Regina Kruglyak

Theory Of Action
May 6, 2019

1
 Table of Contents
Problem and Context
Literature ​Review and Root Cause Analysis
Understanding My Findings
Theory of Action
Aim Statement
Cycles of Inquiry
Unpacking my Cycles
Looking Forward
Appendix
Resources

2
I can remember back to elementary school when I would wake up early giddy to get to school. I
can remember my brother, a grumpy middle schooler by then, telling me it would not always be
so glamorous. Though he didn't say it very exquisitely, he more or less told me that I should
savour the days before school becomes tedious and boring. What is it about school that makes
kids want to stop learning? I watch my two-year-old niece and she wonders about everything
and anything as she points, sways, spins and points again to yet another new question. As Neil
deGrasse Tyson puts it ​“Kids are never the problem. They are born scientists. The problem is
always the adults. They beat the curiosity out of kids. They outnumber kids. They vote. They
wield resources. That's why my public focus is primarily adults” (deGrasse Tyson, 2014).
Teachers often blame kids and families for the challenges that the school or the teachers
themselves are responsible; this creates both an implicit and explicit bias in the equity binary.
My main question is, if kids are born curious, at which point do we change their minds and force
them to conform towards boredom? Just like Neil deGrasse Tyson, my focus will also be
primarily on the adults.

 
Problem and Context

The population of adults for my focal point are science teachers within San Diego Unified
School District (SDUSD). The school district itself is a bit of a mixed bag. The majority of my
conversations with teachers and administrators revealed the common feeling that there are
wealthy schools within Northern San Diego such as Scripps and La Jolla and Title I schools
which are in Southern and Central San Diego like City Heights and Downtown. Based on
comprehensive interviews I am coming to understand that this means that teachers have to deal
with a variety of issues. The wealthier schools feel like they get no support from the district
because the energy is focused on the Title I schools. The Title I schools feel like they have to
deal with homelessness, higher numbers of emerging bilinguals, low parent support and so
many other inequalities that come with having a higher free and reduced lunch percentage of
students at their school. (The narrowing gap in New York City teacher qualifications and its
implications for student achievement in high-poverty schools, Journal of Policy).

After speaking to two anonymous sources that are teachers at SDUSD, I learned that most
Transitional Kindergarten (TK)-5 schools were barely teaching science. I had a very hard time
believing this so I went directly to the source. I walked in the doors of 26 teachers at four

3
different elementary schools and checked to see if they were using their science Full Option
Science System (FOSS) kits. Of the 23, three didn’t know where their kits were, five had not
opened it to see if it had been restocked this year, seven used theirs at most once a week, four
said they taught a different curriculum instead of FOSS (Mystery science), three said they taught
it daily but they were overwhelmed with how much time it took to prepare for the lessons and
the remaining four said they had a science prep teacher come in so they were not sure what
went on during that hour per week. I understand that 26 teachers do not represent the entire
district, but I was flabbergasted to hear that so few kids were interacting with science at these
four schools. I then sent out a google form to all elementary school teachers asking what they
needed to be able to teach science well. I only had 23 respond but here is the data:

According to my anonymous sources, these are not surprising results. The schools which are
known to be doing science well are the STEAM (Science Technology Engineering Arts and
Math)/magnet schools. ​Magnet schools are more “hands on – minds on” and often use an
approach to learning that is inquiry or performance/project-based. ​These specific schools in the
district were given a grant which included both funding for resources as well as curriculum
development and teacher training. I drove over to visit two of these STEAM schools (Jefferson
and Franklin Elementary) and spoke to both the teachers and the principals. Even though the

4
grant has run out at several of these schools the science program is running strong. In the
pictures below, the Franklin Elementary school Principal is checking in on his teacher’s progress
with a future project, Caine's Arcade. Students are using design thinking and collaborating
across grade levels to design cardboard arcade games.

For middle and high school results were not as pronounced. In secondary education, science is
a designated subject per grade level. All students in middle and high school receive at least four
hours of science per week; it is harder to track how engaging secondary science education is for
students. Based on my observations and interviews with teachers plus two anonymous sources,
there are some bright spots, but in general, science is taught through lectures and standardized
tests. The fact that there is a single person responsible for supporting all of science TK-12 in the
district (myself) speaks to the fact that teaching science well, in the past has not been a priority.
Luckily, this is changing with an emerging leadership team for training science teachers and
more efforts for professional development specifically designated towards science teachers.

For the last two years there has been a program called Capacity Builders (CBs), focused on
taking one science leader teacher per school and teaching them to implement the Next
Generation Science Standards (NGSS). The Capacity Builder workshops were a set of 5
workshops for middle and high school science teachers. These workshops focused on teaching
the CBs with the goal that they would then go back to their own science departments and impart
the knowledge they had learned from the workshops, thus building capacity within the district. In
California, there has been an Early Implementer Grant which has helped K-8 teachers get their

5
footing more firmly planted in understanding how to facilitate the transition with their students
into NGSS. For high school teachers, there have been less opportunities aside from the CB
program within the district.

To understand how different NGSS is from traditional science education, you have to have a
clearer understanding of the three dimensional (3D) learning that NGSS encompasses. First,
there are Performance Expectations (PE) which offer a tight integration of 8 Science and
Engineering Practices (SEP) that relate to learning and applying disciplinary core ideas while
making connections to cross-cutting concepts—the 3D model of learning. This is in strong
contrast to teaching "the scientific method" at the beginning of the year and then diving into a
series of content driven lessons and procedural labs where students are encouraged to
memorize and regurgitate rather than understand and show critical thinking. Plus there are
multiple models of instruction that can fit this 3D approach which can work for many types of
learners as well as teachers. NGSS also encourages teachers to draw on students' everyday
experiences, prior knowledge, cultural practices, and identities which helps all students engage
with the science.

Previously, science teachers were encouraged to identify children's misconceptions and design
instruction to unsettle and replace these. This approach was often reinforced with fact-based
memorization lessons. We now understand that children's science—related identities and ideas,
whether scientifically accurate or not, are deeply grounded in their personal experience of the
world—and that it is productive to leverage them as they learn science. NGSS calls for
educators to build on these assets whenever possible. The NGSS framework is a ​massive
conceptual shift from former education.

