A CASE STUDY OF COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION
IN A LINKED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
A DISSERTATION PROPOSAL
Presented to the Department of Educational Leadership
California State University, Long Beach
Committee Members:
James W. Scott, Ed.D. (Chair)
Jared R. Stallones, Ph.D.
Ayele Dodoo, Ed.D.
By Erin Broun Biolchino
August 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Operational Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Assumptions, Delimitations, and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Chapter 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Linked Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Linked Learning as Reform. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Linked Learning and Career Technical Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
The Structure of Linked Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Existing Linked Learning Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
The Common Core State Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Standards-Based Education as Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Overview of CCSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Implementing the CCSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
The Intersection of Linked Learning and CCSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
Chapter 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Data Collection Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
General Methodological Design and Defense of Method Chosen . . . . . . . . .56
Data Collection Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
Data Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
Protection of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
Positionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Trustworthiness and Credibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74
2
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Linked Learning is a high school reform effort designed to engage high school students in
their education and prepare them for post-secondary opportunities through a deliberate
combination of academic content and real-world technical skills. The first Linked Learning
pathways began in 2009 with nine school districts in California participating in the California
Linked Learning District Initiative (ConnectEd, “California Linked Learning District Initiative”).
In 2013, the state of California expanded the Linked Learning work to twenty additional districts
via Assembly Bill 790 (AB 790) (ConnectEd, “AB 790 Linked Learning Pilot Program”). The
James Irvine Foundation funded grants to the nine original school districts across California to
develop initial pathways, and additional funding came from the Senate Bill 1070 (SB 1070) to
fund the twenty AB 790 pilot districts (ConnectEd, “AB 790 Linked Learning Pilot Program”).
A Linked Learning pathway is a course of study for high school students focused on a
specific career theme. Linked Learning is based on four core components: “rigorous academics,
career-based learning in the classroom, work-based learning in real-world workplaces, and
integrated student supports” (Guha et al., 2014, p. 1). Each of these components works together
to provide a cohesive, relevant educational program for high school students related to the
industry theme of their pathway. Students take a series of three or four technical elective
courses—one during each year of high school—related to that career so that the students can
develop real-world career skills while still in high school. Additionally, a student’s core
academic courses complement the work in the elective courses through cross-curricular projects
and thorough integration of the career theme into the curriculum. Ideally, a team of pathway
teachers works closely together to collaboratively plan the curriculum and support a student as he
3
or she moves through high school and transitions to college and/or career. Linked Learning
pathways offer UC-approved “a-g” courses in the core subject areas as part of the traditional
college readiness curriculum, and Linked Learning pathways also focus on teaching 21st century
skills. Accordingly, Linked Learning students are being prepared for college and career at the
same time they receive technical career skills. Students in a pathway have the opportunity to
interact with industry professionals through work-based learning experiences such as fieldtrips
and internships.
California recognizes fifteen different industry sectors that are vital to the California
economy, and each industry sector contains a set of standards, updated in 2013, that define what
should be taught in career-technical education (CTE) courses in California (California
Department of Education, CTE Model Curriculum Standards). Each Linked Learning pathway
develops around one of the fifteen CTE industry sectors in California. Within each California
industry sector are several (usually three) different pathways, which are more narrow career
options within a given industry sector. For example, within the Public Services industry sector
there are pathways in Public Safety, Emergency Response, and Legal Practices (California
Department of Education. Public Services: California Career Technical Education Model
Curriculum Standards). These CTE standards for the industry sector serve as the content
standards for the CTE elective courses within a Linked Learning pathway, and teachers within a
pathway reference the CTE standards when writing Student Learning Outcomes for the pathway.
Student Learning Outcomes are objectives for students to reach at each grade level as they
participate in the pathway. This work of investigating the content standards, making connections
between content areas, and planning relevant learning experiences for students is central to
Linked Learning pathways. Because of the hands-on, real-world focus of pathways,
4
multidisciplinary projects focused on the Student Learning Outcomes are the ideal instructional
strategy in a Linked Learning environment.
Woodbridge Unified School District (WUSD) (pseudonym) was one of the original nine
school districts participating in the California Linked Learning District Initiative. WUSD began
with six Linked Learning pathways in the 2009-2010 school year, and during the 2015-2016
school year there are eleven pathways in operation in WUSD. The WUSD Board of Education
passed a resolution in 2012 that fifty percent of the district’s high school students will be
enrolled in a Linked Learning pathway; this action by the Board emphasized that Linked
Learning pathways is the major high school reform initiative in WUSD with the support of the
entire district behind the effort (Woodbridge Unified School District, 2012). Although there is
no date set for WUSD to reach the fifty percent mark, enrollment in Linked Learning pathways
has been increasing steadily every year. During the 2014-2015 school year, eighteen percent of
the district’s high school students were enrolled in a pathway, and WUSD anticipates thirty
percent pathway enrollment for the 2015-2016 school year (WUSD Director of Pathways,
personal communication, February 26, 2015).
WUSD operates seven of its Linked Learning pathways on comprehensive high school
campuses, and four of its pathways are at Hills High School (HHS) (pseudonym), a small, wallto-wall pathways high school. All students and teachers at HHS are part of a Linked Learning
pathway, so Pathways are the central focus of HHS. Teachers at HHS are expected to utilize
project-based learning (PBL) as the primary instructional strategy, creating projects that
encompass their pathway’s Student Learning Outcomes and the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS). Accordingly, HHS is a unique environment where all teachers are experiencing the
implementation of CCSS through the lens of Linked Learning.
5
Problem Statement
While the first nine Linked Learning districts were grappling with the work of creating
and building new pathways, the curricular landscape for California changed greatly with the
adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in 2010. The problem being investigated
in this study is that Linked Learning teachers face the challenge of implementing both CCSS and
Linked Learning with fidelity so that students have a rigorous, engaging high school experience.
Teachers in Linked Learning pathways had already begun to rethink their curriculum to fit the
pathway structure, and the CCSS added an additional layer of complexity to the Linked Learning
curriculum design process. The Law of Initiative Fatigue explains that when teachers are met
with an increasing number of new expectations, the emotional energy that can be devoted to each
separate initiative decreases (Reeves, 2010). In a school setting with a fixed amount of money,
professional development, time, and other resources, teachers only have so much energy and
resources to devote to new initiatives such as Linked Learning and CCSS (Reeves, 2010).
After the state adopted the CCSS in August 2010, school districts began scrambling to
develop CCSS implementation plans to prepare teachers and students for the new standards in
time for the new Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) assessments that began in
the spring of 2015. The CCSS contain entirely new sets of content standards for English
Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics in addition to literacy standards for social studies,
science, and technical subjects. The shift to CCSS means that teachers have to adjust their
pacing guides, lesson plans, and even the instructional strategies they use with students to meet
the increased rigor and depth that the CCSS demand. The Common Core also requires a
different approach to assessing student learning, as the SBAC assessments require that students
apply their learning through performance tasks. To implement CCSS, teachers have had to
6
create performance assessments that mirror the SBAC assessment in order to prepare students for
the reading, writing, and transfer of knowledge that performance tasks require.
Education has gone through reform movements and changes since the inception of public
education, and change serves as the backdrop for everything that occurs in education (Fullan,
1993). “For the past thirty years we have been trying to up the ante in getting the latest
innovations and policies into place” (Fullan, 1993, p. 1). We are in the midst of many largescale changes in curriculum, instruction, and assessment in the state of California. The CCSS
were adopted in 2010, with most districts just beginning to implement these new standards fully.
WUSD began full implementation of CCSS in the 2014-2015 school year. The new testing and
assessment framework for California formally began in the spring of 2015 with the
implementation of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) assessments. New
standards for other subject areas, as well as changes to traditional assessments like the Scholastic
Aptitude Test (SAT) and California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), are also pending. The
California State Board of Education just decided in March 2015 that they would suspend the
Academic Performance Index for the 2014-2015 school year because there is so much change
occurring at the present time that they have not yet decided how to calculate new API scores for
schools (Torlakson, 2015).
States, districts, and schools build their structure within the environment of change,
trying to add some order and efficiency to the process of education (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Districts have made numerous structural adjustments in response to the CCSS, such as reworking
their technology policies; allocating resources for professional development; creating new
positions/roles such a librarians, technology specialists, and instructional coaches; creating new
approaches to and calendars for instruction and assessment. Teachers, the practitioners on the
7
ground who work with students daily, operate within the overarching environment of change, the
structure of their particular school district and site, and often under the burden of initiative
fatigue. In order to carry out their role as teachers as proscribed by their districts, teachers must
juggle an increasing number of educational initiatives. This study will examine both the
structure put in place by the district and at the school site to support teachers as they navigate the
complex intersection between Linked Learning and CCSS.
Purpose
The purpose of this case study is to examine the intersection between Linked Learning
and the Common Core State Standards. The researcher will investigate Linked Learning
structures and practices at HHS and how these have shaped implementation of the CSSS. A case
study is “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon (‘the case’) in depth
and within its real-world context” (Yin, 2014, p 16). A combination of interviews, observations,
and document analysis will be used to explore the intersection of Linked Learning and CCSS at
HHS. HHS opened in 2011, right after California’s implementation of the CCSS in August
2010. WUSD began professional development for its teachers regarding aspects of the Common
Core in 2011, just as HHS opened its doors. The instruments used in this study are designed to
elicit teachers’ experiences and perceptions as they implemented these two reform initiatives—
Linked Learning and CCSS—simultaneously.
Teachers at HHS face the challenge of implementing the CCSS while still trying to
develop the Pathways at a relatively new high school. Because HHS is just beginning its fifth
year of operation, the curriculum and culture of each pathway is still in development, and
teachers are also just integrating the CCSS into their classes. Teachers at HHS had to learn about
Linked Learning pathways at the same time they began to implement the CCSS. Starting a new
8
Pathway requires that teachers collaborate to write Student Learning Outcomes, plan projects,
and create their pathway’s culture. Teachers at HHS were doing all of these things while also
learning about the CCSS and integrating the CCSS into their curricula, instruction, and
assessments. This case study will examine the perceptions of teachers as they continue this
work, shedding light on the intersection of Linked Learning and the CCSS. Teachers will
participate in interviews to provide them with an opportunity to share their perceptions of the
connection between Linked Learning and the CCSS. Teachers will also be able to share the
challenges they have experienced with curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Site and district
administrators who were involved in shaping the structure of the site will be interviewed to
ascertain their vision of the intersection of Linked Learning and the CCSS. Documents from
HHS related to the implementation of Linked Learning and the CCSS will also be analyzed in
order to provide a complete picture of the story of Common Core implementation in a Linked
Learning environment at HHS. This triangulation of three sources of data will help to verify the
data obtained from each source, contributing to the credibility of the study (Lichtman, 2014).
Research Questions
The purpose of this case study is to examine the intersection of Linked Learning and
CCCS at Hills High School, a wall-to-wall Linked Learning pathways high school that is in the
process of implementing the CCSS. In order to address this issue, the following research
questions will be used:
1. How do teachers perceive the connection between teaching in a Linked Learning environment
and their implementation of the Common Core State Standards?
2. What challenges have Linked Learning teachers experienced when making the shift to the
Common Core State Standards?
9
a. What curricular challenges have Linked Learning teachers experienced when making
the shift to the CCSS?
b. What instructional challenges have Linked Learning teachers experienced when
making the shift to the CCSS?
c. What challenges with student assessment have Linked Learning teachers experienced
when making the shift to the CCSS?
3. How does the Linked Learning Pathway structure of the school support teachers’
implementation of the Common Core State Standards?
Conceptual Framework
This case study is based on a conceptual framework that is an integration of Fullan’s
Change Theory, Bolman & Deal’s Structural Frame, and Reeves’ Law of Initiative Fatigue. The
combination of these three theories explains the context for the experiences of teachers and
administrators who planned the structure of and are carrying out the work at Hills High School.
Change is an omnipresent force in society, and it provides the environment in which the structure
of districts and schools are designed (Fullan, 1993). Teachers conduct their curriculum,
instruction, assessment, and many other tasks, based on the foundation of the structures of their
schools and districts (Bolman & Deal, 2008). All of the initiatives that educators face are a
result of the structure of their school and district, so teachers are left to balance multiple
initiatives while also balancing on the structures built by their school district and school site in an
environment of change. Practically speaking, teachers are engaged in several balancing acts at
once. Figure 1 below illustrates this conceptual framework.
10
FIGURE 1. Conceptual Framework.
Change Theory explains that schools have a moral purpose to educate students, and in
order to achieve this moral purpose change is necessary (Fullan, 1993). Fullan acknowledges
that change exists everywhere in society, but he insists that educators must move past this
abstract view of change to become change agents within their educational organizations so that
they can effectively achieve the moral purpose of making a difference for students (Fullan,
1993). Fullan (1993) explains the “deeper reason” for change in education:
A deeper reason…is that education has a moral purpose. The moral purpose is
11
to make a difference in the lives of students regardless of background, and to help
produce citizens who can live and work productively in increasingly dynamically
complex societies. This is not new either, but what is new, I think, is the realization
that to do this puts teachers precisely in the business of continuous innovation and change
(p. 4).
Educational initiatives and reform efforts are always in flux, but students’ needs are always
changing too, so schools must respond to all of these changes if they are going to truly meet the
needs of students. Fullan (1993) also draws a distinction between merely existing amidst change
and acting as change agents within education systems. The latter, he argues, must be done in a
deliberate, sustained manner. “The new problem of change, then, ... is what would it take to
make the educational system a learning organization—expert at dealing with change as a normal
part of its work, not just in relation to the latest policy, but as a way of life” (Fullan, 1993, p. 4).
Fullan’s Change Theory is really a call to educators to embrace the complex change occurring in
society and in education and to let it affect their teaching practice for the better. Fullan (2007)
outlines three elements that are critical for “change in practice” in education:
(1) the possible use of new or revised materials (instructional resources such as
curriculum materials or technologies),
(2) the possible use of new teaching approaches (i.e., new teaching strategies or
activities), and
(3) the possible alteration of beliefs (e.g., pedagogical assumptions and theories
underlying particular new policies or programs) (p. 30).
Teachers’ experiences with and perceptions of change will be examined using these three
elements as a framework.
12
Bolman and Deal (2008) developed four frames that serve as lenses through which to
view an organization and its challenges. The four frames (structural, human resource, political,
and symbolic) were developed as a structure for examining “how organizations work, how they
should work, and why they often fail” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 61). “Multiframe thinking” is a
means of gaining a holistic view of an organization by taking into account the structural, human
resource, political, and symbolic aspects of an organization (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 68). The
four frames work in collaboration with one another and have overlapping elements. One of the
four frames is the structural frame, which “looks beyond individuals to examine the social
architecture of work” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 165). The structural frame is concerned with an
organization’s circumstances and also addresses issues of “structural change and redesign”
(Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 85). The school site that is the subject of the case study was built as
an attempt by a school district to redesign the high school experience for students, so the
structural frame is the space in which the this school site lives. “The right structure depends on
prevailing circumstances and considers an organization’s goals, strategies, technologies, and
people” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p, 166). This case study will examine HHS from the perspective
of the structural frame, looking at the school’s deliberate pathways design and paying special
attention to people and their roles during the school’s initial development and current existence.
Because education and schools are in a constant state of change, the demands on teachers
are always changing. Teachers are often met with educational initiative after initiative, year after
year. “Hatch (2000) reports that 66 percent of the schools were engaged with three or more
improvement programs . . . and in one district 19 percent of the schools ‘were working with nine
or more different improvement programs simultaneously’” (Fullan, 2001, p. 110). Each new
instructional strategy or school reform effort promises to solve some critical problem plaguing
13
education, but these new ideas are often perceived by teachers as just one more thing being
added to their already overflowing plate. Reeves (2010) defines the “Law of Initiative Fatigue”
as follows:
The Law of Initiative Fatigue states that when the number of initiatives increases
while time, resources, and emotional energy are constant, then each new initiative—
no matter how well conceived or well intentioned—will receive fewer minutes,
dollars, and ounces of energy than its predecessor (p. 27).
Often, these new initiatives are born out of the best intentions of school and district leaders, but
rather than helping teachers they become a burden (Reeves, 2010). As Fullan (2001) explains,
“leaders and members of the organization, because they live in a culture of frenetic change, are
vulnerable to seeking the comforting clarity of off-the-shelf solutions” (p. 45). As new
initiatives—wrapped as “solutions”—are added, it is rare that anything else is taken away, thus
leading to an accumulation of initiatives. An increasing pile of initiatives can be confusing to
teachers because they do not know what the true focus of the school or district is and what their
first priority should be (Reeves, 2010). This, in part, contributes to veteran teachers’
unwillingness to participate in new initiatives because they have seen so many new initiatives
during their career that they know the next one is just around the corner. Reeves explains that
the remedy for the condition of initiative fatigue is focus; districts must concentrate their
attention and resources on fewer initiatives with a coherent focus (Reeves, 2010).
States, districts, and schools build their structure within the environment of change,
trying to add some order and efficiency to the process of education (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Districts have made numerous structural adjustments in response to the CCSS, such as reworking
their technology policies; allocating resources for professional development; creating new
14
positions/roles such a librarians, technology specialists, and instructional coaches; creating new
approaches to and calendars for instruction and assessment. Teachers, the practitioners on the
ground who work with students daily, operate within the overarching environment of change, the
structure of their particular school district and site, and often under the burden of initiative
fatigue. In order to carry out their role as teachers as proscribed by their districts, teachers must
juggle an increasing number of educational initiatives, including new curriculum/standards,
instructional methods, and assessment. Teachers at the site face all of the changes just
mentioned, some of which come in the form of educational initiatives, but they face additional
initiatives as well. Linked Learning requires additional structures be in place in the district and
school site, and it also places additional demands on teachers. This case study will examine the
structures put in place by the district and at the school site to support teachers and will examine
teachers’ perceptions and experiences as they navigate the complex intersection between Linked
Learning and CCSS.
Operational Definitions
Assessment: Assessment in this study refers to classroom- or pathway-based assessments (both
summative and formative) that are designed by teachers. As discussed in this study, both Linked
Learning and Common Core require a move toward assessment as authentic demonstrations of
student learning. State and federal assessments, such as the Smarter Balanced Assessment
Consortium (SBAC) assessments, are not part of the present study.
Common Core State Standards (CCSS): The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are the new
content standards adopted by California in August 2010. These are new standards for
mathematics, grades K-12, which replaced the 1997 math standards. There are also new
standards for English Language Arts, grades K-12, which replaced the 1997 English Language
Arts Standards. The CCSS also include literacy standards for all subjects for grades K-12, which
are in addition to existing standards for these subjects (including social science, science, and
technical subjects). All Common Core State Standards (math, ELA, and literacy) are part of the
present study. The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and other standards are not part
of the present study.
15
Linked Learning (LL): Linked Learning refers to the high school reform effort that links
engaging, real-world learning with strong academics. The four core components of Linked
Learning are rigorous academics, real-world technical skills, work-based learning, and student
support. Linked Learning was formerly known as “multiple pathways.” For the purposes of this
study, the same definition of Linked Learning is used as defined by the James Irvine Foundation,
ConnectEd: The California Center for College and Career, and the Linked Learning Alliance.
Pathway: A Pathway is a single small learning community at a high school that exists within the
larger structure of Linked Learning. A high school may have several pathways, but each student
enrolls in one pathway, following a specific course of study for that pathway. Typically, each
teacher also participates in only one pathway. For the purposes of this study, a pathway is
synonymous with Linked Learning Pathway, as Pathways exist within a larger structure of
Linked Learning. At its core, a pathway is a small learning community (SLC), so a pathway is
one specific type of SLC (all pathways are SLCs, but not all SLCs are pathways). Also, the term
“pathway” has its roots in CTE academies, so the term “academy” is interchangeable with
“pathway” throughout this dissertation (for example, when it appears in the literature), although
the present study will utilize the term “pathway.”
Pathway Student Learning Outcomes: Each team of Pathway teachers creates a set of Student
Learning Outcomes that are benchmarked by grade level, according to the model of Linked
Learning outlined by ConnectEd: The California Center for College and Career. Student
Learning Outcomes are objectives for students to reach at each grade level as they participate in
the pathway. These are specific to the pathway and are usually derived largely from the
California Career-Technical Education Standards from the industry sector represented by the
pathway. These outcomes drive instruction for a pathway, enabling all teachers to know what
students should know and be able to do at the end of each grade level. These outcomes are a
living document that needs to be revised periodically to meet the needs of the pathway’s
students.
Project-Based Learning (PBL): PBL is an instructional strategy where all learning in a
classroom is centered on an inquiry-based project. Students are presented with a compelling
driving question, and all instruction occurring in the classroom is focused on guiding students to
answering this question and creating a final product or presentation of learning. Traditional
teaching methods, such as lectures, can play a role in PBL, but they exist only to the extent they
are needed to further students’ progress toward answering the driving question under the
umbrella of a project. PBL is an opportunity for students to demonstrate what they have learned
through authentic assessment. For the purposes of this study, the definitions of PBL utilized by
the Buck Institute, New Tech Network, and Connect Ed: The California Center for College and
Career are applicable.
21st Century Skills: These are the skills that today’s students will need to be successful in their
post-secondary endeavors, including college and career. Examples of 21st century skills include
oral communication, written communication, technological literacy, work ethic, collaboration,
problem solving, creativity, leadership, and adaptability. For the purposes of this study, the term
21st century skills includes “soft skills” or “career readiness skills.”
16
Assumptions, Delimitations, and Limitations
The researcher assumes, for the purpose of this study, that all teachers at Hills High
School are attempting to implement the four core components of Linked Learning Pathways and
the Common Core State Standards with fidelity. Although there is strong dependence on this
assumption, the teachers’ responses during interviews will shed light on the extent to which they
are familiar with and are attempting to implement the CCSS and Linked Learning. Data from
teacher observations will also provide information about the extent to which teachers at HHS are
implementing the CCSS and delivering pathway-focused instruction.
The limitations of a study are the “potential weaknesses or problems with the study”
(Plano Clark & Cresswell, 2010, p. 373). The sample size for the study is small: a total of
approximately fifteen teachers and five administrators will be interviewed. While this sample
size is small, it represents a large percentage of available subjects, as HHS is a small school.
There are presently 22 teachers at the site, 20 of whom taught at HHS prior to the 2015-2016
school year. Because this is a case study, the findings will not be generalizable. Yin (2014)
explains that “statistical generalization” is a “fatal flaw” in case studies because the case “will be
too small in number to serve as an adequately sized sample to represent any larger population”
(Yin, 2014. P. 40). A case study can be used for “analytic generalization,” which applies the
theories from the case study to other situations (Yin, 204, p. 41). As discussed in the significance
section below, the findings of this case study will likely have applicability to other schools in
California, at least from a theoretical perspective.
Delimitations are constraints that the researcher chooses to impose on the study,
including decisions about the research design. Only Linked Learning pathways at one high
school will be the focus of this case study, and the pathways at other high schools within the
17
same district will not be part of this study. The case study design requires the exploration of “a
bounded system in depth,” and that system is HHS (Plano Clark & Cresswell, 2010, p, 242).
Additional delimitations relate to the researcher’s choice to focus narrowly on the Common Core
State Standards and not all new standards and assessment systems occurring within California.
In addition to the CCSS, California adopted an additional set of standards for science, the Next
Generation Science Standards (NGSS), in 2013, and new social studies standards are currently
being drafted. The NGSS are still very new to districts and teachers, and WUSD has just begun
to train teachers on NGSS within the past year. The NGSS also only apply to science teachers,
while the CCSS (literacy standards) have an application in every classroom. The researcher is
not including the NGSS in this study and will only focus on the CCSS standards for English
Language Arts, Mathematics, and Literacy.
Significance
Although the subject of this case study is a small high school in California, the findings
of this research could help shape the implementation of CCSS and Linked Learning in other
schools and districts. HHS is one of the first small high schools built with a wall-to-wall focus
on Linked Learning Pathways, and after HHS was built other districts have been opening similar
small schools. For example, the Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD) opened McBride
High School, a small high school with three Linked Learning Pathways, for the 2013-2014
school year (Zonkel, 2013). Additional school districts are also beginning to implement Linked
Learning Pathways. In 2011, California Senate Bill 1070 (SB 1070) provided funding to twenty
AB 790 pilot districts to begin Linked Learning Pathways (ConnectEd, “AB 790 Linked
Learning Pilot Program”). In 2014, the first round of California Career Pathways Trust (CCPT)
18
grants provided $250 million in funding to school districts across the state to develop Pathways
(Reimers, 2014). An additional $250 million in CCPT grants were issued across California in
May of 2015. These additional schools and districts impacted by AB 790 and the CCPT grants
have funding to implement Pathways, and this study will provide the benefit of the wisdom of
existing Pathways. The experiences and perceptions of the HHS teachers, in addition to the
administrative experiences in structuring HHS, will be useful to schools and districts who are
just beginning their journey with integrating Linked Learning and the Common Core.
19
CHAPTER 2
Linked Learning
Linked Learning as Reform
Linked Learning is a high school reform effort in California that is designed to engage
students in their high school education and prepare them for post-secondary opportunities by
combining real-world career experiences with rigorous academics. Linked Learning takes the
career-focused aspects of traditional career-technical education (CTE) programs and merges
them with rigorous academics to help prepare students for college and career (Rutherford-Quach
& Rice, 2013). Linked Learning formally began in 2009 with 9 districts receiving grants from
the James Irvine Foundation through the California Linked Learning District Initiative (the
Initiative) to create a system of Linked Learning in California (Guha et al. 2014). In 2013, 63
additional districts received state funding to create a system of Pathways (Guha et al., 2013).
Linked Learning is a relatively new program, having only been in existence since 2009 and only
having graduates who participated in four years of Linked Learning since 2013. Accordingly,
there have been few studies conducted about Linked Learning, and there are minimal data about
Linked Learning’s effectiveness.
Linked Learning and Career-Technical Education
Vocational education began in the United States to provide students with the skills they
would need to enter the workforce and support the economy by filling high-demand jobs.
Federal funding for CTE programs began with the passage of the Perkins law in 1984; Perkins
has been reauthorized in 1998 and 2006 (Levesque et al., 2008). As Stern (2010) explains:
In the 1980s, what was then called vocational education (VE) started evolving toward
what is now called career-technical education (CTE). VE courses were explicitly
20
intended to prepare students for direct entry into full-time work—not for college or
university. In contrast, CTE courses are meant to fit together with classes in academic
subjects so that high school students are prepared both for work and postsecondary
education (p. 1).
This shift from vocational to career-technical education is apparent in the federal legislation that
provides funding for CTE programs, as the most recent version of the law mentions “career and
technical” education rather than “vocational” education (Stern, 2010, p. 1). Even in its name, the
2006 version of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act (Perkins
Act) includes major shifts away from vocational education toward college and career readiness
(Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act, 2006). The Perkins Act
defines career and technical education as “organized educational activities that provides
individuals with coherent and rigorous content aligned with challenging academic standards and
relevant technical knowledge and skills needed to prepare for further education and skills in
current or emerging professions” (Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement
Act, 2006, S. 250(3)(A)(i)). Career-technical education is prevalent in the United States, with 88
percent of high schools offering some form of occupational program (Levesque et al., 2008).
Linked Learning is a specific type of CTE program that continues and extends the trend away
from mere vocational education (college or career) toward college and career readiness that
began with the Perkins reauthorization in 2006.
The Structure of Linked Learning
From its formal beginning in 2009, Linked Learning was guided by clear standards and
systems of support. District leaders, site leaders, and teachers involved in Linked Learning
require much support and professional development as they redesign their educational structures
21
and practices to create and develop pathways. The Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in
Education (SCOPE), in conjunction with ConnectEd: The California Center for College and
Career (ConnectEd) have provided much of the professional development, tools, standards, and
structures to support Linked Learning districts over the first six years of Linked Learning
implementation (Guha et al., 2014). Linked Learning is based on four core components:
“rigorous academics, career-based learning in the classroom, work-based learning in real-world
workplaces, and integrated student supports” (Guha et al., 2014, p. 1). These components are
integrated to form a rigorous, career-focused high school experience for students. Additionally,
there are four guiding principles of Linked Learning:
1. Linked Learning prepares students to succeed in college, career, and life.
2. Linked Learning prepares high school students for a full range of post-graduation
opportunities.
3. Linked Learning connects academics to real-world applications.
4. Linked Learning improves student engagement. (ConnectEd, n.d.b)
Students who participate in Linked Learning select one career-themed pathway, which is a
“formal program that implements these core components and the guiding principles of Linked
Learning” (Rutherford-Quach & Rice, 2013, p. 1). Students then engage in a course of study that
incorporates CTE elective courses and core academic classes throughout their four years in high
school.
Additionally, there are seven “Essential Elements for Pathway Quality” that set the
standard for Linked Learning pathway quality: “student-outcomes driven practice; equity, access,
and achievement; program of study; learning and teaching; work-based learning; personalized
student support; and pathway leadership and partnerships” (ConnectEd, n.d.). Each of these
22
elements contains a detailed description of how a pathway would meet the criteria for quality in
the form of a rubric, which are available online and easily accessible to all pathways. ConnectEd
developed the essential elements as a clear set of standards so that new pathways would have a
direction for their improvement efforts, and ConnectEd provides coaching and support for
districts to move their pathways toward certification (ConnectEd, n.d.c).
Existing Linked Learning Research
Student Success in Linked Learning Pathways. The Center for Advanced Research
and Technology (CART) is a school in Clovis, California that utilizes the Linked Learning
model of instruction. In fact, CART was one of the earliest Linked Learning schools as it used
an early form of Linked Learning that preceded the Initiative. CART is a joint venture of the
Clovis and Fresno Unified School Districts, and it graduated its first class of 12th grade students
in 2002 (Forbes, 2011). Accordingly, CART has collected some of the earliest Linked Learning
success data, comparing college enrollment data from 2002-2008 between CART students and
“matched comparison students.” These “matched comparison students” were demographically
similar students (in the areas of gender, ethnicity, home language, CAHSEE score, English
proficiency, special education status, parent education level, and free-reduced lunch status) from
the Clovis and Fresno districts who did not attend CART (Forbes, 2011). Overall, CART
students showed larger university enrollment numbers than the comparison group, ranging from
1 to 10 percent more CART students enrolled in a university than students in the comparison
group between 2002-2008 (Forbes, 2011). Similarly, CART students showed larger community
college enrollment numbers than the comparison group, ranging from 4 to 19 percent more
CART students enrolled in a university than students in the comparison group between 2002-
23
2008 (Forbes, 2011). These results from CART seem to indicate that Linked Learning students
attend college at higher rates than non-Linked Learning peers.
In 2012 and 2013, SCOPE conducted case studies of three districts (Porterville Unified
School District, Pasadena Unified School District, and Sacramento Unified School District)
participating in the Initiative (Rice & Rutherford-Quach, 2012; Rustique & Rutherford-Quach,
2012; Rutherford-Quach & Rice, 2013). Each case study was focused on a single research
question: “How did the district’s leadership guide and support the development and
implementation of the Linked Learning Initiative?” (Rustique & Rutherford-Quach, 2012, p. 3).
In Porterville in 2010-2011, students participating in Linked Learning pathways showed doubledigit increases in math and English CAHSEE pass rates over their non-Pathway peers (Rustique
& Rutherford Quach, 2012). Quantitative data about student achievement was not available for
Pasadena and Sacramento, but the case studies did outline the work-based learning experiences
available to students and the overall district and community involvement with pathways (Rice &
Rutherford-Quach, 2012; Rutherford-Quach & Rice, 2013).
Every year there is an annual Linked Learning report written by the Stanford Research
Institute (SRI). This report is based on a comprehensive set of interviews, surveys, observations,
and data collection from Linked Learning districts across the state that are funded by the James
Irvine Foundation. Each district receives its own private report, and the collective results are
published for the public. In 2014, a fifth-year report was published that summarizes the first five
years of Linked Learning across all nine California Linked Learning District Initiative districts
(Guha et al., 2014). The focus of the fifth-year report was to shift attention to focus on students,
focusing on student outcomes, student engagement in school, student success in school, student
24
experiences in pathways, student perception of skills gained, and student post-secondary plans
(Guha et al., 2014). Several significant findings related to students emerged:

Students in certified pathways are 5% more likely than similar peers to remain in the
district through 12th grade (p. vii)

Students in certified pathways outperform similar peers in credit accumulation in the 9th11th grades, with the biggest difference of 7.3 more credits in 9th grade (p. viii).

“Student subgroups most frequently underserved by traditional schools—such as English
learners, underachieving students, African American and Latino students—who enrolled
in certified pathways perform at least as well as (if not better) on credit accumulation and
test score outcomes compared with their peers in the same subgroup in traditional high
school programs” (p. vii).

12th grade students in certified pathways are 12% more likely than similar peers to report
that a teacher “discussed how what they learned in class could be applied to what they
might to after high school” (p. ix).

12th grade students in certified pathways are 20% more likely to report that they had
developed skills necessary to “collaborate in a group to achieve a shared goal” (p. x).

12th grade students in certified pathways are 16% more likely to report that they had
improved their ability to speak in public (p. x).
These results offer a mere snapshot of the student success data contained in the SRI fifth-year
evaluation report; however, it is clear that Linked Learning is showing tangible benefits for
students.
Josten (2015) studied student perceptions of the impact of Linked Learning on readiness
for opportunities beyond high school. This mixed methods study utilized surveys, focus groups,
25
and interviews to ascertain students’ perceptions of their engagement in high school (Josten,
2015). Participants were from fifteen high schools within one large urban high school district in
the western United States. Sixty-three of the available 1,400 students responded to the survey.
Post-secondary readiness “could be measured through the students’ application of skills learned
in high school to their post-high school experiences” and “the extent to which . . . Linked
Learning helped prepare a student for real-world challenges after leaving high school” (Josten,
2015, p. 47). This lack of a concrete definition of post-secondary readiness led to inconclusive
findings in this area. Sixty percent of the students surveyed indicated that they were pursuing a
career directly related to their high school CTE work, and 82.5% indicated that they were better
prepared for academic courses after high school because of their CTE pathway (Josten, 2015).
Eighty-seven percent of student survey indicated that they were currently attending a two- or
four-year college; however, this college-going data for CTE students is insignificant without
non-CTE data for comparison.
Adams (2012) conducted a case study of a “Linked Learning CTE program serving more
than 100 high schools in one county in southern California” to ascertain student engagement and
preparation for post-secondary opportunities in Linked Learning pathways (p. 69). The study did
not look at college-going rates of the students but instead relied on interviews with internship
supervisors and employers to ascertain that students participating in the Linked Learning
program “had superior attitudes, came to work on time, and were open to learning” as compared
to students from the local college programs whom they had previously supervised. “The
community recognized the program as producing students who are prepared for the world of
work with quality training and experience” (Adams, 2012, p. 139).
26
Because there are only a handful of studies that have been done, to date, on Linked
Learning, a February 2015 search of the Dissertations and Theses Database yielded a total of
eight dissertations on the topic of Linked Learning. This search was conducted using the search
terms “linked learning” for dissertations and theses since 2000, which yielded 302 results. When
these results were skimmed, only the first few results appeared to be related to Linked Learning
pathways as they are being studied in the present study. Accordingly, the search was modified to
search for “linked learning” only within the title, and this search initially yielded seven results.
When this same search was tried again in May 2015, an additional dissertation published in April
2015 was added to the list, making a total of eight Linked Learning dissertations. This relatively
small number of studies on the topic of Linked Learning means that there is ample room for
further research on this topic.
Student Engagement in Linked Learning Pathways. Several of the existing studies
about Linked Learning focus on student engagement. Anderson (2014) examined the
engagement experiences of African American students at two Linked Learning pathways at
Millikan High School in the Long Beach Unified School District. Eighteen students and staff
members in these two pathways were interviewed. Anderson (2014) defined student engagement
as the “quality of student effort toward educationally purposeful activities that contribute directly
to desired outcomes” (p. 14). Linked Learning was found to have “an enormous effect on
African American students’ level of engagement in a certified pathway” (Anderson, 2014, p.
142). Anderson (2014) also examined how the structure at Millikan High School supported
student engagement. The college-going culture at Millikan was found to be a unique structure
that supported student engagement (Anderson, 2014). One shortcoming in the design of this
study is that the study relied solely on interviews, and other sources of data (e.g., documents and
27
observations) were not utilized. Additional case studies of Linked Learning pathways, schools,
and districts could utilize interviews, document analysis, and observations to triangulate data and
give a more comprehensive view of the case study subject.
Adams’ (2012) case study utilized surveys and interviews from site administrators,
students, and industry partners to investigate students’ engagement in their pathways. The study
did not offer a definition of engagement, but it did reference literature about the “cognitive,
behavioral, and emotional” dimensions of engagement since engagement is both academic and
social. (Adams, 2012, p. 35). Adams (2012) founds students to be engaged in their Linked
Learning pathway, as the students in the study expressed:
how much better they learned when they were doing the work hands-on, how the topics
they were discussing and learning greatly affected them and helped them achieve their
goals, and how the program’s high standards created a learning environment conducive to
learning (p. 89).
Overall, it was the students’ feelings of belonging to a community because they were part of a
pathway and the hands-on learning that led to engagement in their pathway (Adams, 2012).
Josten (2015) also studied perceptions of how Linked Learning contributed to
engagement while in high school and how Linked Learning prepared students for post-secondary
opportunities. The researcher used “information former students provide regarding their
attendance, school performance, and grade” to define engagement (Josten, 2015, p. 47). An
overwhelming majority (90.5%) of students surveyed reported that they “enjoyed high school
because of their CTE course of study” (Josten, 2015, p. 59). Similarly, 82.5% of student
participants agreed that their participation in CTE motivated then to remain in school, with
79.4% indicating that they were successful in other classes because of their CTE class (Josten,
28
2015). Josten (2015) also used attendance data to explore engagement, but attendance data
comparing CTE pathway students to non-CTE students was inconclusive (Josten, 2015).
The Teacher’s Role in Linked Learning Pathways. A case study on Liked Learning
teacher leads in Linked Learning academies in northern California yielded many results that are
applicable to the present study (Johnston, 2013). This study examined the role that teacher
leaders play in pathways by conducting a multi-case study of four pathway lead teachers at two
high schools in a Linked Learning district. Pathway lead teachers, site and district
administrators, pathway teachers, and industry partners were interviewed for this study, for an
average of eight total interviews per case (Johnston, 2013). One limitation of that this study is
that despite being a case study it only consisted of interviews and no other data sources, although
the participants interviewed did vary in role. This study was based on the premise that in a
Linked Learning model “lead teachers coordinate implementation of a reform model that
challenges deeply ingrained norms underlying institutional structures and teacher identity in
secondary schools” (Johnston, 2013, p. 1). This precise statement about the difficult role of a
pathway teacher—especially a lead teacher—has applications for the present study. Secondary
teachers are accustomed to subject-specific curriculum and instruction and pathways required
interdisciplinary collaboration from teachers. An overarching theme of the study was that
implementation of Linked Learning is a challenge for teachers because “the collaborative and
interdisciplinary nature of the [Linked Learning] reform model conflicts with the autonomous,
individualistic and subject-oriented nature of teacher culture in secondary schools” (Johnston,
2013, p. 62). This challenge manifested especially in the area of interdisciplinary curriculum
development (Johnston, 2013). The present study will focus on teachers’ perceptions of the
challenges—especially challenges with new curriculum, instructional strategies, and
29
assessments—associated with the change to Linked Learning and CCSS. Johnston’s (2013)
study also revealed an implication for future research in the area of role overload for pathway
lead teachers, as which is closely related to the present study’s investigation of initiative fatigue
among pathway teachers (Johnston, 2013; Reeves, 2010).
Several existing Linked Learning studies focus on the faculty who support Linked
Learning, such as teachers, administrators, and counselors. Clarke (2014) studied the role of the
counselor in Linked Learning, whereas Hamilton (2011) and Wood (2015) studied leadership in
Linked Learning, examining the leadership practices within Linked Learning schools and
principal leadership in Linked Learning, respectively. A study that is more applicable to the
current study is that of Shin (2013) regarding teacher collaboration and Linked Learning. Shin
(2013) examined the role that a teacher’s choice to participate in a pathway plays in his/her
ability to collaborate as part of a pathway team of teachers. Eight teachers in one Linked
Learning pathway at a northern California high school were interviewed about their team’s
collaboration, and all eight of these teachers voluntarily chose to be in a Linked Learning
pathway. This has implications for the present study because HHS is a wall-to-wall Linked
Learning pathway school, so teachers coming to HHS are automatically part of a Linked
Learning pathway; if a teacher is choosing to work at HHS, he/she is choosing to participate in a
Linked Learning pathway. Teachers in Shin’s (2013) study expressed that participating in a
Linked Learning Pathway helped them better understand students’ needs and has changed their
personal values about education to align with the Linked Learning philosophy that the purpose of
high school is to prepare students for college and career (Shin, 2013). Shin’s (2013) study has
implications for future research to investigate teacher collaboration and about teachers’ changing
personal values about education as a result of Linked Learning. The present study will examine
30
teachers’ personal beliefs about education as one of Fullan’s (2007) three elements critical for
educational “change in practice” (p. 30). In Shin’s (2013) study, teachers also expressed that
they had not received training on how to effectively collaborate and would benefit from such
training order to further their pathway work. This echoes the findings of Johnston (2013) about
the difficulties that pathway teachers have collaborating effectively to create interdisciplinary
projects. Accordingly, the present study will include questions for teachers about the structure of
HHS allowing for collaboration with other teachers as they implement CCSS in a Linked
Learning setting.
Civic Engagement in Linked Learning Pathways. The only additional existing Linked
Learning study deals with the role of civic learning in Linked Learning (Cain, 2012). While this
study does not directly relate to the present study, it does serve as an indication that there is a
tremendous gap in the literature surrounding Linked Learning. Linked Learning has many
facets, and researchers have only begun to scratch the surface of discovering the successes and
failures, challenges and opportunities that Linked Learning provides. Cain (2012) came close to
examining the role that curriculum plays in Linked Learning, but her study was narrowly focused
on civics education and was not related to the overall Common Core State Standards or any other
curriculum. Cain (2012) urged future researchers to construe “civic learning” broadly to include
not just social studies but also students’ “skills, knowledge, and attitudes that will prepare them
to be competent and responsible citizens throughout their lives” (p. 8). The Common Core State
Standards and Linked Learning both purport to prepare students for college and career in the 21st
century, and further research on this topic is needed. There are presently no studies about the
intersection between the Common Core State Standards and Linked Learning, which are two of
the largest school reform initiatives facing California high schools.
31
The Common Core State Standards
Standards-Based Education as Reform
The 1983 publication of A Nation At Risk and its depiction of the dismal state of
American education is what many educational scholars believe to be the catalyst for the
standards-based reform movement (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983;
Smith & O’Day, 1991; Ravitch, 1995; Wixson, Dutro, & Athan, 2003; Hamilton, Stecher, &
Yuan, 2008). Beginning in the 1990s, American education moved toward increased
accountability by aligning curriculum, instruction, and assessment to standards. Content
standards are academic expectations for students that describe the content that is to be taught
(and learned) by subject and by grade level. “A standards-based vision was enacted in federal
law under the Clinton administration with the 1994 re-authorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and carried forward under the Bush administration with the
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001” (Shepard, Hannaway, & Baker, 2009, p. 1). When
most states, including California, responded to federal legislation and adopted content standards
for education for the first time in the late 1990s, educators faced the challenge of aligning
curriculum, instruction, and assessment to these standards. California adopted content standards
for math, English language arts, science, and social studies in 1997 and 1998.
Hamilton, Stecher, and Yuan (2008) explain that standards-based reform focuses on six
key features: academic expectations for students, alignment of the key elements of the
educational system, assessments of student achievement, decentralization, support and technical
assistance, and accountability (p. 2). Hamilton, Stecher, and Yuan (2008) explain
The SBR movement reflects a confluence of policy trends—in particular, a growing
emphasis on using tests to monitor progress and hold schools accountable and a belief
32
that school reforms are most likely to be effective when all components of the education
system are designed to work in alignment toward a common set of goals (p.2).
Hamilton, Stecher and Yuan (2008) indicate that there is research to support some positive
effects of standards-based reform on teacher practice and student achievement. While Hamilton,
Stecher, and Yuan (2008) indicated indicate that standards can be a “powerful lever for change,”
they also indicate that there is a lack of credible evidence of the effects of standards (p. 65).
Overview of the Common Core State Standards
Adoption of the Standards. When educators had just gotten used to the idea of
standards and had become familiar with the “old” standards (enacted in 1997 and 1998 in
California), a new set of standards was adopted by California (and forty-four other states) in
2010. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are a new set of English/literacy and math
standards for kindergarten through twelfth grade that purport to prepare students for the rigors of
post-secondary opportunities in a way that the previous standards did not. A group of
stakeholders in education—prominently featuring the National Governors Association and the
Council of Chief State School Officers—wrote and revised the CCSS. The CCSS are
internationally benchmarked, and they attempt to raise the level of rigor for students in schools
across the United States by providing a uniform set of expectations for the forty-four states that
have fully adopted the CCSS (National Governors Association, 2010e). Part of the reason for
states’ rush to adopt the CCSS was due to $4 billion in federal Race to the Top funding that
schools were eligible to compete for if they adopted the CCSS prior to August 2, 2010 (Gewertz,
2010). By the end of 2012, forty-five states and Washington, D.C. had fully adopted the
Common Core State Standards (Achieve, 2013). One additional state, Minnesota, has adopted
only the English Language Arts and Literacy standards (Achieve, 2013). California adopted the
33
CCSS standards in August 2010, replacing the existing English Language Arts and mathematics
standards, and adding the literacy standards.
Shifts in English Language Arts. The Common Core State Standards emphasize
literacy across the curriculum. In addition to new English Language Arts and mathematics
standards, the CCSS contain three new sets of standards (two for reading and one for writing) for
literacy in grades 6-12 across science, social studies, and technical subjects (National Governors
Association, 2010a). The National Governors Association (2010a) explains this emphasis on
literacy: “Because students must learn to read, write, speak, listen, and use language effectively
in a variety of content areas, the standards promote the literacy skills and concepts required for
college and career readiness in multiple disciplines” (p. 1). This concern with real-world
application of skills is also present in the CCSS shift from fiction to information text. There are
three key shifts in the Common Core English Language Arts standards from the 1997 California
English Content Standards:
(1) regular practice with complex text and academic language;
(2) reading, writing, and speaking grounded in evidence from texts, both literary and
informational; and
(3) building knowledge through content-rich nonfiction (National Governors Association,
2010b).
Overall, these shifts all include a move from fiction to informational text, as the balance of
fiction to non-fiction text shifts to 50/50 in grades K-5 and 80/20 by high school (National
Governors Association, 2010b).
34
Shifts in Mathematics. The Common Core State Standards also contain significant shifts
in the area of mathematics. There are three key shifts in mathematics introduced in the Common
Core:
(1) greater focus on fewer topics;
(1) linking topics and themes across grades (coherence); and
(2) the pursuit of conceptual understanding, procedural skills and fluency, and
application with equal intensity (rigor) (National Governors Association, 2010c).
These shifts aim to have students develop foundational understanding and skills in math, but the
CCSS do not stop at mere accuracy in calculations. Students are also expected to apply
mathematical principles to solve problems. The CCSS math standards are also guided by a set of
eight Standards for Mathematical Practice (SMP) that provide a framework for mathematical
skill and thought across grades K-12. The SMPs spell out “the varieties of expertise that
mathematics educators at all levels should seek to develop in their students” (National Governors
Association, 2010d, p.1). The SMPs are a combination of skills and approaches to problem
solving that the Common Core math standards will develop in students:
1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them
2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively
3. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others
4. Model with mathematics
5. Use appropriate tools strategically
6. Attend to precision
7. Look for and make use of structure
35
8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning (National Governors Association,
2010d).
Depth of Knowledge. The CCSS math, English, and literacy standards emphasize student
learning of content deeply, focusing on depth rather than breadth. The depth of thinking that the
CCSS demands of students is divided into four levels of “Depth of Knowledge,” with each level
describing the “cognitive rigor” required to complete an assessment (Webb, 1999; Hess, Jones,
Carlock & Walkup, 2009). There are four levels of Depth of Knowledge ranging from simple
recall (Level 1) to extended thinking (Level 4) where students must engage in complex reasoning
(Webb, 1999). The concepts in the standards spiral from grade K-12 so that students have
concepts reinforced multiple times throughout their education, having many opportunities to
engage in deep thinking around the standards. The CCSS focus on content and skills with a
special emphasis on students’ ability to think critically and apply their learning to a variety of
situations, especially those outside a classroom.
Implementing the CCSS
The Common Core State standards are a relatively new adoption by the states that are
implementing them, so there is little research to date on teachers’ experiences with Common
Core implementation. Most states adopted the CCSS in 2010 and only began implementing the
new standards during the past couple of years. In fact, nearly half of the states had adopted the
new standards within a month of their final release, with four states adopting them even prior to
the final draft being released (Gewertz, 2010). This quick adoption meant there was little time to
develop new systems of curriculum, instruction, and assessment prior to adoption. Accordingly,
the work of implementing the standards is really just beginning across the nation. There are a
handful of studies and articles about the topic of CCSS implementation from a teacher’s
36
perspective, and most of these deal with challenges (with curriculum, instruction, assessment and
collaboration), supports needed, and initiative fatigue experienced by teachers as they implement
the CCSS.
Research for Action (RFA) conducted a mixed methods, cross-case study of instructional
tools aligned to the Common Core in Kentucky, Florida, and Pennsylvania (Beaver & ReumannMoore, 2014). Beaver & Reumann-Moore’s (2014) study used a combination of observations,
surveys, focus groups, and interviews, with district administrators, site administrators,
instructional support teachers, and classroom teachers to investigate:

Common best practices, which are implementation strategies shared across all three sites;

Distinct approaches, which are implementation strategies that, while successful, differ
across sites; and,

Areas of opportunity, which are works in progress in at least one of the three sites that
highlight ways to strengthen LDC implementation (p. 2).
Similar to other studies on Common Core implementation, Beaver & Reumman-Moore (2014)
found that CCSS implementation has implications for curriculum, instruction, and collaboration.
One major finding was that the Common Core’s demand that all teachers teach literacy marks a
significant instructional shift for most teachers which will require professional development in
order to “bridge the gap between existing classroom practice and this new, more comprehensive
approach to literacy instruction” (Beaver & Reumann-Moore, 2014, p. 25). The curricula in
Beaver & Reumann-Moore’s (2014) study were Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC) modules,
and the study found it was important these modules were created be a team of teachers and were
“designed to supplement, not replace, existing curricula” (p. 20). The present study will
investigate curricular challenges that teachers face when shifting to the CCSS.
37
Lack of resources is a significant challenge facing teachers as they implement the
Common Core (Gewertz, 2012). Many districts are frantically having teachers write or locate
their own materials because there is a shortage of published resources, including textbooks,
available, so the use of LDC modules is a natural fit for many districts. The executive director of
the Council of Great City Schools said that the gap in materials is valuable because it allows
teachers to get deep into the standards and find out what they truly mean and what curriculum
will truly align to them, so curricula like the LDC modules allows teachers to become involved
in this difficult but critical work (Gewertz, 2012).
Beaver & Reumann-Moore (2014) also found that professional development was a great
need of teachers implementing the CCSS, and a collaborative approach to professional
development worked best because it helped teachers better understand CCSS instruction.
Examples of effective collaboration included: “working together to develop and/or revise
modules, observing experiences colleagues implement modules in their classrooms, and scoring
student work using common rubrics” (Beaver & Reumann-Moore, 2014, p. 26). Finally, Beaver
& Reumann-Moore’s (2014) study found that across all three states, teachers must be able to
effectively collaborate “across grade levels, content areas, schools, and, in some cases, even
within grade-level and content-area teams” as they work to implement CCSS (p. 30). The need
for teacher collaboration was echoed by others implementing the LDC modules. An English
teacher involved in the LDC explained:
Teachers crave the chance to work together. I get so many ideas from my classroom just
sitting around and talking about our modules. We steal and take from each other. I wish
there was a way we could do that as teachers all the time” (Phillips & Wong, 2012, p.
34).
38
One caveat about Beaver & Reumann-Moore’s (2014) study is that the methodology of the
study was not fully explained; the methodology was only summarized very briefly in one page of
an appendix, so the precise results and the data analysis processes used by the researchers were
not made clear. Accordingly, further research is needed in the area of Common Core
implementation, especially around successful and unsuccessful instructional practices for
implementing CCSS. The present study will interview teachers and administrators about their
perceptions and experiences with Common Core instructional strategies (in a Linked Learning
environment), paying specific attention to curriculum, instruction, and collaboration.
Challenges with CCSS Implementation.
New York was one of the earliest adopters of the Common Core, and the New York City
Department of Education (NYCDOE) collaborated with the Consortium for Policy Research in
Education (CPRE) and the GE Foundation to evaluate Common Core implementation in New
York City schools (Goldsworthy, Supovitz, & Riggan, 2013). New York City schools selected
performance-based assessments (at least one in literacy and one in math) aligned to the CCSS to
be implemented during the 2011-2012 school year (Goldsworthy, Supovitz, & Riggan, 2013).
The purpose of the evaluation was to collect data surrounding how schools were structuring to
allow for implementation of the Common Core, factors aiding or inhibiting the implementing of
the Common Core, and the changing practices in schools that Common Core implementation
requires (Goldsworthy, Supovitz, & Riggan, 2013). Data was collected in the form of a phone
interview with a site administrator, site visits/observations, and on-site interviews with teachers.
Themes emerging from the study included the challenge of the instructional shifts required by
CCSS, the significant role of collaboration in CCSS implementation, and the teacher growth
resulting from struggling through transition to implement CCSS (Goldsworthy, Supovitz, &
39
Riggan, 2013). Perhaps the most significant findings were in the area of teacher collaboration.
For schools where collaboration was not previously occurring, the CCSS implementation
changed the culture of the school to get teachers together to have conversations about teaching
and learning, and at schools where collaboration was already occurring teachers implementing
the CCSS experienced a new sense of shared purpose because “everyone has the same standards
now” and “as a school we’re all going toward the same goal” (Goldsworthy, Supovitz, & Riggan,
2013, p. 33). Despite the challenge that implementation of CCSS presents, teachers were largely
able to see their work toward this challenge as productive as they increased their understanding
of the standards and grew in their instructional practices (Goldsworthy, Supovitz, & Riggan,
2013).
Koning et al. (2014) conducted a reflective interview with three elementary school
teachers in Chicago that revealed some challenges next steps for implementing the Common
Core. The teachers felt overwhelmed, nervous, and afraid of the change in the beginning of
implementation. One teacher expressed, “I was worried that [Common Core] was another thing I
was going to need to learn and understand in order to implement” (Koning et al., 2014, p. 359).
Another teacher shared, “It seemed like a lot of extra work to unpack the standards, rate texts,
and write long lesson plans on top of our regular work for school” (Koning et al., 2014, p. 359).
This feeling of Common Core being “another thing” or “extra work” connects with the idea of
initiative fatigue, where an increasing number of initiatives are added to teachers’ plates, and
teachers are left to struggle with multiple initiatives without additional time or other resources
(Koning et al., 2014, p. 359; Reeves, 2010). Teachers implementing the CCSS also experienced
the need for collaboration and “took time to meet before and after school to create cohesive
lessons” (Koning et al., 2014, p. 359). All three teachers mentioned that working as a team
40
helped improve their motivation to keep moving forward with the work (Koning et al., 2014).
This connects to the studies of Johnston (2013) and Shin (2013) about the role that collaboration
played in their implementation of Linked Learning.
Because the present study is about CCSS implementation at a Linked Learning high
school, it is important to review research that is focused on CCSS implementation at the
secondary level. Ruchti et al. (2013) studied Common Core implementation in middle and high
schools in Idaho, investigating the unique challenges that secondary teachers face with CCSS
implementation. A survey was administered to 241 teachers, and they indicated a need for
“professional staff development,” “collaborative time with other teachers”, and “individual
planning time” among their top priories for support (Ruchi et al., 2014, p. 252). Because Ruchi
et al.’s (2013) study was a quantitative study using surveys, more in-depth information on
teachers’ experiences is needed. A follow-up qualitative study that allows teachers the chance to
share their experiences beyond selecting a multiple-choice answer from a list. The present study
will use interviews, observations, and document analysis to really delve into teachers’ experience
with and perceptions of implementation of CCSS.
In October 2011, the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning at West Ed
conducted a series of focus groups about teachers’ readiness for Common Core implementation.
Six focus groups were convened with teachers of varied experience and content areas across
California (Sacramento, San Francisco, and San Diego) to explore teachers’ familiarity with
CCSS, beliefs about their expertise and ability to teach the CCSS, and their expected changes in
practice to implement the new standards (The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning at
WestEd, 2012). Teachers identified the need for additional training, especially training in
instructional strategies to “help students think more deeply and analytically in a specific subject”
41
(The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning at WestEd, 2012, p. 2). The
implementation of CCSS in a Linked Learning environment likely amplifies teachers’ need for
training as expressed in this study, and the present study will explore teachers’ need for support.
Initiative Fatigue in CCSS Implementation. Several recent studies of Common Core
implementation at the K-12 level have found that teachers are facing initiative fatigue when
trying to implement the CCSS (Danielson, 2015; Adams-Budde, 2014; Langton, 2014; Tresler,
2014; Porter, 2013; Randall, 2013). None of these studies, however, used initiative fatigue as
part of their conceptual framework. In fact, initiative fatigue was barely mentioned as each study
briefly labeled their findings of teacher experiences in implementing the CCSS as initiative
fatigue (Danielson, 2015; Adams-Budde, 2014; Langton, 2014; Tresler, 2014; Porter, 2013;
Randall, 2013). Further in-depth studies are needed to see exactly what competing initiatives
teacher implementing the CCSS are facing. Additionally, none of the existing studies of CCSS
and initiative fatigue broached the subject of Common Core implementation at sites where
another major reform initiative (such as Linked Learning) was occurring. The present study of
the intersection of multiple reform initiatives—such as Common Core and Linked Learning—
occurring at one school site will help to fill an existing gap in the literature.
The Intersection of Linked Learning and CCSS
Due to the newness of both Linked Learning and the Common Core, there are only a few
resources available about the intersection of Linked Learning and the CCSS. SCOPE issued a
“knowledge brief” about using Linked Learning to implement the CCSS (Rustique & Stam,
2013). The brief sets forth four ways in which Linked Learning and CCSS are “mutually
supportive”:
42
1. Shared student learning outcomes, with an emphasis on higher order thinking
skills
2. Compatible approaches to interdisciplinary curriculum, instruction, and
performance-based assessment;
3. Real-world integration and application of real-world technical skills and
knowledge;
4. Student assessment through authentic demonstration of learning (e.g., portfolios,
project defenses, exhibitions) (Rustique & Stam, 2013, p. 1).
This brief outlines the theoretical overlap between Linked Learning and CCSS, but it does not
offer tangible tips for teachers who are on the front lines of CCSS implementation. Also, the
brief highlights significant areas for further inquiry—such as curriculum, instruction, and
assessment—which will be addressed in the present study.
Detailed information for practitioners and recommendations for districts about the
intersection between Linked Learning and Common Core is provided in the SRI fifth-year report.
The most significant findings of the SRI fifth-year report relate to the intersection of Linked
Learning and CCSS; the SRI report tackles the complex issue of the implementation of Common
Core State Standards in Linked Learning pathways (Guha et al., 2014). Chapter 3 of the report is
devoted to curriculum, instruction, and assessment, with much of the focus of this chapter on
CCSS (Guha et al., 2014). First, a comprehensive description of the “gold standard” of Linked
Learning curriculum and instruction is detailed:
To meet the goal of preparing all young people for a range of postsecondary opportunities
and, ultimately, high-skill employment, the Linked Learning approach demands a
fundamental and complete transformation of teaching and learning. The approach
43
requires teacher to deliver challenging academic content that is consciously and
effectively linked to the pathway theme and to make explicit connections across content
areas thought a project-based approach. It involved students’ being engaged in learning
that is inquiry based and contextualized in real-world experiences and applications. In a
fully developed Linked Learning pathway, students experience core academic courses
and a technical course sequence that are integrated so that what is learned in one content
area is combined with and reinforced in other content areas over an extended time. In
addition, students participate in several project-based, multidisciplinary units each year
that are aligned to the pathway theme and that immerse students in problem solving
around real-world issues (Guha et al., 2014, p. 23).
This interdisciplinary, project-based, real-world content that pathways students are expected to
learn sets the stage perfectly for the Common Core State Standards. The CCSS emphasize
practical application of deeper thinking skills just like professionals would do in the real world,
so students in pathways are perfectly situation to learn CCSS. As Guha et al. (2014) explain:
Together, Common Core and Linked Learning have the potential to lead major
improvements in the way high school teachers teach and assess students and the way
students learn, given the common focus on developing students’ higher-order thinking
skills, application of real-world concepts, and authentic demonstrations of learning (p.
24).
If anything, the Common Core State Standards provide a more detailed framework than pathway
teachers previously had, so the CCSS should fill in some specific examples of content and skills
that all students—including pathways students—need to learn in order to be successful beyond
high school. Some teachers recognized this right away, as “many pathway teachers reported
44
having a head start on implementing the new standards through their experiences developing and
teaching integrated projects” (Guha et al., 2014, p. 24). Not all teachers make this connection
readily, however, and many may feel overwhelmed by the perceived competing initiatives of
Common Core and Linked Learning. “Thus, it is critical how the nine districts communicate the
alignment of Common Core and Linked Learning and implement these initiatives strategically so
that teachers view the initiatives as complementary and not competing” (Guha et al., 2014, p.
24). Guha et al. (2014) outline a vision for Linked Learning and Common Core working
together as complementary initiatives to bring about deeper student learning.
The last year covered by the SRI fifth-year report is the 2013-2014 school year, which
was “the first year that districts began implementing the new Common Core State Standards
(CCSS) in earnest” (Guha et al., 2014, p. 24). The report contains two critical findings related to
Linked Learning districts’ implementation of the Common Core:

“In districts that have provided teachers with tools and a road map to align Common Core
standards and Linked Learning, pathway teachers are better positioned to integrate the
new standards into existing curriculum” (p. 24).

“In districts where Common Core and Linked Learning efforts were not strategically
aligned, competition for professional development and planning time and a perceived
misalignment between existing pathway curriculum and the new Common Core
curriculum slowed momentum for Linked Learning” (p. 25).
It is not just the curriculum that Linked Learning strives to redesign, but instruction and
assessment are also in need of a makeover. Two additional findings emerged from the SRI
report regarding assessment and instruction:
45

“Pathway staff in many Linked Learning district continued to work on developing
performance-based assessments, which provide students an opportunity to demonstrate
deep content learning through authentic application” (p. 27).

