which
this was carried out during the 2020-2021 school year. A large component of this implementation was
instructional design, meaning the decisions that teachers made to design their lessons, and the ways in
97
which they carry them out. Bryk (2015) describes that for a teacher to be rated effective, they need to be
able to manage heterogenous classrooms. From the seven teachers interviewed, all of these had
classrooms that were comprised of students with varying needs and academic levels. Due to this, these
teachers had to make decisions on how to make their curriculum reach each of these levels in a way that
students would understand. The literature also states the learning environment must be conducive if
students are to reach high academic levels (Bryk, 2015; Bryk, Harding & Greenberg, 2012; Garte, 2017).
The seven respondents gave mostly accurate examples of 21st century practice implementation,
showcasing that they have a moderate understanding of the practices themselves. All of the teachers also
gave examples of where they made personal choices on lessons, that were not directly tied to the
curriculum in the hopes of increasing engagement. For instance, Carla, a fifth-grade teacher, spoke about
a Black History Month project where, “Students created a presentation, and they chose which platform to
use.” Another 6th grade teacher, Mary, discussed how her students completed a paper airplane project,
where students had to create their own models and then go back and improve the design, in the hopes of
them flying further. Both of these instances relate to creativity and innovation.
Even virtually, the seven teachers still made decisions how their students would be able to engage
with each other, showing collaboration. Three of the seven respondents mentioned utilizing breakout
rooms, where students had to complete a task while they were in a small group. Another two of the
respondents mentioned how their classroom design, once in person learning was in place, was still set up
with tables rather than desks, which allowed for collaboration. Of the four teachers who taught in a self-
contained setting (grades 4th and 5th) three of them mentioned how these skills were utilized daily in their
math class by having the students work together to solve problems.
The teachers all mentioned how their students partook in practicing their communication skills,
typically through oral share out. In the virtual setting, Mary mentioned the use of breakout rooms, where
students would have an opportunity to share with each other. Many of these examples; however, were
ones that were made in the moment, where students would interact with a classmate, either orally or
digitally. The teachers who provided deeper level of communication skills were the science teachers,
98
where they mentioned utilizing a science lab, requiring students to communicate the steps of a problem
and support their reasonings. All of these examples, though, do not correlate to the 21st century practices
mentioned in the survey, where students were asked to prepare something ahead of time, or convey their
ideas through different mediums. This could be a reason why the quantitative data had much higher
ratings on the questions of “I have tried to develop students’ communication skills,” and, “Most students
have learning communication skills while in my class.” While teachers were certainly having their
students practice communication, it was not in the specific modes as laid out through the 21st century
practices. The literature agrees that even though teachers are asking students to communicate, in order to
understand the ways these specific practices expect it to be done requires more learning on the teacher’s
part, which could be provided either through self-study, or professional development (Ayscue & Siegel-
Hawley, 2019; Christophersen et al., 2016; Huberman et al., 2011).
Critical thinking, the highest rated amongst the quantitative data, was mentioned in the interviews
in day-to-day occurrences. Four of the seven mentioned a science or math example, where students had to
think through a problem with no clear-cut answer. The other three respondents mentioned specific one-
time projects the students completed. While these projects were certainly of interest, critical thinking
skills should be incorporated frequently in order for them to be developed to a high degree. Kelly, a 4th
grade teacher, was very candid about her students critical thinking abilities, “Last year was online
teaching; there wasn’t much critical thinking to be honest.”
Technology
All 35 respondents in this study were in a one-to-one setting, meaning all of their students had a
personal device to use for instructional purposes. As stated in “Benchmarking for Success” (2008) it is
essential for devices to be a tool that goes beyond just a transferring of learning, where what was once just
paper and pencil is now on a screen. Rather, due to the ability to digitize many work tasks, incoming
career ready persons need to have a deep understanding of how to think critically and have a sound
technological understanding if they are to compete in the global marketplace. Of the survey responses,
Technology as a Tool for Learning was rated 2nd highest amongst all the practices. In the review of the
99
codes that were present through the interviews, often times the respondents’ mentioned ways in which
they had their students use technology.
Namely, every student was on Zoom to receive instruction at the start of the 2020-2021 school
year. What was highlighted in the qualitative data was most of the seven teachers used technology
through a substitution method. Examples of this would be digitizing a worksheet, a breakout room being
used in place of turn and talk, or an app being used to track goals. What is required, as displayed in the
21st century practices, is students should be required to redefine their learning using technology, meaning
students create new tasks that could not have been done without technology.
After review of the results from the 35 respondents of the survey, the two least use subskills for
Technology as a Tool for Learning were where students were required to analyze information and having
students determine the credibility and relevance of online content. If students are being asked to use
technology to learn, this is an area that needs focus, as it is important students are being taught the correct
ways to analyze their findings.
It should not go without being addressed, though, that for teachers and students alike, the
COVID-19 pandemic created a new learning environment for all, where teachers and students had to
figure out how to teach and learn in a new way without advanced preparation. As Carla stated, “I was in
crisis mode every day.” Another interviewee described technology differently, “The media has changed,
but the content has stayed the same. What we used to call ‘radio spot’ is now called a podcast. Younger
teachers come to me for an idea on how to use technology.” Cathy is a veteran teacher of 21 years, who
has learned to augment much of her previous projects to bring them up-to-date. Kerry had a different view
after the ending of the 2020-2021 school year stating, “Last year with COVID, everything was
technology, this year I’m trying to back off a bit.”
Curriculum
Each school district designs and implements curriculum at their discretion. Educators are
expected to follow a certain curriculum for each of the content areas they teach. Because of this,
curriculum has a heavy weight on the ways in which students are able to engage with their learning, the
100
lessons, as well as the types of 21st century practices they will be able to practice. The literature asserts
that as new teachers are entering the workforce, they need to have a good understanding of how to use
and implement curriculum for their future students (Bryk, Harding & Greenberg, 2012). In review of the
qualitative survey codes, curriculum came up most often over the seven interviewed, for a total of 26
times.