Learning about science and engineering involves integration of the knowledge of

scientific explanations (i.e., content knowledge) and the practices needed to engage in
scientific inquiry and engineering design. Thus the framework seeks to illustrate how
knowledge and practice must be intertwined in designing learning experiences in K–12
science education (Pellegrino, 2014).

The framework goes on to emphasize that the Next Generation Science Standards are student
performance expectations—NOT curriculum. I describe this conceptual shift as massive

6
because not only are teachers being tasked with integrating content knowledge with scientific
inquiry, but they are being asked to have students prove their understanding and to make their
thinking visible using the Science and Engineering Practices. These are all great pushes for
teachers in general; the problem I have uncovered is that teachers not having access to any
curriculum, training, scaffolding, time, or even a clear understanding as to why they were asked
to make this massive transition to NGSS in the first place.

According to the National Academies Press:

There is no doubt that science and science education are central to the lives of all
Americans. Never before has our world been so complex and science knowledge so
critical to making sense of it all. When comprehending current events, choosing and
using technology, or making informed decisions about one’s health care, understanding
science is key. Science is also at the heart of the ability of the United States to continue
to innovate, lead, and create the jobs of the future. All students no matter what their
future education and career path must have a solid K–12 science education in order to
be prepared for college, careers, and citizenship (Baybee, 2014).

My interviews with teachers and administrators revealed many fears in tackling such a heavy
shift with minimal training, lack of appropriate resources and little clarity of where the shift was
taking them.

7
 Literature ​Review and Root Cause Analysis

On the TED Talk stage, Geoffrey Canada speaks (in the piece called ​Our Failing Schools,
​ f kids who were failing in schools 56 years ago when he went to
Enough Is Enough, 2013) o
schools, and those schools are still lousy today, 56 years later. Every single year it is the same
approach, one size fits all, if you don’t get it, tough luck. He asks “why haven’t we allowed
innovation to happen?” When you go into a place that has failed kids for 50 years and you ask
“what is the plan?” and they say “well, we are going to do what we did last year, this year” what
kind of business model is that? He continues by saying that if you come up with a plan to
change things, people will consider you a radical.

The only data I was able to track on SDUSD’s standardized testing results were from 1998 to
2013 on the STAR test. I can see similar to what Geoffry mentions on the Ted stage, that in
1998 approximately 60% of kids were below grade level and in 2013 approximately 56% were
below grade level.

Star Test Results

2013 RESULTS

2012 RESULTS

1998 RESULTS

Geoffrey continues on the Ted stage that he can predict school scores. “If you tell me that last
year 48% of the kids were at grade level, I ask what is the plan and you say we are doing the
same thing from last year to this year and I am going to make a prediction. This year

8
somewhere between 44-52% of the kids will be at grade level. I am going to be right every time!
We cannot stifle innovation in our business of education.”

I spoke to many sources to try to understand where San Diego Unified School District stood with
their science programs since 2013. In this case there are no results for science. Based on my
research, my understanding is that we are starting down the path of radical shifting which is a
requirement to innovation. This will be painful, Geoffrey mentioned that he had a palm pilot for
about three weeks before the phone was deemed useless. This did not make anyone stop
inventing. Failure should not stop us from moving forward. We have to keep innovating until we
get this right. We cannot continue to ignore innovation and keep teaching in the same way that
has failed so many kids for decades. 2019 will be the first year since 2013, that California will be
requiring students to test in science. My assumption is a negative one for the time being, but I
believe that NGSS is on the right track to moving towards innovating education.

Innovation requires first to clearly understand the problem. To take from design thinking, the first
step is to empathize. To get an idea of SDUSD’s baseline, I spoke to Jill Grace, a guru in the
field of NGSS and the regional director of Science for California. I also spoke to Maya (not real
name) a Biology teacher at a San Diego Unified High School. Speaking to both gave me a
varied understanding of where teachers are coming from. Maya is a veteran teacher with over
20 years of experience. According to Maya, she is known as a great teacher by her students
and for getting great results from students on the advanced placement exams. Students who
are on track to get into a good university and see the need for AP classes, seek her out knowing
that with her as a teacher, they stand a chance to get a higher score on the exam. Maya has
been tasked by her science department to implement NGSS, while she is not opposed in theory
to the request, Maya struggles to see how she can integrate inquiry-based free flowing lessons
into the strict rigorous structure of advanced placement classes. She also was very blunt about
a few key things lacking in the district that would help her (paraphrased from my interview with
Maya):

1. NGSS aligned curriculum.​ While she understands that the content is rooted in anchor
phenomena she does not know where to start searching for phenomena aligned
specifically with her AP content. She feels that there is a wall blocking her progress
every time she considers the shift and it almost always feels like she is diving into an

9
 internet black hole in search of something that can fulfill the day to day needs. She
doesn’t need a textbook necessarily, but she needs a starting place so that she doesn’t
feel like she has to search endlessly.
2. Advanced Placement aligned NGSS curriculum.​ The AP world has not yet aligned with
NGSS so it feels nearly impossible for her to shift. She worries that students will fall
behind and score poorly on their AP exams if she jumps off the deep end and does not
follow the standard AP text.
3. 3 Year Earth Science Integrated Curriculum.​ The San Diego School District has adopted
the 3-year curriculum which means that every high school teacher must include earth
science into their typical practice. Biology aligns somewhat with earth science and still
Maya struggles. She mentions that Chemistry and Physics teachers have it even harder
at her school as the standards, which are sandwiched together, are much more varied.
She also mentioned that the AP exam has no earth science on it, so again there is a
challenge to include it into a very packed content year to get students prepared for the
exam.

