This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
email@example.com PROFESSIONAL OBJECTIVE: To obtain a leadership position in a school district with high expectations for student achievement and professional growth. EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF HARTFORD, West Hartford, Connecticut. Doctorate in Educational Leadership, 2010 WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY, Middletown, Connecticut. Master of Arts in Liberal Studies, 2001, Concentration: Social Studies DUKE UNIVERSITY, Durham, North Carolina. Bachelor of Arts, 1994, Major: History WORK EXPERIENCE TOLLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS August 2007 to the present K-12 Social Studies Coordinator Analyzed K-12 social studies curricula for gaps and overlaps. Aligned curricular units with Connecticut and national social studies standards. Led K-12 social studies teachers to develop essential understandings for each unit and develop benchmark assessments. Guided teachers to analyze student performance data from district assessments to improve instructional strategies. Coached teachers to incorporate literacy strategies into social studies content instruction. Developed the K-8 social studies budget. FARMINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS September 2002 to June 2007 Curriculum and Instruction Leadership Positions Trainer, Summer Curriculum Institute June 2006 to June 2007 Coached teachers to write and revise curriculum units using the Understanding By Design model of curriculum development. Reviewed curriculum units using district-created rubrics to give feedback to curriculum writers. Team Leader September 2003 to June 2007 Led team members to monitor student progress, discuss instructional strategies, and use student work to guide our instructional decisions. Analyzed district and corporate testing data and collaborated with team members to improve student performance. Master Mentor September 2005 to June 2007 Collaborated with district master mentors to create and present first-year teachers with a series of professional development sessions on instructional strategies, curriculum documents, and the Farmington teaching standards and evaluation process.
Guided second-year teachers through the BEST portfolio process through professional development sessions on creating their BEST portfolio and linking the portfolio to Farmington evaluation criteria. Aided mentors in their support of new teachers.
Teaching Experience Seventh grade Social Studies teacher. September 2002 to June 2007 Developed and taught curriculum units on East Asia, India, and the Middle East. Collaborated with seventh grade social studies teachers to develop lessons based on best practices. Created differentiated lessons to meet the needs of all students. Improved student performance on non-fiction reading assessments by analyzing performance data and teaching differentiated lessons to meet individual student‘s needs. Developed lessons to introduce students to the CAPT interdisciplinary task writing assignment. REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 17 September 1995 to June 2002 Curriculum and Instruction Leadership Positions Instructional Leader/Curriculum Coordinator September 2000 to June 2002 Evaluated middle school teachers‘ Understanding by Design units and met with individual teachers to improve units. Observed and gave feedback on teaching of units. Facilitated curricular meetings between middle school and high school language arts, history/social sciences, and visual arts departments. Evaluated curricula for gaps and overlaps. Team Leader September 1997 to June 2000 Led interdisciplinary team meetings and focused team on student progress. Developed interdisciplinary units, including the 1904 World‘s Fair, World War I newspaper, and team research paper. Teaching Experience Eighth grade US History and seventh grade Geography teacher. September 1995 to June 2002 Wrote the seventh and eighth grade U.S. history curricula in alignment with state and national standards. Developed curriculum maps to organize and plan specific units. CERTIFICATIONS Professional Educator, History and Social Studies, Grades 7-12 (026) Intermediate Administrator and Supervisor (092) HONORS Semi-Finalist, Connecticut Teacher of the Year, 1999-2000. Regional School District No. 17 Teacher of the Year, 1999-2000.
D. and developing interim data summaries. The study was conducted in four phases. LaRocco. A qualitative methodology using a grounded theory approach was used to gather data and develop the model. few. Although research has led to the development of frameworks of skills that high school graduates should develop during their years of schooling (Lemke et al. Wagner 2008). and Health Professions University of Hartford The purpose of this qualitative study was to develop a model of instructional design that high school teachers use to promote students‘ proficiency in 21st century skills. Nursing. Olsen Dissertation Directed by: A Grounded Theory of 21st Century Skills Instructional Design for High School Students Doctor of Education Diana J. promote students‘ proficiency in 21st century skills seem to exist. if any. The first three phases encompassed recursive stages of interviewing study participants (N = 14). The fourth phase of the study involved the final analysis and integration of data. Ed. 2003. exploring and coding the data. Assistant Professor Department of Educational Leadership College of Education.. The model of instructional design for 21st century skills that emerged from the iterative analyses of teachers‘ stories has as its central category an inquiry-based approach to teaching and PR EV 2007b. comprehensive theories about designing instruction to IE W . Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Fourteen teachers were recruited from two suburban high schools in Connecticut that were purposefully selected because their district goals or mission statements focused on 21st century skills.ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: Jennifer L.