Positively, many of the respondents mentioned examples of 21st century practices that were
carried out directly due to the curriculum that was in place. For instance, Alice mentioned a STEM lab
where students would learn engineering concepts. She also explained a project tied to their science
curriculum where students became an expert on a weather pattern and had to use multiple sources and
then teach the rest of the class. Mary, a 6th grade teacher, discussed using graphing activities where
students all created different data points and the class had to identify patterns and analyze results.
These results match up with the quantitative survey data, in that across the eight practices, the
average implementation was 1-3 times per month. From this finding the curriculum that most districts are
choosing are offering ways for students to practice 21st century skills and are aligned with these Common
Core practices. On the other hand, it does bring to light that directly following a curriculum not allow
students to practice to the degree for it to become mastery level. For this to occur these should be
implemented 1-3 times per week, or to a daily level. This suggests the power of the learning environment,
and the instructional choices that each educator makes independently. As stated by Bryk, Harding and
Greenberg (2012) in the literature review, curriculum can only do so much, it is how the teachers lead
their learning spaces that have a tremendous impact on the outcomes of their students.
The two least used practices, global connections and location connections were described as
being implemented the least due to their lack of a curriculum tie. When asked what hindered them from
incorporating these skills more all seven mentioned not enough time in their day to focus on these skills
as it was not a requirement of the curriculum. Other reasons of note were two of the seven also mentioned
comfortability as a hinderance. Sam explained, “Probably just a lack of knowledge. I don’t have a lot of
like international global resources. I don’t consider myself a global thinker, as much as I could be but it’s
101
definitely something to improve on.” Carla discussed her nerves as, “Just being nervous about cultural
sensitivity.” Table 4.18, reports the themes that appear amongst the seven interviewed. Not only was
time mentioned often, but also the teachers felt that they were not knowledgeable enough to incorporate
this practice more, being they did not have enough education to implement with confidence.
Table 4.18
Response to What Hinders Global Connection Implementation
Reason for Non-implementation
Number of Times Mentioned
Time
4
Lack of Knowledge
3
Comfort Level
2
Not Tested on Standardized Tests
1
Autonomy
One of the supporting research questions for the study at hand was the teacher’s perception of
autonomy practices. In review of the quantitative data as well as the qualitative responses, it was very
clear that most of the 35 teachers experienced an incredible loss of teacher autonomy during the 2020-
2021 school year. When educators are not able to make as many decisions in content or pace of
curriculum, it decreases the amount of autonomy being given to the student. Many examples of this were
given through the qualitative responses. Sam, a 6th grade teacher stated, “We completed a class project
where students had to prove which game system was better and create a project, but this couldn’t happen
because of COVID.” Kelly said, “We use to do science fair, but that had to be put on hold as many
students were remote, and we couldn’t invite others in.”
Even when educators were still trying to offer opportunities, it became difficult. Mary, a 6th grade
science teacher, explained how her students used creativity and innovation: “[With] Every science lab,
where they had to work through different presentations, but this was limited because we were fully
digital.” Alice described the time constraint, “We have to get through what we have to get through, it
depends who is in charge of curriculum and how much freedom we had.”
Even still, some teachers were able to offer some projects that increased autonomy. Many of
these examples were able to be completed routinely, such as freedom of choice in what novel to read, or
102
topics which to write about. Other teachers spoke about allowing their students to choose which way to
present their learning, leveraging various apps. All of these were examples provided in the literature
through both Admiraal et al. (2019) and Wehmeyer et al. (2017).
Autonomy also relates to the choices teachers make to bring experiences to their students. One of
those interviewed shared great ways they were able to enhance this. First, Sam, a 6th grade teacher,
described how he took his students on a walking field trip to visit the police station, fire station and local
library as a way to learn about various jobs.
When probed about how student autonomy is addressed in the classroom and what hindered them in
increasing it, time was stated as a culprit by six of the seven. Also stated was lack of engagement due to
remote learning. One respondent, Alice, described district actions that reduced her teacher autonomy,
“Last year we had zero flexibility. Every 4th grade teacher in the whole district had to be on the same
lesson at the same day because of kids who went into quarantine.” Another respondent, Carla, mentioned
feeling they were teaching in a “crisis mode,” while another mentioned it being hard to “release those
reigns of being the teacher.” All of those responses help to provide context around the second supporting
research question: What is the perception from teachers regarding autonomy practices in the 21st century
upper elementary classroom?
Common Core Readiness
The seven interviewed were also asked to gauge whether they felt their students were ready to
meet the demands of the Common Core. Three of the seven respondents said yes, while the other four
said no. The first respondent, Alice, mentioned they felt that it also would depend on the child, but
overall, their students did a bit better on math than reading because once students “learn how to make
equivalent fractions, that rule doesn’t change, but they can put any reading story on the test, and so it just
depends.” This is different than Mary, the 6th grade teacher, who stated students were more prepared in
reading, “I feel like they’re able to like sort of keep up with reading and language arts, I feel like there’s
less gaps there, I think the bigger gaps that we’re seeing is science and the math.”
103
Two of the respondents also mentioned lacking in critical thinking with one also discussing a lack
of background knowledge and students struggling on, “inferential questions because they do lack [critical
thinking skills], but I also think it has to do with background and they lack that.” Sam, who taught 6th
grade, also mentioned how the students missed a lot, stating, “the maturity level of them academically is
in fourth grade and they’re coming in from that fourth-grade mentality, they literally didn’t mature.”
The results offered background on where educators felt they learned implementation techniques,
which pertains to the second supporting research question: In what ways are teachers being supported (by
administration, curricular innovations, continued education courses, professional developments) in
meeting the needs of 21st Century learners? Six of the seven mentioned their colleagues as a resource.
Team time was reported to be a main collaboration opportunity; however, it varied how often and to what
extent each of the respondents were able to meet with their teams. One teacher had designated plan time
every day for at least 30 minutes. Another had a plan three times a week for 40 minutes. One respondent,
who was a 6th grade resource teacher, would have team time every day, but would be pulled into the
teams of his students bi-weekly or sometimes only once a month, due to the schedule of live streaming
with the COVID-19 pandemic. A 5th grade respondent would have time daily, but as the year progressed
the teachers on her team touched base more via text messaging, rather than in a live or virtual setting, so
they could work independently. Once a month, though, the school had a mandatory team meeting for each
grade level, where teachers were expected to collaborate.