“Pathway instruction has not received the consistent focus and attention that district
leaders realize are needed to improve student outcomes, although some districts are
engaged in early efforts in this area” (p. 27).
The report goes on to say that the quality of instruction and assessment varies across districts and
even across pathways within districts, so additional support for teachers in the areas of
instruction and on developing assessments is needed (Guha et al., 2014).
The SRI fifth-year report sheds light on the need for Linked Learning districts and
schools to carefully design their professional development for teachers so that a cohesive
message that integrates both Linked Learning and Common Core is communicated. This will be
especially critical for the ATC, the site of the present case study research, to see how teachers
perceive the intersection of CCSS and Linked Learning and the related challenges with
curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
46
CHAPTER 3
Introduction
Linked Learning is a high school reform effort designed to engage high school students in
their education and prepare them for post-secondary opportunities through a deliberate
combination of academic content and real-world technical skills. The first Linked Learning
pathways began in 2009 with nine school districts in California participating in the California
Linked Learning District Initiative (ConnectEd, “California Linked Learning District Initiative”).
While the first nine Linked Learning districts were grappling with the work of creating and
building new pathways, the curricular landscape for California changed greatly with the adoption
of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in 2010.
The purpose of this case study is to examine the intersection between Linked Learning
and the Common Core State Standards. The researcher will investigate Linked Learning
structures and practices at HHS and how these have shaped implementation CSSS.
The research questions that will drive this study are:
1. How do teachers perceive the connection between teaching in a Linked Learning
environment and their implementation of the Common Core State Standards?
2. What challenges have Linked Learning teachers experienced when making the shift to
the Common Core State Standards?
a. What curricular challenges have Linked Learning teachers experienced when
making the shift to the CCSS?
b. What instructional challenges have Linked Learning teachers experienced
when making the shift to the CCSS?
47
c. What challenges with student assessment have Linked Learning teachers
experienced when making the shift to the CCSS?
3. How does the Linked Learning Pathway structure of the school support teachers’
implementation of the Common Core State Standards?
This case study will rely on data from individual interviews of teachers and
administrators, classroom observations of teachers, and analysis of documents related to
professional development and Pathway collaboration to examine the intersection of Linked
Learning and the Common Core at one wall-to-wall Linked Learning Pathways high school that
opened during the early stages of Common Core implementation in California. This
triangulation of three sources of data will help to verify the data obtained from each source,
contributing to the credibility of the study (Lichtman, 2014). Fullan’s theory of educational
change “in practice” identifies three areas of change for teachers, including change with
curriculum and materials, change with instruction, and a change in beliefs about education
(Fullan, 1993). These three facets of change align with the three types of data (documents,
observations, and interviews) that will be collected in this case study. In fact, these three types
of data and their relationship to the conceptual framework makes a case study the appropriate
design for exploring the intersection of Linked Learning and Common Core as a case study
utilizes multiple sources to provide triangulation of data that is critical of a case study research
design (Yin, 2014). From this data, themes will be identified that shed light on the intersection
of Linked Learning and the Common Core.
Site
This case study will be conducted at Hills High School (HHS) (pseudonym) in the
Woodbridge Unified School District (WUSD) (pseudonym), which is located in a low
48
socioeconomic urban area of California. WUSD is one of the nine original Linked Learning
District Initiative school districts, and it started its first Linked Learning Pathways at its three
comprehensive high schools in the 2010-2011 school year. WUSD began its Pathways program
with six Pathways at the three comprehensive high schools, and WUSD has expanded to a total
of eleven Pathways during the 2015-2016 school year.
WUSD opened Hills High School, a wall-to-wall Linked Learning Pathways high school,
in 2011. HHS is home to four of WUSD’s Pathways: culinary arts and hospitality, engineering,
health science, and public and legal services. All students and all teachers at HHS participate in
a Linked Learning Pathway. HHS began with only 9th grade students for the 2011-2012 school
year, and each year a grade level has been added. The 2014-2015 school year was the first year
that HHS operated with all four grade levels, 9-12, and its first class graduated in 2015.
Hills High School opened in 2011 just as WUSD was beginning its early stages of
implementing the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), putting HHS uniquely at the center of
Linked Learning and CCSS. All teachers at HHS have experienced implementation of CCSS in
a Linked Learning environment. Data will be collected about the intersection of Linked
Learning and the Common Core in the form of interviews, observations, and document analysis.
The participants in this study will be teachers at HHS and administrators with WUSD who work
at HHS or the district office at WUSD. Teachers will be interviewed about their experiences
teaching in a Linked Learning Pathway while implementing the Common Core and their
perceptions of the intersection between Linked Learning and CCSS. Teachers will also be
observed in their classrooms. Administrators who participate in the study will have been district
administrators who were involved in the planning of HHS, district administrators who are
currently involved in the implementation of Linked Learning and Common Core at HHS, or site
49
administrators at HHS. Documents (calendars, agendas, and minutes) from HHS regarding
professional development and Pathway meetings will be analyzed.
Sample
The sample for this study will include teachers at HHS and administrators in WUSD who
have requisite knowledge of the intersection of Linked Learning and Common Core at HHS.
Accordingly, there are two categories of participants: teachers and administrators. Overall, this
case study will have a total of 15-20 participants. Purposeful, criteria-based sampling will be
used in order to select teachers and administrators who have experience with and knowledge of
the topic of this study: intersection of Linked Learning and Common Core at HHS. Patton (1990)
explains the aim of purposeful sampling:
This strategy for purposeful sampling aims at capturing and describing the central themes
or principal outcomes that cut across a great deal of participant or program variation. For
small samples a great deal of heterogeneity can be a problem because individual cases are
so different from each other. The maximum variation sampling strategy turns that
apparent weakness into a strength by applying the following logic: Any common patterns
that emerge from great variation are of particular interest and value in capturing the core
experiences and central, shared aspects or impacts of a program (p. 172).
For teacher participants, they need to have taught at HHS for at least one year prior to the
2015-2016 school year so that they have enough experience teaching at HHS to be able to
answer the interview questions. Data will be collected in the fall semester, so teachers who are
brand new to HHS in fall 2015 will not have enough experience to be able to comment on the
intersection of Linked Learning and Common Core at HHS. Ideally, the sample of teachers will
have a mix of teachers who have been at HHS since its opening, teachers who have been at HHS
50
for 2-3 years, and teachers who have for whom 2014-2015 was their first year at HHS; this
variation in sampling will provide insight into the variety of experiences that a teacher at HHS
may have had in implementing the Common Core in a Linked Learning environment. Between
12-15 teachers will be included in the sample, and they will participate in one individual
interview for approximately 60 minutes and will be observed in their classrooms twice for
approximately 30 minutes each time. Participants will be from all subject areas because
experiences across content will be useful (in case the experiences vary across content areas) and
also because the overall pool of teachers is too small to select only certain content areas. The
total pool of available teacher participants is rather limited as there are only 33 teachers at HHS,
and only 20 of these teachers will have taught at HHS prior to the 2015-2016 school year. This
means that 12 to 15 out of 20 possible HHS teachers will participate in the study.
For administrator participants, they must be district-level administrators who were
involved in the planning of HHS, district-level administrators who are currently involved in the
implementation of Linked Learning and Common Core at HHS, or site administrators at HHS.
Between three and five administrators will participate in one individual interview for
approximately 60 minutes. There have been two different principals at HHS during its four years
of operation, so ideally both the former and current principal will participate in the study as they
have intimate knowledge of the intersection of Linked Learning and Common Core at HHS. In
addition to the site administrators at HHS, district-level administrators with knowledge about
Linked Learning and CCSS at HHS will also be interviewed. District-level administrators must
have been employed by the district prior to 2011 (to have background knowledge on HHS and/or
be involved with Linked Learning and CCSS at HHS presently. There are a total of nine districtlevel administrators who were involved in the planning of HHS or who are presently involved in
51
the implementation of Linked Learning and Common Core at HHS, and five of these
administrators are still employed by WUSD currently. I anticipate that between three and five of
the possible nine administrators will participate in this study.
Procedures
After IRB approval is granted, the recruitment of participants will begin. Invitations to
participate will initially be sent out by the Principal at HHS to teachers and by the WUSD
Director of Pathways to administrators, and the email will contain an attachment (Appendix A
for teachers and Appendix B for administrators) with more specific information about the study.
The Principal at HHS will send the initial recruiting email to the 20 HHS teachers who taught at
HHS prior to the 2015-2016 school year, and the email will ask them to contact me if they are
interested in the study. The WUSD Director of Pathways will send a recruitment email to a total
of nine district-level and two site-level administrators who were either involved in the planning
of HHS or who served as administrators at HHS, and the email will ask them to contact me if
they are interested participating in the study. After two weeks, the researcher will send a followup email (Appendix C) to the pool of potential participants until the appropriate sample size is
reached.
Once a participant emails the researcher to participate in the study, the researcher will
begin a series of communications with the participant. First, the researcher will send a follow-up
email thanking the participant for his/her voluntary participation, providing scheduling logistics
for the interview, and containing the consent form (Appendix D) to be signed by the participant
and returned to the researcher. The researcher will communicate with individual participants in
order to schedule the interview at a time and location that is convenient for each participant.
52
Interviews will be conducted during the fall 2015 semester in a conference room at HHS or the
WUSD office, or another private location that is selected by the participant.
On the day of the interview, before each interview begins, the researcher will review the
items on the consent form and obtain a signed copy of the consent form from the participant (if
not already submitted). The researcher will also ask the participant to complete a demographic
questionnaire (Appendix E for teachers or Appendix F for administrators) before the interview
begins. Each interview will be recorded using the voice memo application on the researcher’s
iPhone, and the audio files will be sent to a transcriptionist. The participants will be reminded
that they do not have to answer any question that makes them uncomfortable, and at the end of
the interview they will be reminded that they will be provided with a copy of the transcript to
review.
For the teacher participants, the classroom observations will be scheduled at the
conclusion of the interview. Classroom observations will also take place during the fall 2015
semester, and each teacher participant will be observed two times for a total of approximately 30
minutes each time. The purpose of these observations is to witness teachers’ implementation of
the Common Core in a Linked Learning environment, including the challenges they face with
curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
Document review and analysis is another part of this study, with documents presenting
the third source of data. For this study, documents related to Common Core and Linked
Learning Pathways will be examined. The researcher will ask the Principal at HHS for access to
documents. The Principal can then provide the documents or put the researcher in contact with
the appropriate person at the site to provide the documents. Document collection will begin at
the start of the study, and will be occurring throughout the study at the same time as interviews
53
and observations. Documents will be analyzed throughout the study as it might take the
researcher some tome to retrieve the documents needed from 2011 to the present time.
Data Collection Methods
For this study, one of the major sources of data collection is interviews. Interviews of
teachers and administrators will be conducted using two protocols that were developed by the
researcher (Appendices G and H). The interviews will be semi-structured and should last
approximately one hour each. The semi-structured nature of the interviews means that there is a
protocol created by the researcher ahead of time, but the questions are open ended and allow
room for the participants to share their experiences and perceptions. Although the protocols are
similar, the teacher protocol focuses more on teacher experiences as they implement Linked
Learning and Common Core, and their intersection, at HHS, which relates to the first and second
research questions. The administrator interviews will mostly relate to the third research question,
which is about the structure of HHS and how it supports teachers, because administrators might
have a different perspective or additional information about the design behind the structure of
HHS. Administrators will also be asked about the intersection of Linked Learning and Common
Core at HHS, and they might have a different perspective from the teachers who are on the
ground implementing Linked Learning and CCSS every day. The data from interviewing
administrators and teachers will be helpful to determine whether there is a consistent perception
about the intersection of Linked Learning and Common Core between teachers and
administrators. It is only through interviews that the experiences of those—teachers and
administrators—involved in the implementation of Common Core in a Linked Learning
environment can truly share their story in their own voices.
54
For this study, documents related to Common Core and Linked Learning Pathways will
be examined. Specifically, the researcher will review and analyze calendars, agendas, and
minutes from professional development and Pathway meetings at HHS from 2011 to the present
time. These documents will be analyzed using a document analysis protocol developed by the
researcher (Appendix I). These documents will contain critical information about the structure
and content of collaboration and professional development at HHS that will help to answer the
research questions. This information will provide an in-depth look at how the structure of HHS
supports teachers as well as challenges teachers facing with curriculum, instruction, and
assessment while implementing Common Core and Linked Learning.
The final source of data for this study is classroom observations of teacher participants.
Each teacher will be observed two times for approximately 30 minutes, and an observation
protocol (Appendix J) will be used. The researcher will take detailed notes using the observation
protocol, and each observation will last for approximately 30 minutes. The notes taken during
observations will rely strictly on what is seen and heard in the classroom and not on the
researcher’s interpretation. As much as possible, direct quotations will be used in the notes to
capture written material from the classroom in addition to the teachers’ words. The observation
protocol focuses on the elements of Linked Learning as well as the facets of Common Core that
have been a major focus in WUSD. The goal is to see whether these separate elements can be
integrated in the classroom, whether they are being covered separately, and whether they are
being covered at all.
55
General Methodological Design and Defense of Method Chosen
Qualitative research is concerned with “understanding the complex interrelationships
among all that exists” (Stake, 1995, p. 37). The purpose of this qualitative study is to investigate
the intersection between Linked Learning and the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) at the
Hills High School (HHS). The complexity of HHS as a wall-to-wall Linked Learning Pathways
school that opened in 2011, just at the time the CCSS were emerging as new standards, makes
HHS an ideal case for qualitative research. The interrelationship between Linked Learning and
the CCSS will be an explicit part of the present study. The study will include an exploration of
teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions and experiences implementing CCSS in a Linked
Learning environment, giving meaning to these participants’ experiences in the uncharted waters
where Linked Learning and CCSS intersect.
A case study is “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon (‘the
case’) in depth and within its real-world context” (Yin, 2014, p 16). Because HHS is one school
site, it is cleanly one case that can be studied as a whole unit. Forming meaning from the
experiences and perceptions of teachers and administrators involved in the planning and day-today operations of HHS—as it relates to Linked Learning and CCSS—is the primary focus of this
study. “The case researcher recognizes and substantiates new meanings” (Stake, 1995, p. 97). A
combination of interviews, document analysis, and observations will be used to provide a
complete picture of CCSS implementation within the context of Linked Learning at HHS. This
mix of methods is in line with the case study design, as Patton (1997) indicates that “the
evaluator using a qualitative approach seeks to capture what a program experience means to
participants in their own words, through interviews, and in their day-to-day program settings,
through observation” (p. 273). These three sources of data—interviews, observations, and
56
document analysis—will be analyzed in order to provide triangulation of data that is critical of a
case study research design (Yin, 2014).
Data Collection Instruments
For this study, the researcher created four separate instruments for data collection: a
teacher interview protocol (Appendix G), an administrator interview protocol (Appendix H), a
document analysis protocol (Appendix I), and an observation protocol (Appendix J). The
contents of each instrument were informed by the research questions, conceptual framework, and
literature relevant to the study.
Interview Protocols
The researcher made sure that the protocol questions were connected to the research
questions, conceptual framework, and literature by developing an item rationale table (Appendix
K). The researcher also used her background knowledge of HHS, Common Core, and Linked
Learning to inform the development of the protocols (see Positionality section for additional
information about the researcher’s background). Lichtman (2014) urges researchers to “use your
knowledge of the topic and your experience to generate discussion in specific areas” during an
interview (p. 261). The conceptual framework—a combination of Fullan’s change theory,
Bolman & Deal’s Structural Frame, and Reeves’ Initiative Fatigue—played the largest role in the
development of the questions and the structure of the protocols as the questions address the issue
of the Linked Learning structure at HHS, the change involved in both Linked Learning and
CCSS, and the intersection of these two initiatives. Additionally, Lichtman (2014) provides an
outline for the types of questions in an interview protocol that proved helpful, suggesting that the
interview opens with a “grand tour,” moves into “concrete questions” and then
“comparison/contrast,” continues with “new elements/topics” and then concludes with a closing
57
(p. 264). The administrator and teacher protocols both follow this structure, beginning with a
general opening that discusses the topic broadly and warms up the participant, moving into
specific questions about the specific topics of Linked Learning and then Common Core, and
finally exploring their intersection. Literature about Linked Learning, the Common Core, and
the intersection of these two initiatives was used primarily to provide follow-up questions or
specific topics and themes for probes for the interview protocols.
The two interview protocols were reviewed by content experts and piloted shortly after
their development. A teacher who is a teacher on special assignment (TOSA) in WUSD in the
area of Common Core and who often works with Linked Learning teachers served as one content
expert, and the other is a university professor with expertise in both Linked Learning and
Common Core. From the review by the content experts and review from additional university
faculty, the researcher learned that the teacher protocol might be too long, so the protocol was
revised, with several questions being eliminated or turned into follow-up questions that will only
be used if needed. Both content experts confirmed that the questions in the protocol were
appropriate to the topics involved in this study and the research questions.
The next step in protocol development was to pilot the protocols. The teacher protocol
was piloted with a teacher from within WUSD who is familiar with Linked Learning, the
Common Core, and HHS. From this pilot, the researcher determined that the protocol allowed
the interview to flow smoothly, elicited the desired information, and was close to the desired 60minute timeframe for the interview. The administrator protocol was piloted with a former high
school principal who is moving into a position as Assistant Director of Pathways in WUSD; the
administrator’s former high school also had Linked Learning Pathways at the site. As a result,
this individual is very familiar with both Common Core and Linked Learning. Although the
58
questions in this protocol yielded the desired information, the researcher learned that it is likely
that not every administrator will be able to answer every question in the administrator protocol.
This administrator had to skip a couple of questions (about the structure of HHS), and it is likely
that some of the district administrators will have to skip some different questions (perhaps about
Common Core). Accordingly, the researcher will have to memorize the protocol thoroughly so
that questions can be skipped or rearranged depending on the expertise of the particular
administrator being interviewed. This will probably also be true of the teacher protocol since
teachers also have different levels of expertise, but this issue was made really obvious during the
pilot of the administrator protocol. The need to be clear on the probes and to ask for elaboration
was also made evident during both pilots. Lichtman (2014) echoes the need for elaboration and
probing during an interview in order for the participant to have an opportunity to “reveal other
ideas that the participant had thought about but not mentioned,” which will help to “delve deeper
into the meaning” of the answers (p. 268).
Document Analysis Protocol
The document analysis protocol and observation protocols were developed using a much
simpler process. The document analysis protocol (Appendix I) was created using samples
provided in the researcher’s class. The point of this protocol is to provide a space to record basic
information about the document (such as the title, date, and type of document), in addition to a
space for any important words or phrases contained in the document and a connection to this
study’s research questions. This protocol will provide the researcher with a way to condense the
many documents collected for the study into a more manageable pile of document analysis
forms. If needed, the original document can always be located and additional details pulled from
59
it, so the document analysis protocol is really meant to be a type of organizational strategy to use
when analyzing the documents.
Observation Protocol
The observation protocol (Appendix J) was developed by the researcher based on her
inside knowledge of the Linked Learning and Common Core focus in WUSD over the past
several years in addition to the literature about Common Core and Linked Learning. The basic
components of Common Core implementation that have been a focus in WUSD are included for
math, English, and literacy (in all subjects). There is also a question about a connection to the
Pathway and the overall activity that the teacher is engaged in during the class. This information
will be useful to provide some insight into specific examples that teachers may have given in
their interviews and how what the teachers say plays out in a real classroom, as the observations
will occur after the interviews.
Data Analysis
The data collected from this study will be analyzed and used to identify codes, categories,
and ultimately themes that will answer the three research questions and three sub-questions. As
Patton (1997) indicates, “Qualitative data consists of detailed descriptions of situations, events,
people, interactions, and observed behaviors; direct quotations from people about their
experiences, attitudes, beliefs, and thoughts; and excerpts or entire passages from documents,
correspondence, records, and case histories” (p. 273). Data in the form of interview audio
recordings and transcripts, observation notes, and document analysis will comprise the
qualitative data for this study.
After the interviews, the researcher will send the audio recordings to a transcriptionist.
The researcher will then listen to the recordings while reviewing the transcripts. The purpose of
60
this will be twofold: it will help to catch any possible errors in transcription, and it will begin to
familiarize the researcher with the content of the interviews. The preliminary themes used in the
data analysis will be shaped primarily by the conceptual framework, as the big ideas from Fullan,
Bolman & Deal, and Reeves will be used as a starting point for themes. For example, the three
aspects of curriculum, instruction, and beliefs from Fullan’s change theory will be used, structure
from Bolman & Deal’s structural frame, and initiative fatigue from Reeves. Additional major
themes emerged from other literature about Linked Learning and CCSS that complemented the
themes from the conceptual framework, such as collaboration, support, and assessment.
While the researcher listens to the recordings from the interviews, notes will be taken to
begin to identify emergent codes. As part of the research log for this study, the researcher will
keep analytic memos to memorialize the researcher’s thinking about the data, its meaning, and
preliminary codes (Saldana, 2013). Saldana (2013) explains:
The purposes of analytic memo writing are to document and reflect on: your coding
processes and code choices; how the process of inquiry is taking shape; and the emergent
patterns, categories and subcategories, themes, and concepts in your data—all possibility
leaning toward theory (p. 41).
The original list of numerous codes emerging from the data and analytic memos will be
consolidated into a more manageable number of codes (for example, between 20 and 40).
The researcher will then upload all interviews, observation notes, and documents to
Nvivo, a qualitative data analysis software program. Next, the researcher will identify passages
to allow comparison of responses between teachers and administrators and between the
interviews, observations, and documents. These codes will begin to be grouped into categories
which will turn into themes as the study evolves. Saldana (2013) outlines a streamlined model of
61
moving from codes to categories to themes and ultimately to a theory as the data analysis
progresses from the more literal to the more conceptual. The categories and themes emerging
from the data will be compared with the themes from the literature, and they will be organized
according to the elements of the conceptual framework from Fullan, Bolman & Deal, and
Reeves. These themes and codes will be reviewed by peers, professors, and participants in the
study to ensure that they are consistent with the literature and not just a product of the
researcher’s bias (Stake, 1995; Carlson, 2010; Plano Clark & Cresswell, 2010; Lichtman, 2014).
Protection of Subjects
The researcher is concerned with protecting the participants throughout the study, and
several steps will be taken to protect the participants. From the beginning of the study, the
district, school site, and all participants will be assigned pseudonyms. A list of participants’
actual names linked to the pseudonyms will be kept in one document that will be stored on the
researcher’s password-protected computer. The Principal of HHS will not be made aware of
which teachers participate in the study so that teachers will not have to fear any type of negative
consequence from their supervisor as a result of their participation in the study and to add
another layer to their anonymity. The researcher will also communicate clearly with the
participants about the purpose of the study from initial contact all the way to the end of the study.
The study is about HHS broadly and not them specifically as individuals, so they will also be
reminded of the fact that all results will be reported in the aggregate and not individually.
Administrators will simply be labeled as “administrator” with no mention being made of their
specific position or whether they are at the district or site. Participants will be able to choose a
private interview location where they feel comfortable. The consent form will be provided to
them electronically and will be reviewed prior to the start of each interview. The researcher will
62
also continuously remind all participants that their participation is completely voluntary and that
they can skip any questions, review the transcripts, and can completely opt out of the study at
any time during the process.
All materials related to this study will be stored in a private residence and will only be
accessible to the researcher. This includes consent forms, the list linking individuals to their
pseudonyms, audio recordings, transcripts, documents, observation notes, researcher notes, and
all other materials. All materials will either be stored on the researcher’s private, passwordprotected personal computer or in a locked file cabinet in the researcher’s office at her private
residence when not in use.
Positionality
From 2007-2013, the researcher was employed by WUSD as a high school teacher and as
a teacher on special assignment in the Pathways office. From 2007-2010, the researcher was
employed as a social studies teacher at a comprehensive high school in WUSD. When the first
Pathways opened in 2010, the researcher served as the lead teacher for one of WUSD’s initial six
Pathways. Additionally, the researcher worked at the case study site, HHS, during its first two
years of operation, from 2011-2013. While teaching at HHS, the researcher also served as a
teacher leader and frequently provided instructional coaching and professional development for
other teachers at HHS. Some of these teachers still teach at HHS and might be participants in
this study. Currently, the researcher is employed as a freelance consultant with WUSD,
providing instructional support to teachers at HHS. As a result, the researcher has regular
contact with the participants in the study and will already know them prior to the study’s start.
The researcher’s close relationship to the case study site might provide a source of bias.
The researcher has been an active participant in the implementation of both Common Core and
63
Linked Learning and has helped other teachers in their implementation of these initiatives. As a
result, the researcher has definite opinions about the intersection of Linked Learning and
Common Core, which is the subject of the present study. Although the researcher believes that
Linked Learning and CCSS are complementary initiatives and that it is possible for HHS
teachers to implement both with fidelity, the researcher is also aware of the many challenges that
exist for teachers and the overall difficult task of implementing Common Core in a Linked
Learning environment. The researcher wants the voices of teachers to be heard so that those in
WUSD and in other Linked Learning districts have an opportunity to truly learn from the
experiences and perceptions of teachers. It is only through actually listening to teachers that
appropriate support can be provided to teachers. The researcher is also more concerned with
telling the accurate story of HHS, from the time it was just a vision of WUSD to its current
reality, and this can only be done by letting the participants’—both teachers and administrators—
voices be heard. This study can serve as a guide for other Linked Learning districts as they seek
to implement the Common Core, especially at small high school sites that are wall-to-wall
Linked Learning schools.
Although the researcher’s proximity to both the case study site and the topics involved in
the study may be seen as a detriment that opens the door for undue influence or bias, this
familiarity can actually be an asset to the study. Patton (1997) explains that “the qualitative
evaluator must get close enough to the people and situation being studied to be able to
understand the depth and details of what goes on” (p. 274). The researcher’s past with WUSD
and HHS will enable the researcher to establish this closeness; due to the researcher’s familiarity
with the site and subject of the study, she will be able to develop interview protocols that
64
accurately reflect the topic of the study, to develop rapport with participants, and to find meaning
within the data.
Trustworthiness and Credibility
The researcher can enhance the trustworthiness and credibility of a study through the use
of thick, rich description, triangulation of data, and member checking (Carlson, 2010; Plano
Clark & Cresswell, 2010; Lichtman, 2014). “Member checking is basically what the term
implies—an opportunity for members (participants) to check (approve) of particular aspects of
the interpretation of the data they provided” (Carlson, 2010, p. 1105).
Stake (1995) further elaborates on the process used in member checking:
In a process called “member checking,” the actor is requested to examine rough drafts of
writing where the actions or words of the actor are featured, sometimes when first written
up but usually when no further data will be collected from him or her. The actor is asked
to review the material for accuracy and palatability” (p. 115)
In the present study, the researcher will provide copies of transcripts to all participants for their
review. The researcher will also select three teachers and two administrators to review the
preliminary findings (interpretation of the interviews) for accuracy. Ideally, the three teachers
will have varied experience levels at HHS, with one who has been there since its opening in
2011, one for whom the 2014-2015 school year was the first year, and one who has 2-3 years of
experience at HHS. Ideally, one site administrator and one district administrator will review the
preliminary findings. By allowing one representative of each type of participant, the most broad
perspective possible will be heard during the member checking phase. The researcher will also
debrief the preliminary findings with peers and faculty at the university to enable those outside
the study to provide feedback (Plano Clark & Cresswell, 2010).
65
To the extent possible, the researcher will also clearly describe the site, participants, and
data collection process in great detail as well as utilizing the participants’ own words to enable
thick, rich description. “To describe the case, we try to present a substantial body of
uncontestable description” (Stake, 1995, p. 110). The purpose of thick, rich description is to
make the researchers’ processes more credible and to “draw the reader more closely into the
story or narrative to increase coherence” (Carlson, 2010, p. 1104). The researcher will explain
all procedures, from data collection to data analysis, in clear detail. The researcher will also
keep a research log that documents each step along the way from the development of protocols to