Speaking to Jill gave me some similar understanding that had already aligned with what I had
found previously. The district is moving away from textbooks (even though they are required to
follow the Williams act, which ensures all students have access to a textbook) by simply not
buying new books. They are fully out of compliance for AP coursework as those books are not
allowed to be more than 10 years old. Other texts do not have as strict of restrictions, but are
obviously out of date and rendered useless by most teachers who acknowledge that teaching
from a 20-year textbook feels nearly impossible. This shift by the district, while motivated
somewhat by a funding issue, also is in line with implementing NGSS. There does not
technically need to be a textbook for NGSS, though resources are still very much so needed.
Also, newer NGSS aligned textbooks are coming out every year. The fear is that teachers will
fall back on texts as a crutch rather than seek out phenomena and encourage inquiry from
students. Phenomena are a key piece of the NGSS puzzle that connects students to authentic
real-world situations. Despite their centrality in both science and engineering, phenomena have
traditionally been a missing piece in science education, which too often has focused on teaching
general knowledge that students can have difficulty applying to real-world contexts. Anchoring
learning in explaining phenomena supports student agency for wanting to build science

10
and engineering knowledge. Students are able to identify an answer to "why do I need to learn
this?" before they even know what the “this” is. In contrast, students might not understand the
importance of learning science ideas that teachers and curriculum designers know are important
but that are unconnected from phenomena.

The problem I am forecasting is an inadequate assessment. When we have students tested for
rote memorization skills, the tests inform our teaching practices and it will be how our teachers
will teach. By centering science education on phenomena that students are motivated to
explain, the focus shifts from learning about a topic to figuring out why or how something
happens. With this move away from memorization to contextualized understanding and building
evidence-based explanatory ideas, both student and teacher practices will have to shift. As this
is the first year of the official ​California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress
(CAASPP) which is technically designed to assess student thinking and processing rather than
cramming and recollecting short term memory data, it will be interesting to see if there will be a
shift to transform teaching from the traditional lecture-based into a more facilitated inquiry and
engaged model.

An even bigger fe​ar I am starting to understand is not the funding issue at the district level, but
the inequity for low-income students and the human resources at their schools.

...State-wide studies of elementary and middle school science education in California

(Dorph et al., 2011; Hartry et al., 2012) indicate that students who are eligible for free
and reduced-price lunches are substantially less likely than their more affluent
counterparts to have well-qualified science teachers, although their schools generally
enjoy access to basic science materials and equipment... Low-income students also are
more likely to be enrolled in low-performing schools, where the allocation of time to
mathematics and literacy instruction is most likely to compromise science instruction
(Council, 2016).

11
Based on the this image and two articles (Emotional Engagement in Agentive Science Learning
Environments and Project-Based Learning: A Literature Review) I am able to mostly confirm my
theory of NGSS alignment with both 21st century skills as well as Project Based Learning (PBL);
these are ​generally used to refer to certain core competencies such as collaboration, digital
literacy, critical thinking, hands-on relevant learning and problem-solving. Advocates believe
that schools need to teach these skills in order to help students thrive in today's world.

Recent shifts in the education reform movement may also be contributing to the
popularity of PBL. Education reformers and policymakers increasingly support a more
expansive and holistic vision for public education that aligns with the deeper learning
goals of PBL. For example, the emphasis of both the Common Core State Standards
and the Next Generation Science Standards on students’ developing conceptual
knowledge and deeper learning skills aligns well with the goals of PBL. Additionally,
advocates of and researchers in PBL have long argued that technology can support
successful PBL implementation and enhance its effectiveness (Blumenfeld et al., 1991;
ChanLin, 2008; Krajcik and Shin, 2014; Ravitz and Blazevski, 2014).

The best hope from these findings is that soon there will be more alignment in both universities
as well as some of the standardized exams that lead to college. It is exciting to see that some

12
changes are already in motion, the CAST (science Smarter Balance exam) already aligns
seamlessly with more inquiry and less memorization.

 Understanding My Findings

The Why
Based on my research around the elementary and middle schools within SDUSD, I would
completely agree with the Council’s claim that both time and funding are generally prioritized to
literacy and mathematics over science. This is not to say that any subject is more important than
the other, but there is much evidence that proves that learning literacy and mathematics in a
context of engaging science would help facilitate learning not deter learning in any one of the
subjects. High school on the other hand strongly prioritizes science in many aspects. The big
problem though is that by high school, students already have developed a mindset of “I am just
not a “science person”(sourced from multiple educators I interviewed).

Another understanding I have come to based on my research is that teachers cannot live on an
island. They cannot have their doors closed where no one can observe them. They cannot
struggle to survive developing everything from scratch without getting to check in with other
teachers for their expertise and support. Collaboration is key to shifting practices.

I can imagine a time when all kids are waking up not necessarily thrilled to go to school but
excited about the potential to engage in something they have been wondering about. I am
hoping to improve the lack of engaging science curriculum in SDUSD. My hope is to work with
the group of teacher leaders I previously mentioned, Capacity Builders. I have five sessions with
them and I want to implement change with this group who will then hopefully go back to their
school sites and spread the knowledge. In my action research I hope to monitor both how my
workshops affect each individual teacher that attends my workshops, as well as how it impacts
each teacher in the district that did not attend, but ideally had the information passed down to
them. Based on my empathy interviews, I know this will not be easy as these are people who
are already overworked and are in fact hoping that I will hand them a textbook and relieve
everyone's stress. The thought will be to create change within this group of people and inspire
them to rise into the leadership role. Thirteen teachers have signed up to work directly with me
on this ambitious goal.

13
I understood early on that it was critical to not start making any changes before understanding
the root of the problem. I needed more sources. Specifically I needed to hear what was going
well in the district, as it seemed like so many teachers and administrators felt frustrated and
hopeless. I spoke to two veteran teachers in the district who are considered bright spots. They
are both very optimistic and with very positive attitudes. I can sum up what they are both seeing
as needs in these categories:
1. Keeping up with the status quo​. Teachers who are instructing traditionally will most likely
keep on that path unless it is made tremendously simpler for them to follow some
amount of resources; these resources must not make them feel like they are starting
from scratch.
2. Honors integration.​ Both teachers seemed frustrated with where the district is with
honors. They for some reason do not see the same frustration with AP curriculum which
still allows for tracking. There also seems to be no issue with “advanced” level. I
understand this to be because they find it unfair that honors students get a higher
weighted GPA with unclear expectations thus allowing for grade inflation without the
workload that AP curriculum demands.
3. PLC time can be very unstructured.​ During capacity builders even if given time to “plan”
most teachers saw this as a time to plan their own lessons, not to plan a successful
science department meeting (PLC-Professional Learning Community).