Alice, who had been teaching the longest of those interviewed, 32 years, mentioned her younger
colleagues as a great help, stating, “Most of what I learn, especially technology wise, has come from my
colleagues. Our S.T.E.M teacher, who was one of my 4th grade partners and then one of my partners down
the hall, who’s 30, she’s very techie and she teaches me lots of stuff.” Sam discussed the school size as
being a positive factor in collaboration, “Geographically it’s a small building and we see each other
constantly in the hallways and none of us are really shut ins, like we don’t have our doors closed and we
don’t hole up anywhere.” These types of examples are similar to Wexler’s (2020) study where a dual
104
partnership was formed between novice and tenured teachers, resulting in both parties ablility to refine
and update their practices.
Two of the respondents mentioned their undergraduate education, stating it was no longer
applicable because it was outdated. Mary, who was virtual all year, mentioned using social media and a
specific Facebook group, “It’s this bitmoji group from last year and I got a lot of ideas from there and my
teaching partner from the previous year.” Finally, when asked about what their district did to support their
practices the theme that emerged was that with limited time, colleague interaction provided more support
than professional development sessions. Alice stated, “Our professional development kind of suck and
[are] somewhat insulting. For the most part of what I learned is from just my colleagues here or my
team.” As stated in the literature the school culture is essential to implementation, where teachers need to
be provided ongoing professional development, during the school year, so that new learning can be
applied immediately (Naeghel et al., 2016). From this, it seems like for professional development to be
supportive, it must be kept relevant and integrate colleague interaction.
Implementations
Through interview dialogue across the seven respondents, it was clear to see that the teachers had
a range of ways to engage their students in 21st century practices. All mentioned using their devices every
day. With the pandemic it was more important than ever, as students needed to use Zoom. All of the
teachers reported they were full remote for at least part of the school year, with one teacher being remote
for the entirety. The largest hinderance that was reported amongst all of the teachers was that their own
autonomy was restricted, due to the COVID-19 practices that were in place in their district. They stated
being forced to be on exactly the same lesson as the other teachers, which did not allow for extra time to
be spent on skills, to also not having a full day’s schedule. As reported by these respondents, science and
social studies were typically dropped from the curriculum, to account for other needs. One respondent
claimed this was done so that additional social, emotional learning and teacher curriculum planning could
take place as all lessons needed to be digitized or modified due to COVID-19 restrictions.
105
Table 4.19
Teachers Response to What Hinders Increasing Student Autonomy
What hinders you from increasing student autonomy?
Number of
Times Mentioned
Time/Prescribed Curriculum
5
Virtual Setting; Lack of Focus/Engagement
3
Students Choose Easy Tasks, Not Challenging Ones
1
When teachers were asked what hindered them from increasing their student’s autonomy, Table
4.19 displays the themes that emerged. As reported, five of the seven interviewed mentioned not having
enough time to allow students to choose their own projects and topics. Another three times, interviewees
mentioned that their students were disengaged and the virtual setting made it difficult to release the
control from the teacher. However, this has a backfiring effect as when teachers take more control,
students’ interests wane. As the literature asserts, in order to increase intrinsic motivation, student
autonomy also needs to be increased (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Being this was a year that was new for
teachers and students alike, there are certainly areas which can be addressed moving forward, as the data
is reviewed.
106
Chapter Five: Implications, Further Research and Conclusions
The present study examined to what degree upper elementary educators implemented 21st century
practices within their classroom, focusing also on the types of supports educators are offered at
developing these and implementing with fidelity. Additionally, the present study provided insight into the
effects the COVID-19 pandemic had on teaching practices. As a whole, the present study added to the
research around upper elementary classroom dynamics that enable students to become college and career
ready, as proposed by the Common Core State Standards.
The present study presents an account of what decisions the participating Illinois teachers made
on a daily basis to adhere to the outlined 21st century Common Core State Standards. In addition, the
voice of the teacher was captured through the seven interviews carried out with self-selected participants
in order to illuminate the similarities and differences these educators had to face in reaching their
students’ needs. This was based on their schools’ dynamics, as well as their teaching experience.
Ultimately, it was clear to see that certain 21st century practices are given more weight than others.
The present study thus adds research findings about the ever-important upper elementary grades
of 4th – 6th. This particular band of grades is when students exhibit more struggles than others, as noted in
the literature reviewed, with it being a time when students shift from learning to read in the primary
grades to reading to learn (Del Giudice, 2018; Mah & Ford-Jones, 2021). Due to this, it is essential that
not only students are academically ready, but that they are also explicitly offered opportunities in 21st
century practices to put them on a path of becoming college and career ready. This study demonstrated
that certain grades and schools’ dynamics may impact the implementation of these practices. Ultimately,
the pandemic played a role; however, the present study sheds light on where educators feel they currently
are, and the supports they have, versus what they still need.
Aligned with the findings, this section will present recommendations for districts as they choose
in which ways to offer professional developments, plan their teacher’s schedules and organize their
classes to harness 21st century practices in their classrooms. Next, it will provide suggestions for future
research. And finally, concluding marks are included.
107
Implementations for Practice and Recommendations
Through an analysis of the surveys and interviews, buttressed by the findings of the literature
reviewed, recommendations are offered for how school districts can better support their teachers in
implementing the necessary 21st century practices. While this study only focused on 35 Illinois teachers,
the findings are pertinent to other Illinois districts and states that also adhere to the Common Core State
Standards. Being that the purpose of the Common Core is to ensure all students are college and career
ready, it is worthy for all education stakeholders to consider where teachers already feel confident, as well
as where they have articulated further supports are needed.
With any study, it is important for the reader to understand the conditions that were undertaken,
to ascertain the relevance to their own dynamics. The following sections will offer insight into various
implementations that can be taken into consideration, on the larger scope, to best meet the needs of
teachers, and thus, students.
General Implementations
The findings from this study show that of the eight 21st century practices (critical thinking,
collaboration, communication, creativity and innovation, self-direction, global connections, local
connections, and technology as a tool for learning) global and local connections were the ones least
implemented in classrooms of the participating teachers. Knowing this provides a starting point for
educators to look at their lessons and reflect on why they implement these 21st century practices the least.