data collection to data analysis.
For this case study, the research will collect data in the form of interviews of teachers and
administrators, classroom observations, and document analysis. The premise of triangulation of
data sources is that “if researchers can substantiate these various data sets with each other, the
interpretations and conclusions drawn from them are likely to be trustworthy” (Carlson, 2010, p.
1104). In this case study, interviews from teachers and administrators can be compared, and
these findings can also be compared across the other data sources (observations and document
analysis). When a theme shows up in more than one data source, it conforms the its importance.
For example, if the idea of needing more time to collaborate comes up in teacher interviews,
administrator interviews, and the documents, then the researcher will know it is significant,
especially since the same theme also came up in the literature.
66
References
Achieve (2013). Closing the expectations gap: 2013 annual report of the alignment of state K-12
policies and practice with the demands of college and careers. Mountain View, CA:
Author. Retrieved from
http://www.achieve.org/files/2013ClosingtheExpectationsGapReport.pdf.
Adams, B. E. (2012). Linked learning: Can career and technical education programs take
California high schools into the 21st century? (Ed.D.). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Full Text: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection.
(1237216398).
Adams-Budde, M. (2014). Examining elementary literacy teachers' perceptions of their
preparedness to implement the english language arts common core state standards
(Order No. 3637533). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text: The
Humanities and Social Sciences Collection. (1617553221).
Anderson, F. M. (2014). Linked learning and African American student engagement: A case
study (Ed.D.). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ California State University,
Long Beach, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text: The Humanities and Social
Sciences Collection. (1618227640).
Beaver, J. K., Reumann-Moore, R., & Research, f. A. (2014). Enacting common core
instruction: A comparative study of the use of LDC literacy tools in three sites. Research
For Action.
Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership,
4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cain, E. C. (2012). Preparation for civic life matters understanding the role of civic learning in
the Linked Learning reform (Ph.D.). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Full Text: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection. (1095642115).
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-270,
codified as 20 U.S.C. 2301.
Carlson, J.A. (2010). Avoiding traps in member checking. The Qualitative Report, 15(5), 11021113.
The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning at WestEd. (2012). Willing but not yet
ready: A glimpse of California teachers' preparedness for the common core state
standards. CenterView.
67
Clarke, R. (2014). The role of counselor in a Linked Learning environment (Ed.D.). Available
from Dissertations & Theses @ California State University, Long Beach, ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Full Text: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection.
(1630091836).
ConnectEd: The California Center for College and Career (n.d.a). Linked Learning Essential
Elements for Pathway Quality. Retrieved from
http://www.connectedcalifornia.org/direct/files/Essential%20Elements%20for%20Pathw
ay%20Quality_Descriptors(2).pdf.
ConnectEd: The California Center for College and Career (n.d.b). FAQs: What are the four
guiding principles of Linked Learning? Retrieved from
http://www.connectedcalifornia.org/linked_learning/faqs.
ConnectEd: The California Center for College and Career (n.d.c). Pathway quality review and
certification. Retrieved from
http://www.connectedcalifornia.org/schools_districts/certification.
ConnectEd: The California Center for College and Career (n.d.). “AB 790 Linked Learning Pilot
Program.” Retrieved from
http://connectedcalifornia.org/linked_learning/ab_790_linked_learning_pilot.
ConnectEd: The California Center for College and Career (n.d.). “California Linked Learning
District Initiative.” Retrieved from
http://www.connectedcalifornia.org/schools_districts/district_initiative.
ConnectEd: The California Center for College and Career (2011). A Fact Sheet on Linked
Learning. Retrieved from
http://connectedcalifornia.org/direct/files/resources/LL_and_CEd_Factsheet.pdf.
California Department of Education (n.d.). CTE Model Curriculum Standards. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ct/sf/ctemcstandards.asp.
California Department of Education (n.d.). Public Services: California Career Technical
Education Model Curriculum Standards. Retrieved from
http://www/cde.ca.gov/ci/ct/sf/documents/pubservices.pdf.
Danielson, C. (2015). Helping educators overcome ‘initiative fatigue.” Education Week online.
Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/03/25/helping-educatorsovercome-initiative-fatigue.html.
Forbes, J. (2011). A Model for Success: CART’s Linked Learning Program Increases College
Enrollment. Retrieved from https://irvine-dotorg.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/60/attachments/cart_findings_report_final.pdf?14168
65594.
68
Fullan, M. (1993). Change Forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. Levittown, PA:
The Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change, 4th ed. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Fullan, M. (2011). Change leader: Learning to do what matters most. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Gewertz, C. (2010). States adopt standards at fast clip. Education Week, 29(36), 1.
Gewertz, C. (2012). Educators in search of Common-Core resources. Education Week, 31(22), 1.
Guha, R., Caspary, K., Stites, R., Padilla, C., Arshan, N., Park, C., Tse, V., Astudillo, S., Black,
A., & Adelman, N. (2014). Taking stock of the California Linked Learning District
Initiative. Fifth-year evaluation report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Hamilton, E. (2011). Linked Learning leadership: Exploring leadership practices within
California's linked learning schools (Ph.D.). Available from ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Full Text: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection. (1022236499).
Hess, K. K., Jones, B. S., Carlock, D., & Walkup, J. R. (2009). Cognitive Rigor: Blending
the Strengths of Bloom's Taxonomy and Webb's Depth of Knowledge to Enhance
Classroom-Level Processes. Online Submission.
Johnston, A. (2013). At the crux of a systemic reform: California partnership academy lead
teachers in comprehensive high schools in a linked learning district (Ed.D.). Available
from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text: The Humanities and Social Sciences
Collection. (1439136936).
Josten, B. T. (2015). Perspectives of career and technical education pathways and linked
learning outcomes for high school graduates (Ed.D.). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Full Text: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection.
(1680843226).
Koning, E., Houghtby, B., Izard, P., & Schuler, J. (2014). Forging ahead! Journal of Adolescent
& Adult Literacy, 57(5), 357-360.
Langton, T. (2014). A case study of sense-making of the common core state standards for
mathematics by elementary generalists (Order No. 3665018). Available from ProQuest
69
Dissertations & Theses Full Text: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection.
(1637650595).
Levesque, K., Laird, J., Hensley, E., Choy, S. P., Cataldi, E. F., Hudson, L., & National Center
for, E. S. (2008). Career and technical education in the United States: 1990 to 2005.
statistical analysis report. NCES 2008-035. National Center for Education Statistics.
Lichtman, M. (2014). Qualitative research for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Marzano, R.J. & Pickering, D. (2011). The highly engaged classroom. Bloomington, IN:
Marzano Research Laboratory.
Montebello Unified School District Board of Education (2012). Resolution No. 16 (2011-2012).
Board Meeting minutes from February 2, 2012. Retrieved from http://montebellousdca.schoolloop.com/file/1296917173845/1295706265378/5334986089286826553.pdf.
The National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative
for educational reform. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/title.html.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010a). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers (2010b). Key Shifts in English Language Arts. Washington, DC: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/other-resources/key-shifts-in-englishlanguage-arts/.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers (2010c). Key Shifts in Mathematics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/other-resources/key-shifts-in-mathematics/.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers (2010d). Standards for Mathematical Practice. Washington, DC: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Practice/.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers (2010e). Standards in your state. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/.
Patton, M.Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation, 3d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
70
Plano Clark, V.L. & Cresswell, J.W. (2010). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Porter, R. (2013). Understanding common core implementation: How educators intuit, interpret,
and begin to integrate curriculum reform (Order No. 3575653). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Full Text: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection.
(1459432323).
Randall, E. (2013). Educators feel ‘initiative fatigue.’ New York School Boards Association web
site. Retrieved from
http://www.nyssba.org/index.php?src=news&submenu=on_board&srctype=detail&categ
ory=On%20Board%20Online%20February%2025%202013&refno=2439.
Ravitch, D. (1995). National standards in American education: A citizen’s guide. Washington,
DC: Brookings.
Reimers, L. (2014). California Career Pathways Trust (CCPT). California Department of
Education web site. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ct/pt/.
Reeves, D.B. (2010). Transforming professional development into student results. Alexandria,
Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Rice, E. & Rutherford-Quach, S. (2012). Linked Learning in Pasadena: Creating a collaborative
culture for sustainable district reform. Linked Learning Case Study Series. Stanford, CA.
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
Ruchti, W. P., Jenkins, S. J., & Agamba, J. (2013). Critical supports for secondary educators in
common core state standard implementation. Clearing House, 86(6), 246-254.
Rustique, E. & Rutherford-Quach, S. (2012). Linked Learning in Porterville: Creating capacity
for innovation and change through collaborative leadership and community engagement.
Linked Learning Case Study Series. Stanford, CA. Stanford Center for Opportunity
Policy in Education.
Rutherford-Quach, S. & Rice, E. (2013). Linked Learning in Sacramento: Organizing the
District and Community for Sustainable Reform. Linked Learning Case Study Series.
Stanford, CA. Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
Shepard, L., Hannaway, J., & Baker, E. (Eds.). (2009). Standards, assessment, and
accountability. Education Policy White Paper. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of
Education. Retrieved from
http://www.naeducation.org/cs/groups/naedsite/documents/webpage/naed_080866.pdf.
71
Shin, A. (2013). How choice model affects teacher collaboration within the Linked Learning
college readiness initiative (Ed.D.). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full
Text: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection. (1467753102).
Smith, M.S., & O’Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.),
The politics of curriculum and testing: The 1990 yearbook of the politics of education
association (pp.233-67). New York, NY: The Falmer Press.
Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of cast study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Stern, D. (2010). From vocational education to career-technical education: A capsule history and
summary of research. Edutopia. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/stw-careertechnical-education-research-roundup.
Taylor, L. & Parsons, J. (2011). Improving student engagement. Current Issues in Education,
14(1). Retrieved from http://cie.asu.edu/.
Torkalson, T. (2015). California State Board of Education Approves Suspension of State’s
Accountability Measurement Sytem. Release #15-20. March 11, 2015.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr15/yr15rel20.asp.
Tresler, T. D. (2014). The perceived relationship of professional development on teacher selfreported use of the English language arts common core state standards (Order No.
3644032). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text: The Humanities
and Social Sciences Collection. (1622986802).
Webb, N. L., National Inst. for Science Education, M. I., & Council of Chief State School
Officers, W. C. (1999). Alignment of Science and Mathematics Standards and
Assessments in Four States. Research Monograph No. 18.
Wiggan, G. (2008). From opposition to engagement: Lessons from high achieving African
American atudents. Urban Review: Issues And Ideas In Public Education, 40(4), 317349.
Wixson, K.K., Dutro, E., & Athan, R.G. (2003). The challenge of developing content standards.
Review of Research in Education, 27, 69-107.
Wood, C. (2015).
Yin, R.K. (2014). Case study research: Designs and methods, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Zonkel, P. (2013). Ernest McBride High School, Long Beach Unified’s first new high school in
18 years, hosts public open house Tuesday. Press Telegram online. Retrieved from
72
http://www.presstelegram.com/general-news/20130704/ernest-mcbride-high-school-longbeach-unifieds-first-new-high-school-in-18-years-hosts-public-open-house-tuesday.
73
Appendix A
Dear Teacher,
My name is Erin Biolchino, and I am writing to invite your participation in a research study that
I will be conducting for completion of my Ed.D. in Educational Leadership at California State
University, Long Beach. I will be studying the intersection of Linked Learning (LL) and the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) at the Applied Technology Center (ATC). The
Superintendent of the Montebello Unified School District (MUSD) and the Principal at the ATC
have approved this study.
The title of my study is: A Case Study of Common Core Implementation in a Linked Learning
Environment. You are being contacted because you were a teacher at the ATC prior to the 20152016 school year. The focus of this study will be how the Linked Learning structure at the ATC
was designed and how it affects teachers’ implementation of the Common Core at the ATC.
The nature and duration of participation: This study will take place from August 2015 to
March 2016. Participants will be individually interviewed about their perceptions of and
experiences with implementing the CCSS within the Linked Learning Pathway structure at the
ATC. Individual interviews will last approximately one hour. I will also be observing participant
teachers in their classrooms two times, for approximately 30 minutes at a time. Participation is
voluntary.
Before you agree to the interview I can confirm that:
 Your confidentiality will be maintained at all times and no data will be attributed to you
by name in any written document or verbal presentation. Nor will any data be used from
the interview that might identify you to a third party.
 You will be free to withdraw from the research at anytime.
 The interview can take place at a location of your choice.
 A copy of the interview schedule will be sent to you seven days before the interview.
 You will receive a $20 Starbucks gift card for your participation in the study
I understand the beginning of the school year is here and there are a multitude of activities and
responsibilities that go along with this time of year. I am here to work around your schedule. I
sincerely hope that you will be able to help me with my research and the continued exploration
of the impact Linked Learning is having on schools, particularly implementation of the Common
Core. If you have any questions concerning the nature of the research or are unclear about the
extent of your involvement in it please contact me at [email protected]. Thank you in
advance for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Erin Biolchino
California State University, Long Beach
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 562-212-2523
74
Appendix B
Dear Administrator,
My name is Erin Biolchino, and I am writing to invite your participation in a research study that I
will be conducting for completion of my Ed.D. in Educational Leadership at California State
University, Long Beach. I will be studying the intersection of Linked Learning (LL) and the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) at the Applied Technology Center (ATC). The
Superintendent of the Montebello Unified School District (MUSD) and the Principal at the ATC
have approved this study.
The title of my study is: A Case Study of Common Core Implementation in a Linked Learning
Environment. You are being contacted because you played a role in the vision and planning of the
Linked Learning Pathway structure of the Applied Technology Center (ATC) before its opening or
the implementation of Linked Learning and Common Core at the ATC since its opening. The focus
of this study will be how the Linked Learning structure at the ATC was designed and how it affects
teachers’ implementation of the Common Core at the ATC.
The nature and duration of participation: This study will take place from August 2015 to March
2016. Participants will be individually interviewed about the district’s vision for the ATC, the Linked
Learning Pathway structure at the ATC, and the implementation of the CCSS at the ATC.
Experiences of MUSD administrators will help tell the story of the ATC. Individual interviews will
last approximately one hour. Participation is voluntary.
Before you agree to the interview I can confirm that:
 Your confidentiality will be maintained at all times and no data will be attributed to you by
name in any written document or verbal presentation. Nor will any data be used from the
interview that might identify you to a third party.
 You will be free to withdraw from the research at anytime.
 The interview can take place at a location of your choice
 A copy of the interview schedule will be sent to you seven days before the interview.
 You will receive a $20 Starbucks gift card for your participation in the study
I understand the beginning of the school year is here and there are a multitude of activities and
responsibilities that go along with this time of year. I am here to work around your schedule. I
sincerely hope that you will be able to help me with my research and the continued exploration of the
impact Linked Learning is having on schools, particularly implementation of the Common Core. If
you have any questions concerning the nature of the research or are unclear about the extent of your
involvement in it please contact me at [email protected]. Thank you in advance for your time and
consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Erin Biolchino
California State University, Long Beach
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 562-212-2523
75
Appendix C
Dear ___________,
I recently contacted you regarding my research project on the intersection of Linked Learning
and the Common Core State Standards in partnership with California State University, Long
Beach. I am following up with you about your willingness to participate in my study regarding
your experience with Linked Learning Pathways at the Applied Technology Center (ATC).
As explained in the previous letter, the interview should take approximately one hour, your
confidentiality will be maintained at all times and no data will be attributed to you by name in
any written document or verbal presentation. Nor will any data be used from the interview that
might identify you to a third party.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation. I greatly appreciate the time and effort involved in
complying with my request. If you have any questions concerning the nature of the research or
are unclear about the extent of your involvement in it please contact me at [email protected]
Sincerely,
Erin Biolchino
76
Appendix D
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
A Case Study of Common Core Implementation in a Linked Learning Environment
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Erin Broun Biolchino, a doctoral
student from the Department of Educational Leadership at California State University, Long
Beach. The results will be contributed to a dissertation study. You were selected as a possible
participant in this study because you are a teacher at the Applied Technology Center (ATC) in
the Montebello Unified School District (MUSD) or an administrator for MUSD who has been
connected to the work at the ATC.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The primary intent of this study is to investigate the intersection of Linked Learning and the
Common Core State standards. Part of this study will seek to shed light on the experiences of
perceptions of teachers at the ATC regarding their implementation of the Common Core State
Standards in a Linked Learning environment. Another part of this study will seek to understand
how the structure and design of the ATC affect the implementation of Linked Learning and the
Common Core State Standards. This study will attempt to inform current and future educators
working with Linked Learning Pathways, high school districts, and community partners of the
intersection between Linked Learning and the CCSS.
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will participate in the following:
A one-on-one interview of approximately one hour with the researcher and a
Demographic Questionnaire that will be given to you at the beginning of the interview.
You will have your choice of location for the interview. Your interview can occur in
your office, a conference room, or a quiet, off-site location. Audio recordings of the
interview will be made with your permission, both on the consent form and at the start of
the interview. Handwritten notes will also be taken. A pseudonym will be assigned to
protect your identity. A pseudonym will also be used for the school and district. Audio
recordings and/or handwritten notes may not be reviewed or edited. I will, however,
touch base with you once the interview has been transcribed to confirm the accuracy of
each transcript. Teacher participants will also be observed twice in their classrooms for
approximately 30 minutes each time.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
If a participant’s comments are linked to them, this may have adverse implications for their
reputations and/or their relationships with colleagues. Moreover, if a participant is critical of
77
their experience, describes perceived lack of support, or discusses obstacles, this could create
difficulties with colleagues, site administrators, or district administrators.
To protect against or minimize these risks:
1. There is a potential for loss of confidentiality since the recorded interview files may be
heard by someone else and the transcriptions may be seen by someone other than the
researcher and the professional transcriptionist.
2. A pseudonym will be used from the moment the study begins. A single document linking
actual name to pseudonym will exist only on my computer and a professional
transcriptionist will transcribe all data.
3. All information from the study will be reported in the aggregate and will not be
connected to individual teachers or administrators. To promote confidentiality, no
mention will be made of which grade level(s) or subjects teachers teach. Similarly,
administrators will be referred to simply as administrators, with no differentiation
between site and district, past or present.
4. All research documents, which I have direct control over, with the exception of the single
document linking actual name to pseudonym and the consent forms, will reflect the
participants’ pseudonyms.
5. To help minimize risk, participants do not have to answer all of the questions; they may
skip questions of their choosing, and/or stop the interview at any point.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
1. You may benefit from the opportunity to explore and reflect on your experiences at the
ATC related to the implementation of Linked Learning and the CCSS. This can provide
you with a forum to discuss personal successes and/or frustrations. I expect the
interviews will be more of a conversation and this may provide some level of validation
of your experiences and perceptions. Teachers and administrators often work in isolation
and may assume their experiences are unique or atypical.
2. Generalized findings will be shared with the Linked Learning Initiative and other
stakeholders within this grant as a means of providing possible direction to future
professional development opportunities and future participation in Linked Learning
Pathways implementation. Specific findings will not be shared.
PAYMENT FOR PARTICIPATION
At the conclusion of the one-hour interview, you will receive a $20 Starbucks gift card. If you
withdraw or the researcher withdrawals you from the research, you will still keep your gift card.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you
will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law.
78
Generalized findings will be shared with the Linked Learning Initiative and other stakeholders
within this grant as a means of providing possible direction to future professional development
opportunities and future participation in Linked Learning Pathways implementation.
This study data will be handled confidentially. If results of this study are published or presented,
individual names and other personally identifiable information will not be used. I will retain
these records for up to 36 months after the study is over. The same measures described above
will be taken to protect confidentiality of this study data.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study, you may
withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. Participation or non-participation will
not affect your reputation or employment status. You may also refuse to answer any questions
you don't want to answer and still remain in the study. The investigator may withdraw you from
this research if circumstances arise which in the opinion of the researcher warrant doing so. If
you withdraw or the researcher withdrawals you from the research, you will still keep your gift
card.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Erin Broun
Biolchino (Principal Investigator): Cell Number (562) 212-2523 email: [email protected] or
Dr. James Scott (Faculty Sponsor): Work Number (562) 985-4988 email:
[email protected]
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You
are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this research
study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the Office of
University Research, CSU Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90840;
Telephone: (562) 985-5314 or email to [email protected].
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT OR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
I understand the procedures and conditions of my participation described above. My questions
have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given
a copy of this form.
_________________________________________________
Name of Subject
79
__________________________________________________
Signature of Subject
Date
____________
Please sign below if you are willing to have this interview recorded on audiotape. You may still
participate in this study if you are not willing to have the interview recorded.
I am willing to have this interview recorded on audiotape.
_______________________________________
Signature of Subject
_____________
Date
STATEMENT and SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
In my judgment the subject is voluntarily and knowingly giving informed consent and possesses
the legal capacity to give informed consent to participate in this research study.
__________________________________________________
Signature of Investigator
Date
80
____________
Appendix E
Administrator Demographic Questionnaire
1. Administrator Pseudonym: ___________________________
2. Sex
 Female
 Male
 Decline to state
3. Age:
 20-24
 25-29
 30-34
 35-39
 40-44
 45-49
 50-54
 55-59
 60-64
 65+
 Decline to state
5. Number of years in current position prior to 2015-2016: _________
6. Number of years in MUSD (any position) prior to 2015-2016: _________
6. Number of years as a full-time administrator (any position) prior to 2015-2016: _________
7. Educational Background (include degrees/certificates earned):
81
Appendix F
Teacher Demographic Questionnaire
1. Teacher Pseudonym: ___________________________
2. Sex
 Female
 Male
 Decline to state
3. Age:
 20-24
 25-29
 30-34
 35-39
 40-44
 45-49
 50-54
 55-59
 60-64
 65+
 Decline to state
5. Number of years as a full-time teacher at any school prior to 2015-2016: _________
6. Number of years in MUSD (any position) prior to 2015-2016: _________
7. Number of years as a full-time teacher at the ATC prior to 2015-2016: _________
8. Number of years as a teacher in a Linked Learning Pathway prior to 2015-2016:_________
9. Educational Background (include degrees/certificates earned): _______________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
82
Appendix G
Teacher Interview Protocol
Teacher Pseudonym: ____________________
Date/Time of Interview: _______________________
Hello _______________________, Thank you for taking the time to meet with me today. I
appreciate your willingness to participate in this research study. Thank you for signing the
consent form and completing the demographic survey. As a reminder, if you feel uncomfortable
at any time you can stop the interview, and you can skip any question that you do not feel
comfortable answering. I will be recording this interview and taking notes.
Do you have any questions before we begin?
1. To begin, tell me a little bit about how you came to be a teacher at the ATC.
 Probes: Did you choose to come? What made the ATC appealing to you?
2. As a teacher at the Applied Technology Center, what do you perceive to be the primary
focus of the school?
Teaching in a Linked Learning Pathway
3. Describe your overall experience participating in a Linked Learning Pathway at the
ATC?
4. How has teaching in a Linked Learning Pathway affected you as a teacher?
 Probes: Affected curriculum or teaching materials? Instructional practices?
Assessment? Planning processes?
 Follow-up question: How has teaching in a Linked Learning Pathway affected
your beliefs or theories about education? Explain.
Implementing the Common Core
5. Describe your overall experience implementing the Common Core State Standards at the
ATC?
6. How have the Common Core State Standards affected you as a teacher?
 Probes: Affected curriculum or teaching materials? Instructional practices?
Assessment? Planning processes?
 Follow-up question: How has implementing the Common Core affected your
beliefs or theories about education? Explain.
 Follow-up question: Can you provide some examples of when you implemented
the Common Core State Standards into classroom instruction? What does it that
look like in practice?
The Intersection of Linked Learning & Common Core
7. What do you perceive to be the connection between Linked Learning and the Common
Core?
83
8. How does the Linked Learning Pathway structure at the ATC affect your implementation
of the Common Core?
 Follow-up question: To what extent (or in what ways) does teaching in a
Linked Learning Pathway aid or inhibit your implementation of the Common
Core State Standards? Explain.
 Follow-up question: Can you provide an example of a time when teaching in a
Linked Learning Pathway supported your implementation/made
implementation easier of the Common Core State Standards?
 Follow-up question: Can you provide an example of a time when teaching in a
Linked Learning Pathway added an additional layer of challenge to your
implementation of the Common Core State Standards?
9. What are some challenges you have experienced while implementing the Common Core
while teaching in a Linked Learning Pathway at the same time?
 Probes: challenges with curriculum/materials, instruction, assessment,
collaboration?
10. While at the Applied Technology Center, what support have you received regarding
implementation of Linked Learning and the Common Core State Standards?
 Probes: professional development, collaboration, coaching, resources, admin
support
11. Follow-up question: What additional support do you need?
12. As a teacher at the Applied Technology Center, do you ever feel that you are balancing
multiple initiatives at once? Explain.
Closure
13. Is there anything else you can tell me that will help me to know about what it is like to
implement Linked Learning and Common Core at the Applied Technology Center?
14. Is there anything that you feel that I should have asked that I didn’t? If so, please explain.
15. May I follow up with you in a few weeks to confirm with you some of the ideas that I
have found from my research?
Thank you for your time today. Please feel free to contact me via phone or email if you need
to discuss anything that may come up for you regarding this interview session. [Researcher
provides participant with contact information on a card.] This interview will be transcribed,
and I will provide you with a copy of the transcript to check for accuracy.
84
Appendix H
Administrator Interview Protocol
Administrator Pseudonym: ____________________
Date/Time of Interview: _______________________
Hello _______________________, Thank you for taking the time to meet with me today. I
appreciate your willingness to participate in this research study. Thank you for signing the
consent form and completing the demographic survey. As a reminder, if you feel uncomfortable
at any time you can stop the interview, and you can skip any question that you do not feel
comfortable answering. I will be recording this interview and taking notes.
Do you have any questions before we begin?
History of the Applied Technology Center
1. The Applied Technology Center opened during the 2011-2012 school year, so it is a
relatively new high school and the newest school in the Montebello Unified School
District. What led to the district’s decision to open a new high school?
2. What was Montebello Unified School District’s vision for the Applied Technology
Center?
 What led to the decision to make the ATC a wall-to-wall Pathways school?
 How is the ATC different from other high schools in the district?
o Probes: Different curriculum? Different instruction? Different
assessment? Different beliefs about education?
3. As an administrator in the district, what do you perceive to be the primary focus of the
Applied Technology Center?
This study is about the intersection between Linked Learning and Common Core. The next
questions will explore how Linked Learning and Common Core intersect at the ATC.
The Intersection of Linked Learning & Common Core
4. How did Linked Learning Pathways and the Common Core State Standards fit into the
district’s vision for the Applied Technology Center?
5. What do you perceive to be the connection between Linked Learning and the Common
Core State Standards?
6. How does the Linked Learning structure at the Applied Technology Center affect
implementation of the Common Core State Standards?
 Follow-up question: To what extent (or in what ways) do you believe teaching
in a Linked Learning Pathway aids or inhibits teachers’ implementation of the
Common Core State Standards? Explain.
7. How does the Linked Learning structure at the Applied Technology Center support
teacher collaboration?
85
8. What support has been provided to ATC teachers as they implement Linked Learning and
the Common Core?
 Probe: Support for curriculum, instruction, assessment?
9. What challenges have you faced providing support in the areas of Common Core State
Standards and Linked Learning for teachers at the Applied Technology Center?
 Probe: Support for curriculum, instruction, assessment?
 Probe: Challenges like lack of resources, lack of collaboration time, lack of
training on collaboration, need for more professional development?
10. Do you believe that teachers at the Applied Technology Center are balancing multiple
initiatives at once? Explain.
Closure
11. Is there anything that you feel that I should have asked that I didn’t? If so, please explain.
12. May I follow up with you in a few weeks to confirm with you some of the ideas that I
have found from my research?
Thank you for your time today. Please feel free to contact me via phone or email if you need
to discuss anything that may come up for you regarding this interview session. [Researcher
provides participant with contact information on a card] This interview will be transcribed,
and I will provide you with a copy of the transcript to check for accuracy.
86
Appendix I
Document Analysis Protocol
Document Number:
Date Reviewed:
Date of Document:
Document Title/Description:
Summary of Document:
Why is it important?
Which research question does it help answer:
Key parts/quotations:
Follow up:
87
Appendix J
Classroom Observation Protocol
Teacher Pseudonym: _________________
Date: _____________
Time: _____________
What is the teacher doing?
 Leading class discussion
 Giving a lecture/workshop
 Demonstrating a skill
 Checking for understanding
 Conferencing with individual students
 Conferencing with a group of students
 Other
Is there an explicit connection to the Pathway? If yes, explain.
What is the general response to the teacher?
What evidence is there of Common Core?