The last point is the one that really made me pause and wonder. How can I make it extremely
clear what a Capacity Builder’s responsibility is and how they can use what they learn to
transform science in their district? How can I empower them to be the true leaders they are
meant to be, while creating enough space to allow them to adapt and change to meet the needs
of their unique contexts?

To understand further, I needed to dive deeper on how to create systems changes and impact
the leadership. I read two books which shaped my thinking. First from ​The Dawn of System
Leadership:​
“If you tell a great designer something is impossible—like you cannot make a world-class
running shoe without glues—they get very excited. It is the challenge that engages
them.” Within two years, about 400 designers and product managers convened for a
two-day summit where leading sustainability experts and senior management explored

14
 together the concept of design for sustainability. A movement was born within Nike
(Dawn of system leadership, 2013).

This makes me think that I just need to find the right people to get excited by the challenge.
Ineffective leaders try to make change happen. System leaders focus on creating the conditions
that can produce change and that can eventually cause change to be self-sustaining. There
needs to be more of a subtle shift in strategic focus. I need to focus on creating the conditions
that can produce change and that can eventually cause change to be self-sustaining.

The other book that supported my thinking was The ​Real Reason People Won't Change​, which
brings to light how people may not realize what is going on beneath the surface.
Competing commitments cause valued employees to behave in ways that seem
inexplicable and irremediable, and this is enormously frustrating to managers … Only by
bringing big assumptions to light can people finally challenge their assumptions and
recognize why they are engaging in seemingly contradictory behavior. (2001)
In this book is a guide with a step by step analysis to help bring people into understanding. My
hope is to eventually try out the steps referenced in the appendix.

According to a teacher at a San Diego Unified School, most teachers today learned science in a
traditional setting with a focus on procedural understanding. If they have not experienced
science in any other way how are they to know that what they are repeating is not working? This
mindset problem reaches deep into the root of the problem. What if most teachers who
experienced more traditional education themselves are making massive assumptions which no
one has brought to light?

Furthermore, teaching science as envisioned by the

Framework and NGSS requires that teachers have a
strong and robust understanding of the science
practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting
concepts they are expected to teach, including an
appreciation of how scientists collaborate to develop
new theories, models, and explanations of natural
phenomena. Science teachers need rich

15
understandings of these ideas and concepts. Perhaps equally important, they need to be able to
engage in the practices of science themselves and know how to situate this new knowledge in
learning settings with a range of students (​Conceptual Framework for the Next Generation
​ eachers who never got the opportunity to experience education in
Science Standards, 2016). T
this 3D NGSS aligned manner do not know what they do not know.

Another root cause leading to unengaging science teaching practices according to results from
the National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education (NSSME) (Banilower et al., 2013)
show that teachers at all grade levels feel less prepared to “engage students from low
socioeconomic backgrounds and racial or ethnic minorities in science relative to students of
higher socioeconomic status and white students.” To create equity, we need to change the way
we teach and shift away from basic skills instruction, and towards emphasizing meaning and
understanding. Stanford's Professor of Mathematics Jo Boaler in a four year study (Mistakes
“Grow” your brain, 2016) found that “reasoning had a particular role to play in the promotion of
equity, as it helped to reduce the gap between students who understood and students who were
struggling” (p. 86). This not only is a better way to teach, but it helps bridge socioeconomic and
ethnicity gap. Currently, the way that science is being taught in the U.S. with a focus on testing
leads to an emphasis in classrooms on procedural labs.

Teachers assume that hands on means minds on. Just because students are following steps
from a lab procedure, does not mean there is a deep, conceptual understanding. After a lab in 4
unique classrooms, I went around surveying students to demonstrate their learning. Most
students that I surveyed had no idea what they had learned. They can come to a procedural
conclusion and oftentimes they were be able to regurgitate exactly what the teacher hoped for,
but of the over 150 students I have surveyed, less that 5% truly understand the deeper meaning
behind what the lab was supposed to teach. Students need to struggle, they need to question.
The traditional learning model was analogous to a tennis match- the teacher interrogates (asks
a question), the student responds and the teacher makes an evaluation (approval or disapproval
of the answer), IRE-Integorate, Response, Evaluate (Questioning in Classroom, 1991). T​his
style of questioning really does not produce a lot of benefits with regards to higher order
thinking. The IRE model is pretty much a verbal test with only one right answer. Even if a higher
order question is posed, only one student gets to answer before the teacher evaluates the
answer and ends any form of discussion. In this type of questioning, the student only needs to

16
regurgitate information the teacher has already fed them rather than struggling and coming to
their own understanding and conclusions. ​To get true brain growth, argues Boeler, students
need opportunities to make mistakes.
So what is brain growth? Some people read this research and say our brains would be
huge if they grew each time we made a mistake! But what is meant by growth is not an
increase in volume but an increase in connectivity. Research suggests that when
learning occurs there are 3 possible forms of growth/connectivity: 1) New pathways can
form in the brain 2) Pathways can become strengthened in the brain 3) Pathways can
connect in the brain (Boeler, 2016).
This model would look more like a soccer match; students bounce ideas off each other. The
coach, or the teacher, is on the sidelines able to call timeout and interfere. The students
struggle with a question and make their own progress, often times making arduous and
cumbersome mistakes along the way ideally creating new or strengthening previous pathways.
There are many root causes that contribute to students being disengaged in science and
teachers feeling powerless in the process of finding the solution.