The world is becoming increasingly interconnected. Many corporations are outsourcing work to other
countries than the ones they are based in. In this context, having students see how they can relate to and
understand cultures different than their own will ensure they are not only college and career ready but
ready to succeed in their chosen fields. Furthermore, with our schools more diverse than ever, allowing
students to share and celebrate their differences will not only encourage students to be more empathetic,
but will also allow them opportunities to embrace those different than themselves. These findings suggest
that more professional development is needed in this area, this is supported by the findings of this study
when the classroom dynamics are viewed.
108
In order for both global and local connections to be incorporated more frequently, teachers will
need to be trained on how those connect into the current curriculum and be given the opportunity to have
the time to do so. This directly relates to the sub research question of what supports teachers need to
increase 21st century practices and student autonomy.
Of the three grades represented, 6th grade implements all but two practices to a lesser degree than
5th and 4th grades. This suggests that the way the schedule is organized may be impacting this
implementation, being that these educators are generally on more rigid time schedules. Of note, 6th grade
rated highest for both global and local connections. This finding raises questions as to why this grade is
higher in this area. Is it the result of a curriculum difference? A maturity difference? These questions
would require further research; however, having dialogue on ways these practices are implemented would
benefit other upper elementary educators.
No matter the range of abilities within a class, results did not show a statistical difference. This
supports the literature on creating heterogenous classes, with a range of diverse students (Bryk, Harding
& Greenberg, 2012; Christophersen et al., 2016). Even in classes that have 5-6 different clusters,
educators find ways to incorporate the 21st century practices, with all but two of them at a three on the
five-point Likert scale. (A three was scored as “1-3 times a month”). This suggests that students are being
given opportunities each month to practices the various skills.
Using the educator’s experience did not show much difference across the years teaching. The
largest difference was noted in collaboration (CB) with teachers having between 1-5 years’ experience
documenting they do this close to a level 4, or “1-3 times a week”. For the rest of the practices, the results
were pretty close. The findings suggest that despite their years teaching, most teachers were implementing
to the same rate. One such reason could be that the setup for the 2020-2021 school year was different for
all, due to the pandemic. Because of this, it could be concluded that all educators were facing difficulties,
it was new for all, and thus, there was little difference between the newest and most tenure teachers.
Next, the findings were broken down by class size. Most of the findings were similar across the
eight practices. The largest difference was in communication (CM) where the larger class sizes did this to
109
a lower rate than classrooms that had 24 or less students. When reviewing the survey questions regarding
communication skills (these are ones that ask students to present oral reports, speak in front of an
audience, display findings using charts and graphs and decide how to present findings) it can be
concluded that both the restrictions due to virtual learning and limited time hindered implementation. The
interviews further supported this, as the teachers expressed how often times students were disengaged in
their learning due to being remote. Teachers also noted being required to be on the same lesson every day,
in case a learner went back to a remote setting.
As a whole, schools that were labeled Title 1 implemented the practices to a lesser rate than
schools which were not. This finding suggests that more attention should be paid to these special
environments. Being Title 1 schools are populated by students who are from lower incomes, it is essential
that they are being offered the same opportunities as children of more wealthy families. Although extra
government funds are distributed currently to these schools, in order to level the playing field, the
findings of this study indicate that opportunities for 21st century practices are not being provided.
Finally, results were broken down based on whether the respondents were from the single school
district, located in the southwest Chicago suburbs versus various districts from around Illinois. It was
found that there was no statistical difference between the one district and the larger area location,
indicating that teachers across Illinois have similar implementation practices. Based on these findings, it
suggests that the differences due to the pandemic made it difficult to implement the practices on a daily
basis, with most practices only being implemented a couple of times a month.
In relation to the second sub research question, What is the perception from teachers regarding
autonomy practices in the 21st century upper elementary classroom? it was unanimous that teachers
needed more time to implement them successfully. Of the seven interviewed, all teachers spoke how they
were limited in their teaching choices, and six of the seven mentioned their own autonomy being
restricted, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, or because of their districts’ expectations. Because of the
stipulations put on them by their district, they were unable to do many of the things they had done in the
past. A common sentiment among those interviewed was, “In the past I would do a project, but we
110
couldn’t last year because of the pandemic.” The findings suggest that as a teacher’s own autonomy is
reduced, student autonomy wanes, too. This is in line with the hypothesis that when there is more support
for educators to implement classroom practices, student autonomy also increases.
Summary
Overall, of all the 21st century practices, the one that was implemented the most was critical
thinking (CT), followed closely by technology as a tool for learning (TTL). Being that every school was
remote for at least part of the year, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is notable that technology as a tool
for learning was not reported with the highest rating. From the data which was discussed in Chapter 4, all
practices were rated near a level three on the 5-point Likert scale, with a 3 being implemented “1-3 times
per month”. These findings indicate that students were being given the opportunity to use and practice
various 21st century practices; however, it was not in daily, or even weekly, practice.
As noted previously, of the eight 21st century practices, the two which were implemented the least
frequent were local connections (LC), followed closely by global connections (GC). Both of these were at
a rating of just below 2, with two being referred to implementation of “a few times a semester”. These are
the two practices which teachers who were interviewed stated they let fall by the wayside due to time, not
enough knowledge of the practice, and because of the lack of community involvement. Both these
findings, as well as the claimed obstacles, offer answers to the main research question, “To what degree
do Illinois upper elementary teachers implement 21st century practices?”
Recommendations for Practice
This study affirmed that a teacher’s autonomy is directly linked to the autonomy a student can be
offered. The findings showed that as a district tightens control over curriculum and lessons, students in
turn are offered less autonomy in their learning. Further, the findings show that educators learn from their
colleagues the most, followed by their own curiosities and taking it upon themselves. All seven of those
interviewed mentioned that while their districts provided professional developments, often times it was
not helpful. The number one support that all teachers’ mentioned needing was more time. Allowing more
time to plan, provide feedback, as well as to collaborate with their colleagues would allow teachers to
111
increase not only their student’s autonomy, but also allow for more incorporation of the 21st century
practices. Being there are only so many hours in a day, it is important for districts to realize that time
needs to be dedicated for teachers to plan for their students. Districts need to learn from COVID and be
prepared to shift learning models and react in a way that does not impede teacher autonomy, else risking
the same for students. Furthermore, noticing that Title 1 schools reported less implementation on 21st
century practices, leaders in these schools should be mindful of the support required as they are planning
their teacher’s schedules.