ELA
Math
o SMP 1: Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them
o SMP 2: Reason abstractly and quantitatively
o SMP 3: Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others
o SMP 4: Model with mathematics
o SMP 5: Use appropriate tools strategically
o SMP 6: Attend to precision
o SMP 7: Look for and make use of structure
o SMP 8: Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning
Literacy
o Close reading of complex text
o Text-dependent questions
o Justify-think-pair-share
o Writing from sources/citing evidence
What depth of knowledge is observed?
 DOK 1/Recall: define, label, memorize, identify
 DOK 2/Skill or Concept: distinguish, predict, modify, apply
 DOK 3/Strategic Thinking: revise, assess, hypothesize, construct
 DOK 4/Extended Thinking: critique, synthesize, design, connect
88
Appendix K
Administrator Interview Protocol
Interview Question
13. The Applied Technology Center opened during the
2011-2012 school year, so it is a relatively new
high school and the newest school in the
Montebello Unified School District. What led to the
district’s decision to open a new high school?
Research
Literature
Question
N/A
N/A
(Background) (Background)
14. What was Montebello Unified School District’s
vision for the Applied Technology Center?
 What led to the decision to make the ATC
a wall-to-wall Pathways school?
 How is the ATC different from other high
schools in the district?
o Probes: Different curriculum?
Different instruction? Different
beliefs about education?
RQ3
Fullan (1997)
Shin (2013)
Guha et al.
(2014)
15. How did Linked Learning Pathways and the
Common Core State Standards fit into the district’s
vision for the Applied Technology Center?
RQ1, RQ2
Bolman &
Deal (2008)
RQ1, RQ3
Rustique &
Stam (2013)
Guha et al.
(2014)
17. Do you believe that teaching in a Linked Learning
Pathway aids or inhibits teachers’ implementation
of the Common Core State Standards? Explain.
RQ2
Bolman &
Deal (2008)
Rustique &
Stam (2013)
Guha et al.
(2014)
18. How does the Linked Learning structure at the
Applied Technology Center affect teacher
collaboration?
RQ3
Bolman &
Deal (2008)
Guha et al.
(2014)
ConnectEd
(n.d.)
Johnston
16. How does the Linked Learning structure at the
Applied Technology Center affect implementation
of the Common Core State Standards?
89
(2013)
Shin (2013)
Koning et al.
(2014)
Ruchi et al.
(2014)
Rustique &
Stam (2013)
Guha et al.
(2014)
Fullan (1997)
Beaver &
ReumannMoore
(2014)
Ruchti et al.
(2014)
The Center
for the
Future of
Teaching and
Learning at
WestEd
(2012)
19. What challenges have you faced providing support
in the areas of Common Core State Standards and
Linked Learning for teachers at the Applied
Technology Center?
 Probe: Support for curriculum, instruction,
assessment?
 Probe: Challenges like lack of materials, lack
of collaboration time, lack of training on
collaboration, need for more professional
development?
RQ2
20. As an administrator in the district, what do you
perceive to be the primary instructional focus of
the Applied Technology Center?
RQ1, RQ3
Reeves
(2010)
Fullan (1997)
21. Do you believe that teachers at the Applied
Technology Center are balancing multiple
initiatives at once? Explain.
RQ3
Reeves
(2010)
Johnston
(2013)
22. Is there anything that you feel that I should have
asked that I didn’t? If so, please explain.
N/A
(Closure)
N/A
(Closure)
23. May I follow up with you in a few weeks to confirm
with you some of the ideas that I have found from
my research?
N/A
(Closure)
N/A
(Closure)
90
Teacher Interview Protocol
Interview Question
1. To begin, tell me a little bit about
how you came to be a teacher at the
ATC.
2. What has your overall
experience been participating in
a Linked Learning Pathway at
the ATC?
Research Question
N/A (Background)
Literature
N/A (Background)
RQ1
Guha et al. (2014)
3. How has teaching in a Linked
RQ1
Learning Pathway affected you
as a teacher?
 Probes: Affected
curriculum or teaching
materials? Instructional
practices? Planning
processes?
 Follow-up question: Has
teaching in a Linked
Learning Pathway
affected your beliefs or
theories about education?
Explain.
Guha et al. (2014)
Shin (2013)
Rutherford-Quach &
Rice (2013)
Rustique & RutherfordQuach (2012)
Rice & RutherfordQuach (2012)
Josten (2015)
Forbes (2011)
Hamilton (2011)
Johntson (2013)
ConnectEd (n.d.)
Fullan (1997)
4. What has been your biggest
challenge in participating in a
Linked Learning Pathway at the
ATC?
 Probes: challenges with
curriculum/materials,
challenge with
instruction, challenges
with assessment,
challenges with
collaboration?
RQ2
Guha et al. (2014)
Shin (2013)
Johnston (2013)
Clarke (2014)
Hamilton (2011)
Josten (2015)
Fullan (1997)
5. While at the Applied Technology
Center, what support have you
received regarding Linked
Learning Pathways?
RQ3
Bolman & Deal (2008)
Guha et al. (2014)
Shin (2013)
Johnston (2013)
91