The What
After speaking to over forty teachers, educators, and coaches, all three in a similar vein have
expressed how desperate everyone is for a shared resource. They are requesting a book, but
the district has been very clear that there are no book adoptions in the foreseeable future.
Teachers are also using open source curriculum that other school districts have developed to
create a hodgepodge year long sequence of sorts. The need I am seeing is collaboration.

Currently the schools who do not instill a culture of collaboration equates to teachers living on
their own islands (based on my empathy interviews with nine teachers who feel this is the
culture at their school- or lack thereof). The current collaborative structure that exists at most
secondary schools are the science department meetings (PLCs). There are no general
structures for these meeting. My interviews express that at some schools with more supportive
environments the PLC format works, while at many schools these meetings are seen as
personal work time. Teachers tend to not value the time at these “collaboration” meetings and
rather put time into their own personal work. This is not functioning for the veteran teachers nor
for the newbies. In my action research change cycles (PDSAs) I will specifically look more into
the building of capacity across the district using the CBs and the PLCs.

17
The How

(Sue Meyer, 2016)

In the graphic above from Leading Education, Meyer depicts the three main ways that people
deal with change. In this image, NGSS 3D education is the island. There are the “swimmers”,
who are eager to try out something new and get to the island; in this case these are the early
adopters who were a set of teachers funded by a grant to learn about these new practices.
These are also teachers who are eager to try anything new, the innovators. There are the “shark
spotters”, these are people who are intrigued by the idea but need more convincing, they will not
get in the water for just anything, they want to be informed. I would say the majority of SDUSD is
in this category. They can absolutely be convinced of the importance of this new way of
teaching, but they need scaffolding and data to analyze the “why are we doing this?” question
for themselves. The last are the “pole holders” there are several of these teachers at each
school. They are rooted to their idea of what education should look like. These teachers also
have important things to say and should not be pummeled but rather heard out. What I am
learning from my research is that we need to allow time for all three of these styles of change
acceptors. ​ ​My supervisor proposed the following graphic to formally summarize the root causes
that are affecting quality teaching practices.

18
(Clark & Perry, 2018).
If equity is the goal, we need to provide all students a rich, engaging, inquiry based scientific
opportunity. Science career fields are often connected with funding, grants and scholarships. If
we can get students to not hate science from a young age, they will stay driven through high
school when it gets more challenging. ​Clark and Perry illustrate the assessment is the
destination. Teachers need a clear and valuable pathway to follow; if they do not know where
they are heading, there is no way to encourage them to get there. Next we need to work on a
curriculum- the car. Teachers need a baseline model car to sit and drive off in, otherwise they
will head right back to the textbook. When they are ready, they can deck out their car and make
it their own. Finally we need to train the teachers to understand the destination, how to drive;
this part requires leadership. We can no longer depend on a single method taught during the
teacher’s own schooling. They need a place for professional development to keep them driving
safely.

19
 Theory of Action

Fishbone Diagram (Clark and Perry, 2018)

From my fishbone diagram, after arranging by categories I developed the following themes:
fear, overload and also lack of clear resources, complex language that is discouraging, lack of
time, and not understanding the purpose. I see all of these as true problems, but after
completing the interrelationship digraph I came to the conclusion that most were symptoms of
the problems of time (a hard one to battle) and resources. Using Clark and Perry’s diagram
helps illustrate the roots and the plan for action. Assessment to help with the destination
(understanding the purpose). Curriculum for getting teachers clear, easy to follow, adaptable
resources, so that they can spend their time on creative and engaging delivery rather than
reinventing the wheel. Finally, the instruction or the professional development to get teachers to
understand how to use the resource to its full potential.

(Heath & Heath , 2011)

20
I realize most of all is that resources don't really do much when you do not have engaged and
excited teachers. After reading Switch, by the Heath Brothers, I understand that my first battle is
to motivate the elephant. The image above best summarizes the idea behind the rider, the
elephant and the path that the Heath brothers illuminated could create lasting behavioral
change. In a district of over 1500 science teachers, this is a daunting task. Luckily there was
already a strategy built into my role- working with Capacity Builders (CBs). CBs are a group of
teacher leaders, within the group are swimmers, shark spotters and pole holders all mixed
together. The format- one teacher per school is ideally nominated, but sometimes voluntold. The
Capacity Builders would then go back to their school and teach the rest of their science
department what they had learned in my workshops. This is an idea that has been around for a
few years. My Theory of Action is rooted in discovering if it meets its goal of trickling down to the
rest of the teachers in the district.

After some time with the driver diagram I truth tested a few aspects. First I tried to “motivate the
elephant” (Switch) or in my case the Capacity Builders:

Figure 4 Figure 5
I created several videos of students explaining why it is important to learn science through
inquiry and NGSS. I would say that I had many of the “riders” already on my side especially in
the “swimmers” or early implementers of next generation science standards and even in the
“shark spotters” who could see that the traditional ways of teaching was not working for their
students. Many already understand the importance of doing the work in a more creative way.
What they did not know was how to get the “pole holders” or non-believers at their school to buy
in. Eventually, I can work to get at the analytical side of the science teachers at the school sites,
but for now I am focusing my energy on their “elephant”. I started off by having the workshops
in creative places. In the past they had been entirely on San Diego Unified campuses which
unfortunately, are not the best source of inspiration. Next I brought in guest speakers to inspire
the teachers that have been voluntold. If they have to be there, at least they could benefit from
some personal growth. If I could get them to see that the workshops they were attending with

21
me, were not a waste of their time, then perhaps I could get them to complete their
accountability assignments.

Guest Speaker, Yassir, goes Guest Speaker Cheryl Peach Teachers get a chance to
into depth on his research explains the research walk and explore the Scripps
with oxygen minimum zones happening at Scripps Ocean Research Peer.
Institute on Climate Change

Next I wanted to create the easiest resource to follow. A way to get all teachers into eachothers
classroom without the complication of taking time away from their students. This was possible
by making videos and placing them into a website that teachers are already used to referencing.
I had attempted to put together some resources into a ​website​ which would be easy to follow
(videos and hyperlinks). I brought this to the Capacity Builders and created an assignment they
would be accountable for.