This study brings to light that further research could be useful to better understand effective ways
of implementing 21st century practices. Being that this study asked respondents to reflect on their teaching
during a pandemic, it also showcases how teachers continue to try their best at making sure their students
are ready to meet the demands of the Common Core State Standards, even in challenging conditions.
More research would be useful to understand the effects of the pandemic, to see if educators notice
differences in the subsequent school years, after moving from a remote environment back to an in person
one.
This research adds to the existing literature around upper elementary student learning experiences
as well as in what capacity they were allowed to practice 21st century skills, despite a global pandemic.
This aligns with Deci and Ryan’s (2008b) self-determination theory in that it showcases a need for there
to be increased autonomy not only for students, but teachers as well. Due to the tight restrictions with the
pandemic, many teachers were unable to increase their students’ autonomy. Additionally, of those
interviewed, three of the seven mentioned their student’s lack of engagement while in the remote format.
Without intrinsic motivation, skills cannot be deepened and mastery of learning is significantly reduced,
as noted in the literature reviewed (Raftery-Helmer & Grolnick, 2018; Ryan & Deci, 2000b).
Study Limitations
The purpose of this study was not to make generalizations about 21st century practices, it sought
to offer insights related to the frequency that educators have their students practice them. Further, it
provides context for where teachers felt they needed more support, as well as giving examples of the ways
112
in which educators implement such practices. While the findings of this study can serve as a guide to
stakeholders as they plan for future academic years, it is important to acknowledge some of the
limitations.
This study only looked at Illinois educators. Expanding on this study, and incorporating other
states that also participate in the Common Core State Standards would allow for further trends to be
identified. Seeing if different states have similar or different results, would provide deeper context on how
students from different areas are being supported in becoming college and career ready. Similarly, adding
to the sample size with teachers from areas outside of the Chicagoland would provide context around
different district’s offerings.
Next, this study was rather small in scale, with only a total of 35 participants and 7 follow-up
interviews. Being able to add to the data, on a large scale, would offer deeper understanding to the main
research question of the degree to which teachers implement 21st century practices. This is the same when
discussing the time frame of the study, which took place at the end of the summer, asking teachers to
reflect on their previous academic year. Being able to have the study take place at the end of the school
year might have offered a larger sample size. Also, it would be worthy to carry this study over for years to
come, to provide context to what degree the COVID-19 pandemic affected teaching practices, and allow
comparisons to be made from year to year, going from remote learning, to in person.
Finally, this study did not give voice to the learners themselves. Future research should allow
students to partake, to hear what would motivate them. This would also allow a comparison between the
educator and student’s responses, their similarities or differences.
Conclusion
The results of the present study revealed that upper elementary students are only offered
opportunities to practice 21st century skills a few times a month. Considering an entire school year is only
eight months, this level of frequency is limited and is not going to enable most students to be college and
career ready, as stated by the Common Core State Standards. Even more concerning is the fact that
113
students in low-income schools are being given even fewer opportunities to partake in 21st century
practices than those in affluent schools, furthering the achievement gap.
With the results of this study focused on the 2020-2021 school year, there are considerations to be
made in that this was a school year unlike any other. Even so, it is clear that educators are continually
doing their best to try and increase their student’s autonomy and provide engaging ways for them to learn.
That being said, there is still much room for growth. Being that most educators do not rely on their
district’s professional developments to help them to continue to refine their practices, this is an immediate
area of attention for those administrators.
While the present study was able to provide context to the implementation of 21st century
practices, there is still more work that needs to be done before these practices are able to be put into place
on a weekly or even daily frequency. Specifically, educators need time to enhance their practice. From the
current study, educators learn the most from each other. Thus, allowing teachers the time to collaborate is
essential. Additionally, the voice of the student should be considered, as this is a surefire way to increase
intrinsic motivation and therefore, student learning.
114
References
Achieve. (2013a). Closing the Expectations Gap. 2013 annual Report on the Alignment of State K–12
Policies and Practice with the Demands of College and Careers. Washington, DC: Author.
Achieve, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and the National Governors Association (2008b).
Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World-Class Education. Washington,
DC: National Governors Association.
Admiraal, W., Nieuwenhuis, G., Kooij, Y., Dijkstra, T., & Cloosterman, I. (2019). Perceived autonomy
support in primary education in the Netherlands: Differences between teachers and their
students. World Journal of Education, 9(4), 1–12. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1222890
Anderson, L.W. and Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A
revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition. New York: Longman.
Andreano, J., & Wolfe, J. (2019). Fostering learner autonomy through extensive reading: A preliminary
investigation. Bulletin of Kaichi International University, 18, 193-213.
Armstrong, P. (2010). Bloom’s Taxonomy. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved from
https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/.
Ayscue, J.B. and Siegel-Hawley, G. (2019). Magnets and school turnarounds: Revisiting policies for
promoting equitable, diverse schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(72), 1-72.
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4248
Baranek, L.K. (1996). The effect of rewards and motivation on student achievement [Master's thesis,
Grand Valley State University]. Scholar Works. http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/theses/285
Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of
educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: Longman
Boyles, N. (2016). Perusing the depths of knowledge: Whether students are engaging in deep learning or
just recalling facts, rigorous instruction should be part of the plan. Educational Leadership, 74(2),
46-50.
115
Broussard, S.C., & Garrison, M.E. (2004). The relationship between classroom motivation and academic
achievement in elementary-school-aged children. Family and Consumer Sciences Research
Journal, 33(2), 106-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077727X04269573
Bryk, A.S. (2015). 2014 AERA distinguished lecture accelerating how we learn to improve. Educational
Researcher, 44(9), 467-477. http://er.aera.net/
Bryk, A., Harding, H., &Greenberg, S. (2012) Contextual influences on inquiries into effective teaching
and their implications for improving student learning. Harvard Educational Review, 82(1), 83 -106.
https://meridian.allenpress.com/her/article/82/1/83/32076/Contextual-Influences-on-Inquiries-into-
Effective
Bryman, A. (1984). The debate about quantitative and qualitative research: A question of method or
epistemology? The British Journal of Sociology, 35(1), 75-92.