Clarke (2014)
Hamilton (2011)
Josten (2015)
(Probes: professional
development,
collaboration, coaching,
resources, admin
support)
Follow-up question: What
additional support do you
need regarding Linked
Learning Pathways?
6. What has been your overall
experience implementing the
Common Core State Standards at
the ATC?
RQ1
7. How has implementing the
RQ1
Common Core affected you as a
teacher?
 Probes: Affected
curriculum or teaching
materials? Instructional
practices? Planning
processes?
 Follow-up question: How
has implementation of
the Common Core
affected your beliefs or
theories about education?
Explain.
 Follow-up question: Can
you provide a specific
example of a time when
you implemented the
92
Fullan (1997)
Porter (2013)
Ruchi et al. (2013)
Tresler (2014)
Koning et al. (2014)
Gewertz (2012)
The Center for the
Future of Teaching &
Learning at West Ed
(2013)
Adams-Budde (2014)
Langton (2014) Beaver
& Reumann-Moore
(2014)
Fullan (1997)
Porter (2013)
Ruchi et al. (2013)
Beaver & ReumannMoore (2014)
Tresler (2014)
Koning et al. (2014)
Gewertz (2012)
The Center for the
Future of Teaching &
Learning at West Ed
(2013)
Adams-Budde (2014)
Langton (2014)
Common Core State
Standards into classroom
instruction?
8. What has been your biggest
challenge in implementing the
Common Core at the ATC?
 Probes: challenges with
curriculum/materials,
challenge with
instruction, challenges
with assessment,
challenges with
collaboration?
RQ2
Tresler (2014)
Ruchti et al. (2013)
Porter (2013)
Koning et al. (2013)
Gewertz (2012)
Beaver & ReumannMoore (2014)
9. While at the Applied Technology
Center, what support have you
received regarding
implementation of the Common
Core State Standards?
 (Probes: professional
development,
collaboration,
coaching, resources,
admin support)
 Follow-up question:
What additional
support do you need
regarding the
Common Core State
Standards?
RQ3
Bolman & Deal (2008)
Koning et al. (2013)
Gewertz (2012)
Beaver & ReumannMoore (2014)
10. What do you perceive to be the
connection between Linked
Learning and the Common Core?
RQ1
11. How does the Linked Learning
Pathway structure at the ATC
affect your implementation of
the Common Core?
 Follow-up question:
Do you believe that
RQ1
Reeves (2010)
Guha et al. (2014)
Rustique & Stam
(2013)
Reeves (2010)
Bolman & Deal (2008)
Guha et al. (2014)
Rustique & Stam
(2013)
93