Figure 6 (Website I created)

An excerpt from a follow up email I sent out (my version of “shaping the path” according to
Switch) can be found in the appendix.

22
My hope with this sort of email was to create a culture of follow through and accountability. I
understand that there may be too many obstacles in the way of achieving this goal (mostly due
to the fact that teachers are already very overworked) but I figure if I shape the path, I can get
most of the teachers to tread upon it.

Figure 7
Working on my driver diagram, I identified a few specific change ideas. The first one of filming
teachers and students is one I have mentioned before. I tested to see what teachers would
need from the videos and my plan was to record many more. The science website, is another
change idea that I have been working on within my job scope. My hope was to improve the
website throughout my theory of action. My main question here is what do the teachers need on
the website in order to make them reference it? Where do they currently go to find resources
and what about those resources can be replicated? What do they need to be told by their
Capacity Builders to encourage them to look at the website in the first place?

I needed to work on gathering a clearer baseline of where teachers were starting at, in order to
be able to understand their growth. I conducted a survey where teachers self reported the
following:

23
I will need to get clearer questions and perhaps limit response to a rubric rather than open
ended. This way I can gauge the growth to ensure I meet my aim statement:
 

I am sure there are many factors I am overlooking. NGSS is a complicated machine in motion. It
has been adapted by teachers in a variety of ways. My hope is to encourage more teachers to
be inspirational. Bridges Transition Model (from Leading Transition) note that the idea of
transition is that there are three stages. The ending, the losing, the letting go stage- when we
find out that something is going to be different. This might be sudden, for example if you are told
you will teach a different grade level next year. Or it might be slow as with the NGSS transition.
This is a model that goes from the letting go, a struggling phase, to the excitement of acquisition
of something new that truly works. There are some teachers who have already bridged across
to the other side. These are teachers who have crossed over the “neutral zone”.

24
According to Bridges, most people who have been presented a change that is forced upon
them, either want to stay at stage 1(Ending) or jump to stage 3 (New Beginning) as fast as
possible. The problem is that stage 2 (Neutral Zone) is an import phase. This is where there is
failure and learning. Teachers who have been successful for many years will struggle with
making this change. The work I am doing with Capacity Builder (Teachers who are either in
Stage 2 or 3) is to aid them in helping their science department identify and acknowledge where
teachers are at in the process. If they can understand that change is a process and not an
event, they might be more willing to deal with the progression of instituting change. Most
importantly, my goal is to encourage teachers to get comfortable with lingering in the neutral
zone.

 
Cycles of Inquiry
Cycle 1
To begin my actual PDSA cycles, I went to my focus group of Capacity Builders to get a clearer
perspective on what of my many initial ideas was or was not working. This cycle is based on
addressing the empathy work from my root cause analysis of addressing the dilemma of time
and resources.

I started with the Core Leadership Team (CLT), a group from the California NGSS K-8 Early
Implementation Initiative implementers grant created for NGSS adoption through K-12 Alliance.
The CLT would be considered Early Adopters according to Roger’s Innovation Adoption Curve
(Figure 8). The Early Adopters are critical in achieving a diffusion of innovation.

25
(Figure 8)
I had originally interviewed them to more clearly understand the root cause of the problem.
When I showed the graphic for the road, the car and the driver I asked what they believed
should be my first cycle for change. We collectively decided that a lesson study could help
determine if the “car” was in fact a root cause. The problem with the lesson study is how long
the process takes so while it was my first official change idea it will take a long time to reflect on
the change. Teachers have had time to come together and plan out the lesson. They reported
back that they appreciate the time to collaborate and work across the district. They have not had
a chance to test out the lesson yet with their students, but since a lot of the root problem I
identified was in fact connected to the time and resources, being given time to create resources
seemed to make teacher pretty optimistic in the process.

26
Exit card results:

The first graph shows the results after a single day with the Capacity Builders while the second
two depict a reflection after all 5 cycles. The final question I asked all teachers to reflect on
(below) had responses all over the board. It makes me think that a lesson study may address
the basic need of time and resources, but overall teachers wanted more structure. The reality is
that the true format of a lesson study (where all teachers get to collaboratively teach and
observe each other, then analyze the results together) was not possible to achieve at the district
level with the inability to pay for substitutes. Acknowledging this bring me to the conclusion that
a lesson study done in this format does not support building capacity.

27
Cycle 2
My next PDSA cycle was connected to my Theory of Action. From reading Switch, interviewing
many living sources, and trying out a few guest speakers and hands-on experiences within my
Theory of Action I decided to make a workshop series centered around the idea of doing
hands-on science experiences. NGSS Applied is a series of four workshops were teachers are
able to try on NGSS practices and concepts by putting on their student hat. According to
Teachingonpurpose.org​, bringing in a guest speaker can add edge, excitement, and most
importantly content specific expertise. I wanted to role model this advantage of bringing in guest
speakers. For my second PDSA I was working with teachers on a concept I was mildly familiar
with, fermentation. I was vulnerable with the teachers expressing my unease at being a non
expert and teaching the topic. Therefore I went to a farmers market, sought out the people
making sauerkraut and kombucha and asked them to come in and teach my class. They happily
agreed and I was able to structure the workshop around their expertise adding in readings,
more in depth science around the topic of cellular respiration and anaerobic reactions. I was
able to teacherfy the experience that the experts delivered. The results from this PDSA were my
best, I was literally given a standing ovation for this workshop.

Exit card results:

While doing this PDSA cycle I noticed that there was one school which had sent in their entire
science department to the series of workshops. This science department received time to work

28
collaboratively to create a shared resource (thus addressing the two key needs identified of time
and resources). This group of teachers had
swimmers, pole holders and shark spotters
within their team, but I got to observe them
move from the “ending, losing, letting go phase”
to entering the “neutral zone” the ultimate goal
for the time being. I will return to these results
after my next few PDSA cycles.