Caruth, G.D. (2013). Demystifying mixed methods research design: A review of the literature. Mevlana
International Journal of Education, 3(2), 112-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.13054/mije.13.35.3.2
Chan, P. E., Graham-Day, K. J., Ressa, V. A., Peters, M. T., & Konrad, M. (2014). Beyond involvement:
Promoting student ownership of learning in classrooms. Intervention in School and Clinic, 50(2),
105–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451214536039
Christophersen, K.-A., Elstad, E., Solhaug, T., & Turmo, A. (2016). Antecedents of student teachers’
affective commitment to the teaching profession and turnover intention. European Journal of
Teacher Education, 39(3), 270–286.
https://doi.org.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/10.1080/02619768.2016.1170803
Cochran, D. (2021). Moving Up Bloom’s Taxonomy [Infographic]. Creative Educator.
https://creativeeducator.tech4learning.com/v02/articles/The_New_Blooms
Cock, D., & Halvari, H. (1999). Relations among Achievement Motives, Autonomy, Performance in
Mathematics, and Satisfaction of Pupils in Elementary School. Psychological Reports, 84(3), 983-
997. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1999.84.3.983
116
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (n.d.). What parents should know.
http://www.corestandards.org/what-parents-should-know/
Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web or Internet-based
surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 821-836.
Corr, C., Snodgrass, M.R., Love, H., Scott, I.M., Kim, J., Andrews, L. (2020). Exploring the landscape of
published mixed methods research in special education: A systematic review. Remedial and Special
Education. https://doi-org.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/10.1177/0741932520924030
Couper, M. P. (2000). Web survey: A review of issues and approaches. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64 (4),
464-94.
Covell, K. (2010). Young students' engagement in school scale [Database record]. Retrieved from
PsycTESTS. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/t00476-000
Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.).
SAGE publications, Inc.
Creswell, J.W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J.W., and Garrett, A.L., (2008). The “movement” of mixed methods research and the role of
educators. South African Journal of Education, 28(3), 321-333.
Creswell, J.W., Shope, R., Plano Clark, V.L., Green, D.O., (2006). How interpretive qualitative research
extends mixed methods research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 1-11.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M.E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development.
Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985a). Cognitive Evaluation Theory. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.),
Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior (pp. 87–112). Springer US.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7_4
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (2008b). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation,
development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182-185.
117
De Laet, S., Colpin, H., Vervoort, E., Doumen, S., Van Leeuwen, K., Goossens, L., & Verschueren, K.
(2015). Developmental trajectories of children’s behavioral engagement in late elementary school:
Both teachers and peers matter. Developmental Psychology, 51(9), 1292-1306.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039478
Del Giudice, M. (2018). Middle childhood: An evolutionary-developmental synthesis. In N. Halfon, C.B.
Forrest, R.M. Lerner & E.M. Faustman (Eds.), Handbook of Life Course Health Development (pp.
95-107). Springer, Cham.
Diseth, A., & Samdal, O. (2013). Autonomy support and achievement goals as predictors of perceived
school performance and life satisfaction in the transition between lower and upper secondary
school. Social Psychology of Education, 17(2), 269-291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9244-4
Early, D.M., Rogge, R.D., Deci, E.L. (2014) Engagement, alignment, and rigor as vital signs of high-
quality instruction: A classroom visit protocol for instructional improvement and research. The High
School Journal, Summer.
Finnan, C.R. (2009). The upper elementary years: Ensuring success in grades 3-6. Corwin.
Forehand, M. (2010). Bloom’s taxonomy. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching,
and technology (pp. 41-47). Retrieved
from https://textbookequity.org/Textbooks/Orey_Emergin_Perspectives_Learning.pdf
Garte, R. (2017). American progressive education and the schooling of poor children: A brief history of a
philosophy in practice. International Journal of Progressive Education, 13(2), 8-17.
Gasparini, D. (2014). Self-Advocacy: The importance of building interpersonal-communication and help-
seeking skills in elementary school children. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED546459
Gillet, N., Vallerand, R., & Lafrenière, M.A. (2012). Intrinsic and extrinsic school motivation as a
function of age: The mediating role of autonomy support. Social Psychology of Education, 15(1),
77–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9170-2
Goldhaber, D. (2019) Evidence - based teacher preparation: Policy context and what we know. Journal of
Teacher Education, 70(2), 90-101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118800712
118
Goldman, J.A., Heddy, B.C, & Laird, S. (2018). An interdisciplinary discourse between Dewey and self-
determination theory: Motivation in the wake of monetizing education. Education and Culture,
34(2), 89-95. doi:10.5703/educationculture.34.2.0089
Guan, L. (2021). Investigation into improvement of teacher autonomy and student autonomy through
collaborative action research. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 11(1), 76-80. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1101.09
Guay, F., & Bureau, J. S. (2018). Motivation at school: Differentiation between and within school
subjects matters in the prediction of academic achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
54, 42–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.05.004
Guay, F., Roy, A., & Valois, P. (2017). Teacher structure as a predictor of students’ perceived
competence and autonomous motivation: The moderating role of differentiated instruction. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 224–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12146
Hargreaves, E., & Elhawary, D. (2019). Professional development through mutually respectful
relationship: senior teachers’ learning against the backdrop of hierarchical relationships. Professional
Development in Education, 45(1), 46-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2018.1500390
Hart, L.A. (2017). The impact of rewards on the effectiveness of performance feedback in improving
writing production in elementary school students [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville]. Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/4625/
Hess, K. (2006). Exploring cognitive demand in instruction and assessment. National Center for
Assessment. https://www.nciea.org/sites/default/files/publications/DOK_ApplyingWebb_KH08.pdf
Hixson, N. , Ravitz J. & Whisman, A. (2012). Extended professional development in project-based
learning: Impacts on 21st century teaching and student achievement. Charleston, WV: West Virginia
Department of Education. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/1999374.