teaching in a Linked
Learning Pathway
aids or inhibits your
implementation of the
Common Core State
Standards? Explain.
Follow-up question:
Can you provide an
example of a time
when teaching in a
Linked Learning
Pathway supported
your
implementation/mad
e implementation
easier of the Common
Core State Standards?
Follow-up question:
Can you provide an
example of a time
when teaching in a
Linked Learning
Pathway added an
additional layer of
challenge to your
implementation of the
Common Core State
Standards?
12. What are some challenges you
have experienced while
implementing the Common Core
while teaching in a Linked
Learning Pathway at the same
time?
 Probes: challenges with
curriculum/materials,
challenge with
instruction, challenges
with assessment,
challenges with
collaboration?
RQ2
Fullan (1997)
Reeves (2008)
13. As a teacher at the Applied
RQ1, RQ3
Reeves (2008)
94
Technology Center, what do you
perceive to be the primary
instructional focus of the school?
14. As a teacher at the Applied
Technology Center, do you ever
feel that you are balancing
multiple initiatives at once?
Explain.
RQ1, RQ3
Reeves (2008)
Randall (2013)
Danielson (2015)
Honig & Hatch (2004)
Malen et al. (2015)
Bridwell-Mitchell
(2015)
N/A (Closure)
N/A (Closure)
N/A (Closure)
N/A (Closure)
17. May I follow up with you in a few N/A (Closure)
weeks to confirm with you some
of the ideas that I have found
from my research?
N/A (Closure)
15. Is there anything that you feel that I
should have asked that I didn’t? If so,
please explain.
16. Is there anything else you can
tell me that will help me to know
about what it is like to
implement Linked Learning and
Common Core at the Applied
Technology Center?
95
Appendix L
96
97
Appendix M
98
Appendix N
99