29
Cycle 3
Based on my learning from my last PDSA cycle, I acknowledged that coming to workshops as a
team seemed most beneficial for a school. The obvious problem being driven by a lack of
funding to cover substitutes for all the teachers. For my next PDSA cycle I went back to the
drawing board and thought about the fact that currently only the teachers who were coming to
the workshops were benefiting from my coaching. When I went down the leaky pipeline, I
learned that the information was at best heavily distorted by the time it got to the rest of the
teachers in the science department, and more often not shared at all. I needed to come up with
something that would reach the teachers who were not coming to my workshops, and the “teach
what you learned” model that was expected of the capacity builders, was not and has not been
working for years (this again is a bigger systemic problem of a need for collaborative time to
work). I thus created three online courses that teachers would receive continuing education
units upon completion. I created google forms with clear examples, photos, videos and excerpts
from other bright spot teachers. I then requested that teachers ideally work collaboratively as a
science department and try on what they learned from the online resource in their classrooms.
They would document the process and upload to the google form for feedback and eventually
units. Unfortunately my results came back that no one was trying out these courses. For my
next cycle I had to figure out what was wrong with either the courses, or how the courses were
being advertised.

Responses to google forms for CEUs

30
Cycle 4
For my fourth PDSA cycle I decided I would need to interview random sampling of teachers to
figure out why teachers are not opting into CEU/online resources. Once I had figured out the
problem, Most people didn't know about this course existing. I will adjust my marketing as well
as the resources based on the results.

31
Cycle 5
For my last PDSA cycle, I went back to the drawing board to figure out how I could get more
teachers to access the online resource. I figured that what I needed most was to market the
website. I began by sending out weekly emails that focused on various parts of the website and
resources that could be easily located there. From my research with the CLT team I figured out
exactly what resources teachers were using and put them all in one place. This now created a
reason to go to the website, I “shaped the path”. I then went on Google Analytics to track the
patterns of usage. The number of users accessing my site went up by 128%. There are also
teachers in Spain and India using the website and teachers using the site at all hours of the day.
The number of teachers accessing my google surveys online NGSS experience courses went
from 1 to 48. Teachers are giving positive reports of appreciating the ease of learning new ideas
for their classroom on their own time. Better still I had one teacher tell me she has been doing
the online course during her PLC time and that all teachers had been following along and doing
the assignments almost in a ‘lesson study’ form (they did not create anything on their own but
individually they would try out the assignment with their students and then compare the results
during their PLC time. The teacher even commented that it brought their science department
closer working together on the common assignment,

32
 Unpacking My Cycles

My big revelation through this work is the absolute need for the collaborative work environment.
The schools that have principals who are prioritizing professional development funding to send
their entire science departments to a workshop series, have the teachers who are more quickly
embracing the ambiguity involved in hopping over to the ‘neutral zone’ on the Bridges
transitional model. Understandably, not all schools will be able to support the high number of
substitutes that would transpire from this sort of work. My next piece of the puzzle would be to
create more online courses which are specifically designed for a science department team to
work on collaboratively during a PLC time slot. I would also love to be in a room with principals
showing them the “swimmer, shark spotter, pole holder” model. All schools are built and run
smoothly due to all three types of personalities roaming the halls and educating the students.
They all have something important to teach. Using the Heath & Heath (Switch, 2013) approach
to creating lasting change I would love to show more directly where resources on the science
website reside. I would encourage “motivating the elephant” by showing testimonials of students
who are truly making their thinking visible through NGSS. Next, “directing the rider” by giving
them an easy to follow ‘destination’ (the assessment) that will help their rational mind
understand the purpose of where we are trying to get our students. And finally, “shaping the
path” by giving a vehicle that teachers can use with ‘driver’s ed’ built into the online courses
which teachers take collaboratively during their PLCs.

33
 Looking Forward

The plan for moving forward is to create online Guaranteed Viable Curriculum (GVC) for
teachers to use. From the work with my focus group I have learned that the resources are the
main barrier of teachers who resists making the transition into Bridges Neutral Zone of NGSS
implementation. I will create day to day lessons that are integrated Project Based Learning with
3D NGSS science lessons, which are engaging for students and demand inquiry. The lessons
will focus on giving teachers all materials necessary to successfully make their student thinking
visible. They will have prompts to check in on student understanding, culturally relevant
practices, student engagement and access prior knowledge. The idea being that once teachers
have access to a day to day useable curriculum, they can focus on implementation strategies
and working with their student population for understanding (rather than the current model which
has the teacher using most of his/her time on scrambling to find relevant resources rather than
how to apply those resource sto their student population).

The plan will be for me to create both the

destination points (built in grade wide
performance tasks) as well as the vehicle (the
day to day curriculum). The last part of the
puzzle in looking forward will be to focus on
the driver. I hope to be able to implement a
summer training program for how to use the
curriculum as a tool for quality day to day
instruction.

A pilot lesson can be found here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13-pQO
Dt1xuCb-TldJi6LcvIUjtv4zL1NTGCuTDhNsX
4/edit?usp=sharing

34
The main understanding I have gathered based on my focus group of CBs, is that while the
workshops work to build capacity in those teachers who attend, they do not work for their
intended purpose of building capacity across the district. On a small scale, teachers at some
school sites were able to bring back tidbits of information that they would condense from our 8
hour session into a 15-30 minute professional development for their site teachers. This was the
best case scenario.

My recommendation for moving forward would be to turn the Capacity Builders into a small
gathering by cluster schools (sister schools would attend the same professional development).
Schools would have two to four pull out days for all science teachers at their school (*some
schools are already using this model within the district and feel very successful with those pull
out dates). During these days, cluster sister schools would convene to receive the training that
was delivered to CBs only the last few years. This would allow for teachers to reap the benefits
of collaborating across school sites with multiple teachers, but would then also bring into the
loop all teachers at the school rather than just one teacher per school site. The cluster PDs
would alleviate the leaky pipeline that I mentioned and allow for a more specific “driver’s ed” if
you are following my metaphor. To make this a successful operation, qualified facilitators
would have to design the roadmap towards the destination and a clear vision for delivering the
curriculum to the teachers so that they feel successful as new drivers of their upgraded vehicles.