Hofferber, N., Eckes, A., & Wilde, M. (2014). Effects of autonomy supportive vs. controlling teachers’
behavior on students’ achievements. European Journal of Educational Research, 3(4), 177–184.
Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1085991
119
Houghton, K.L. (2015). Impacts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on reading achievement of first-
grade students [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. ScholarWorks.
https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2811&context=dissertations
Huberman, M., Parrish, T., Hannan, S., Arellanes, M., & Shambaugh, L. (2011). Turnaround Schools in
California: Who Are They and What Strategies Do They Use? PsycEXTRA Dataset, 1-36.
doi:10.1037/e537112012-001
Jacobsen, T., & Hofmann, V. (1997). Children’s attachment representations: Longitudinal relations to
school behavior and academic competency in middle childhood and adolescence. Developmental
Psychology, 33(4), 703-710.
Johnson, R. B. & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time
has come. American Educational Research Association, 33(7), 14-26.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3700093
Kano, M., Franke, T., Afifi, A. A., & Bourque, L. B. (2008). Adequacy of Reporting Results of School
Surveys and Nonresponse Effects: A Review of the Literature and a Case Study. Educational
Researcher, 37(8), 480–490. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08326859
Kamil, M.L. (2016). Common Core state standards and adaptive teaching. Theory Into Practice, 55, 234-
241. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1173991
Koh, J.H., Chai, C.S, & Lim, W.Y. (2017) Teacher professional development for TPACK-21CL: Effects
on teacher ICT integration and student outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(2)
172–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116656848
Lee, J., & Wu, Y. (2017). Is the Common Core racing America to the top? Tracking changes in state
standards, school practices, and student achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(35),
1-23.
Leptokaridou, E. T., Vlachopoulos, S. P., & Papaioannou, A. G. (2016). Experimental longitudinal test of
the influence of autonomy-supportive teaching on motivation for participation in elementary school
120
physical education. Educational Psychology, 36(7), 1135–1159.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.950195
Lambriex-Schmitz, P., Van der Klink, M. R., Beausaert, S., Bijker, M., & Segers, M. (2020). Towards
Successful Innovations in Education: Development and Validation of a Multi-Dimensional
Innovative Work Behaviour Instrument. Vocations and Learning, 13(2), 313–340.
Mah, V.K., & Ford-Jones, E.L. (2012). Spotlight on middle childhood: Rejuvenating the ‘forgotten
years.’ Paediatrics & Child Health, 17(2), 81-83.
Manfreda, K.L., Bosnjak, M., Berzelak, J., Haas, I., Vehovar, V.: Web surveys versus other survey
modes. Int. J. Mark. Res. 50, 79–104 (2008).
Matera, B. D. (2009). The effects of rewards and punishments on motivations of the elementary school
student (Order No. 3396326). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
(305077999). https://www-proquest-
com.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/docview/305077999?accountid=14553
McClelland, D. (1988). The Achievement Motive. In Human Motivation (pp. 223-267). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139878289.009
Merterns, D.M. (2015). Research and evaluation in education and psychology. Sage Publications:
London.
Mouratidis, A., & Michou, A. (2011). Self‐determined motivation and social achievement goals in
children’s emotions. Educational Psychology, 31(1), 67-86.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2010.518595
Naeghel, J.D., Van Keer, H., Vansteenkiste, M., Haerens, L., & Aelterman, N. (2016). Promoting
elementary school students’ autonomous reading motivation: Effects of a teacher professional
development workshop. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(3), 232-252.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.942032
Neem, J.N. (2016). Does the Common Core further democracy? Democracy & Education, 26(1), 1- 4.
121
Nguyen, C.H. (2007). Email Surveys in Educational Research: Ethical and Net-Cultural Concerns. Open
Papers, 1-16.
Niemiec, C. P., Ryan, R. M. (2009) Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying
self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2) ,133-144.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Johnson, R.B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the
Schools, 13(1), 48-63.
Polikoff, M.S. (2017). Is Common Core “working”? And where does Common Core research go from
here? AERA Open, 3(1), 1-6.
Pourshafie, T., & Murray-Harvey, 2013. Facilitating problem-based learning in teacher education: Getting
the challenge right. Journal of Education for Teaching, (39)2, 169-180.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2013.765190
Raftery-Helmer, J. N., & Grolnick, W. S. (2018). Parent and teacher effects on academic coping and
classroom engagement: Testing a motivational model. Motivation & Emotion, 42(5), 638–652.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9676-4
Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan
(Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (p. 183–203). University of Rochester Press.
Rentner, D.S. (2013). Year 3 of implementing the Common Core State Standards: An overview of states’
progress and challenges. Center on Education Policy. https://www.cep-
dc.org//displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=421
Rust, F., & Bergey, N.L. (2014). Developing action-oriented knowledge among preservice teachers:
Exploring learning to teach. Teacher Education Quarterly, Winter.
Ryan, R.M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive
evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(3), 450-461.
DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.43.3.450
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new
directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
122
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Schuitema, J., Peetsma, T., & van der Veen, I. (2016). Longitudinal relations between perceived
autonomy and social support from teachers and students’ self-regulated learning and
achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 49, 32–45.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.05.006
Song, M. (2018). Assessing the impact of college- and career-ready standards: Findings, challenges, and
future directions. The Center on Standards, Alignment, Instruction, and Learning.
Spinath, B., Spinath, F.M., Harlaar, N., & Plomin, R. (2006). Predicting school achievement from general
cognitive ability, self-perceived ability, and intrinsic value. Intelligence, 4, 363-374.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2005.11.004
Swanson, J.A., Ficarra, L.R., & Chapin, D. (2020). Strategies to strengthen differentiation within the
common core era: Drawing on the expertise from those in field. Preventing School Failure:
Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 64(2), 116-127.
TITLE I, PART A – IMPROVING BASIC PROGRAMS. Illinois State Board of Education. (n.d.).
Retrieved September 19, 2021, from https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Title-I-Part-A.aspx.
Vecchione, M., Alessandri, G., & Marsicano, G. (2014). Academic motivation predicts educational
attainment: Does gender make a difference? Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 124–131.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.01.003
Walker, T. (2019). PISA 2018: Slight U.S. progress, but what do the results really tell us? NEAToday.
Retrieved August 17, 2020, from https://neatoday.org/2019/12/03/2018-pisa-results/
Waterschoot, J., Vansteenkiste, M., & Soenens, B. (2019). The effects of experimentally induced choice
on elementary school children’s intrinsic motivation: The moderating role of indecisiveness and
teacher–student relatedness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 188,104692.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.104692
Watkins, D.C., & Gioia, D. (2015). Mixed methods research. Oxford University Press.
123
Wehmeyer, M.L., Shogren, K.A., Toste, J.R., & Mahal, S. (2017) Self-Determined learning to motivate
struggling learners in reading and writing. Reading and Writing Instruction in the Upper Elementary
Grades, 52(5), 295-303. Retrieved June 3, 2020, from https://journals-sagepub-
com.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/doi/full/10.1177/1053451216676800
Wei, D., Zhang, D., He, J., & Bobis, J. (2019). The impact of perceived teachers’ autonomy support on
students’ mathematics achievement: evidences based on latent growth curve modelling. European
Journal of Psychology of Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-019-00437-5
Wexler, L.J. (2020). ‘I would be a completely different teacher if I had been with a different mentor’:
Ways in which educative mentoring matters as novices learn to teach. Professional Development in
Education, (46)2, 211-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1573375
Yu, S., Chen, B., Levesque-Briston, C., & Vansteekiste, M. (2018) Chinese education examined via the
lens of self-determination. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 177-214.
124
Appendix A: 21st Century Practices Survey
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
USING TECHNOLOGY AS A TOOL FOR LEARNING refers to students being able to manage their learning and produce products using
appropriate information and communication technologies
1. Here are some examples of practices that may help students learn to USE TECHNOLOGY as a TOOL FOR LEARNING.
In your teaching of your TARGET CLASS, how often have you asked students to
do the following
Almost
never
A few
times a
semester
1-3 times
per
month
1-3
times
per
week
Almost
daily
a. Use technology or the Internet for self-instruction (e.g., Kahn Academy or
other videos, tutorials, self-instructional websites, etc.)?
O
O
O
O
O
b. Select appropriate technology tools or resources for completing a task?
O
O
O
O
O
c. Evaluate the credibility and relevance of online resources?
O
O
O
O
O
d. Use technology to analyze information (e.g., databases, spreadsheets, graphic
programs, etc.)?
O
O
O
O
O
e. Use technology to help them share information (e.g., multi-media
presentations using sound or video, presentation software, blogs, podcasts,
etc.)?
O
O
O
O
O
f. Use technology to support team work or collaboration (e.g., shared work
spaces, email exchanges, giving and receiving feedback, etc.)?
O
O
O
O
O
g. Use technology to interact directly with experts or members of local/global
communities?
O
O
O
O
O
h. Use technology to keep track of their work on extended tasks or
assignments?
O
O
O
O
O
2. To what extent do you agree with these statements about your TARGET
CLASS?
Not
really
To a
minor
extent
To a
moderate
extent
To a
great
extent
To a very
great
extent
a. I have tried to develop students’ skills in using technology as a tool for
learning
O
O
O
O
O
b. Most students have learned to use technology as a tool for learning while in
my class
O
O
O
O
O
c. I have been able to effectively assess students’ skills in using technology for
learning
O
O
O
O
O
132
Appendix B: Recruitment Script
“My name is Shelley Jenkins and I am a doctoral student at the University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign. My dissertation is on enhancing upper elementary students’ autonomy through the
implementation of 21st century practices; how educators currently do this and what supports are still
needed to have these be implemented with fidelity. I am seeking upper elementary educators (grades 4-
6th) in Illinois to partake in my research. If you would be willing to respond to the attached survey on
21st century practices, taking anywhere from 12-20 minutes, it would be much appreciated. Thank you
for your participation in furthering research in this underrepresented demographic of students!”
133
Appendix C : Interview Questions
1. Please provide an example or two when you require your students to use critical thinking skills,
with this referring to students being able to analyze complex problems, investigate questions for
which there are no clear-cut answers, evaluate different points of view or sources of information
and draw appropriate conclusions based on evidence and reasoning.
2. Please provide an example or two when you require your students to use collaboration skills, with
this referring to students being able to work together to solve problems or answer questions, to
work effectively and respectfully in teams to accomplish a common goal and to assume shared
responsibility for completing a task.
3. Please provide an example or two when you require your students to use communication skills,
with this referring to students being able to organize their thoughts, data, and findings and share
these effectively through a variety of media, as well as orally and in writing.
4. Please provide an example or two when you require your students to use creativity and innovation
skills, with this referring to students being able to generate and refine solutions to complex
problems or tasks based on synthesis, analysis and then combining or presenting what they have
learned in new or original ways.
5. Please provide an example or two when you require your students to use self-direction skills, with
this referring to students being able to take responsibility for their learning by identifying topics
to pursue and processes for their own learning, and being able to review their own work and
respond to feedback.
6. Please provide an example or two when you require your students to make global connections,
with this referring to students being able to understand global, geo-political issues including
awareness of geography, culture, language, history, and literature from other countries.
7. Please provide an example or two when you require your students to make local connections,
with this referring to students being able to apply what they have learned to local contexts and
community issues.
134
8. Please provide an example or two when you require your students to use technology as a tool for
learning with this referring to students being able to manage their learning and produce products
using appropriate information and communication technologies.
9. Of the skills listed, you mentioned [enter skill here] used most frequently. Where have you
learned to use this tool for learning? (Examples may be: professional developments, talking with
colleagues, observations, teacher books, undergraduate/graduate courses, etc.)
10. Of the skills listed, you mentioned [enter skill here] using this least frequently. What hinders you
from incorporating it more?
11. Do you feel your students are ready to meet the needs of the Common Core? Where are they most
successful? Where do you see them struggle the most?
12. What hinders you from increasing your student’s autonomy in the classroom? Autonomy is
defined as a students’ volition in their learning (with volition referring to their intrinsic
motivation, engagement, and enjoyment in the tasks at hand; how they choose to learn).
135
Appendix D: IRB Letter
136
Appendix E: Waiver of Documentation of Informed Consent
137
Appendix F: Notice of Exempt Determination Amendment