35
 Appendix A

Step 1: Notice and record current behavior. Employees must first take notice of what
does and doesn’t happen as a consequence of holding big assumptions to be true.
Step 2: Look for contrary evidence. Next, employees must look actively for experiences
that might cast doubt on the validity of their big assumptions. By asking people to search
specifically for experiences that would cause them to question their assumptions, we
help them see that they have filtering out certain types of information—information that
could weaken the grip of the big assumptions.
Step 3: Explore the history. In this step, we people to become the “biographers” of their
assumptions: How and when did the assumptions first take hold? How long have they
been around? What have been some of their critical turning points?
Step 4: Test the assumption. This step entails creating and running a modest test of the
big assumption. This is the first time we ask people to consider making changes in their
behavior.
Step 5: Evaluate the results. In the last step, employees evaluate the test results,
evaluate the test itself, design and run new tests, and eventually question the big
assumptions. “ (The real reason people won’t change)

36
Appendix B

Dear Capacity Builders,

Thank you so much for taking the time out of your busy week to share your learning on
NGSS last week!

I understand it is a commitment of your time and energy to participate in the Capacity

Builder work and I am thankful for your efforts and am here to support you. I also hope to
provide you with exciting opportunities of great connections to outside resources and
other inspiration to keep up the impressive work you are already doing!

As a reminder, the ultimate goal was for each of you to bring back something you think
your science department can benefit from. This can be specific to notebooking, but can
also be on NGSS implementation, and any sort of inquiry work that you think can push
your science team in the right direction (I understand that everyone is starting at a
different place, so what you think is the right push will be perfect). Feel free to use the
presentation example below or make your own. Then have each teacher (including
yourself) do some sort of reflection either via the ​flipgrid platform​ (​flipgrid example​),
or use join code: 6lu4oys Or have them add a photo and short reflection to this
shared slideshow (​Link to shared folder​)​Here is one option for a slideshow to present
during your PLC (feel free to use or not use this):
Possible slideshow to present to PLC

37
  
Resources
(2011). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core
ideas. (p. 11). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165

Bybee, R. W. (2014). NGSS and the next generation of science teachers. ​Journal of science
teacher education,​ ​25​(2), 211-221.

Boaler, J. (2016). Mistakes grow your brain. ​Youcubed at Stanford University Graduate School
of Education. Accessed April,​ ​14,​ 2016.

Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Rockoff, J., & Wyckoff, J. (2008). The narrowing gap in New
York City teacher qualifications and its implications for student achievement in
high-poverty schools. ​Journal of Policy Analysis and Management: The Journal of the
Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management,​ ​27(​ 4), 793-818.

Blumenfeld et al., 1991; ChanLin, 2008; Krajcik and Shin, 2014; Ravitz and Blazevski, 2014

Bridges, W., & Mitchell, S. (2000). Leading transition: A new model for change. ​Leader to
leader​, ​16(​ 3), 30-36.

Canada, Geoffry, director. Our Failing Schools, Enough Is Enough. YouTube, YouTube, 8 May
2013, www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY2l2xfDBcE.

Carlsen, W. S. (1991). Questioning in classrooms: A sociolinguistic perspective. ​Review of

educational research,​ ​61(​ 2), 157-178.

Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2015). ​Making sense of change management: A complete guide to
the models, tools and techniques of organizational change.​ Kogan Page Publishers.

Condliffe, B. (2017). Project-Based Learning: A Literature Review. Working Paper. ​MDRC​.

Corvo, A. F. (2014). ​Utilizing the National Research Council's (NRC) Conceptual Framework for
the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS): A Self-Study in My Science,
Engineering, and Mathematics Classroom​. Columbia University.

38
Council, T. A., & National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). ​Science
teachers' learning: Enhancing opportunities, creating supportive contexts​. National
Academies Press.

Day, D. V., Harrison, M. M., & Halpin, S. M. (2012). ​An integrative approach to leader
development: Connecting adult development, identity, and expertise​. Routledge.

deGrasse Tyson, N. (2017). ​Astrophysics for People in a Hurry.​ WW Norton & Company.

Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2011). ​Switch​. Vintage Espanol.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). ​Why do high-poverty schools have difficulty staffing their classrooms
with qualified teachers?.​ Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, Institute for
America's Future.

John-Pierre Maeli, John-Pierre Maeli. “The Rogers Adoption Curve & How You Spread New
Ideas Throughout Culture.” Medium.com, Medium, 6 May 2016,
medium.com/the-political-informer/the-rogers-adoption-curve-how-you-spread-new-ideas
-throughout-culture-d848462fcd24.

Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2001). The real reason people won’t change. ​HBR’s 10 Must Reads
on Change​, 77.

Minshew, L., Caprino, K., Anderson, J., Justice, J., & Bolick, C. (2014, March). Teacher efficacy
in 1: 1 tablet integration. In ​Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference​ (pp. 1681-1686). Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education (AACE).

Morozov, A., Herrenkohl, L. R., Shutt, K., Thummaphan, P., Vye, N., Abbott, R. D., & Scalone,
G. (2014). Emotional Engagement in Agentive Science Learning Environments. Boulder,
CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Pellegrino, J. W., Wilson, M. R., Koenig, J. A., & Beatty, A. S. (2014). ​Developing Assessments
for the Next Generation Science Standards.​ National Academies Press. 500 Fifth Street
NW, Washington, DC 20001

39
Pratt, H. (2013). ​The NSTA reader's guide to the Next Generation Science Standards​. NSTA
press.

Senge, P., Hamilton, H., & Kania, J. (2015). The dawn of system leadership. ​Stanford Social
Innovation Review​, 1​ 3​(1), 27-33.

“Test Results, CST Summary.” California Standardized Testing And Reporting (STAR) Program,
star.cde.ca.gov/star2005/help_navigating.asp.

Wilson, N. S., & Smetana, L. (2011). Questioning as thinking: A metacognitive framework to

improve comprehension of expository text. ​Literacy​, ​45​(2), 84-90.

40