as with Marzano et al. The model of instructional design for 21st century skills presented here most closely resembles Danielson‘s (2007) framework for teaching. and assessing students‘ proficiency in 21st century skills. the classroom environment. and professional responsibilities. and assess by adding the dimension environment. Participants‘ descriptions of how they designed instruction to promote students‘ proficiency in 21st century skills also aligned in many ways with Marzano et al. PR EV which encompasses technological.learning. Finally. participants did not explicitly talk about their planning process. instruct. planning.. instructing. Further. and curricular factors important to IE W . emotional. their accounts of designing instruction yielded the model components: environment. physical. nurturing high school students‘ proficiency in 21st century skills. and their methods of assessment were embedded within the instructional strategies they described. the model expands Skowron‘s (2006) conceptualization of instructional design in that it moves beyond plan. which includes planning and preparation.‘s (2001) effective teaching strategies because. instruction.
Olsen April 8. 2010 IE W . and Health Professions of the University of Hartford in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education 2010 PR EV Submitted by: Jennifer L.University of Hartford Department of Educational Leadership A Grounded Theory of 21st Century Skills Instructional Design for High School Students Dissertation submitted to the Doctoral Examining Committee. Nursing. College of Education.
a note will indicate the deletion. MI 48106-1346 IE W . if material had to be removed. United States Code. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O.UMI Number: 3398651 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. these will be noted. Also. PR EV UMI 3398651 Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC. Box 1346 Ann Arbor. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17.
Olsen.PR EV © Copyright Jennifer L. 2010 IE W .
PR EV IE W . Andrew and Kyle With your support all things are possible.For Matt.
my committee members. You set the example of lifelong My Saturday running group. Andrew. and Kyle Olsen. and Anne Pidano.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My most heartfelt thanks to Diana LaRocco. Matthew. The high school teachers who participated in this study. Your hours of support and advice go well beyond the dissertation. IE W . my dissertation advisor. PR EV learning. my mother. my father. Our miles on the road cleared my head each week. and Charles Wood. Your thoughtful critiques improved this document immeasurably. Barbara Intriligator. Your patience and encouragement know no bounds. Suellen Craig. I am proud to call you my mentor and friend. You graciously shared your stories with me. Suzanne D’Annolfo.
i TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study Introduction to the Chapter Shifting Global. National. and Local Contexts in Education and the Workplace Skills for the 21st Century Workplace Statement of the Problem Theory Development Components of a Theory Example of a Theory in the Social Sciences Definitions of Terms Significance Organization of the Dissertation Chapter 2: Review of the Related Literature Introduction to the Chapter Skills for Success in the 21st Century Workplace 21st Century Student Outcomes enGauge 21st Century Skills for 21st Century Learners Seven Survival Skills Synthesis of 21st Century Frameworks Empirical Research on 21st Century Skills Studies on Instruction and Assessment of 21st Century Skills Studies on Technology Studies about Developing a Skilled Workforce Studies about the Effectiveness of 21st Century Community Learning Programs Summary of Empirical Research on 21st Century Skills Research on Designing Instruction Summary of Research on Designing Instruction Summary of the Chapter 1 1 1 5 6 10 12 14 15 15 17 19 19 19 21 22 23 25 28 29 31 33 34 35 36 39 40 43 43 43 45 46 47 48 52 52 53 Chapter 3: Research Methodology and Design Introduction to the Chapter Background and Self-Reflection Restatement of the Problem Definitions of Terms Design of the Study Reliability and Validity of the Research Population and Sample Population Sample PR EV IE W .
ii Chapter 4: Presentation of the Data Introduction to the Chapter Overview of the Study Design and Implementation Conducting the Interviews Transcribing the Audio Tapes for Each Round of Interviews Description of the Study Participants Phase 1 of the Study Phase 1 Stage 1 Data Analyses Phase 1 Stage 2 Data Analyses – Open Coding for Categories Phase 1 Stage 3 Data Analyses – Open Coding for Concepts Quantifying Categories and Concepts Phase 1 Stage 3 Categories and Descriptors Context Student Ownership of Learning Teachers Collaborating Instructional Strategies Using Technology Learner-Grouping Arrangements Writing Reflection Questioning Modeling Real World Problems Reading Strategies Presenting Information Orally Using Visuals Analysis of Patterns Approach Problems from Multiple Perspectives W Data Collection Activities The Interview Guides and their Development Pilot Testing of the Semi-Structured Interview Guide Subsequent Interviews Recruitment of Study Participants Interview Procedures Protection of Human Subjects Data Analysis Procedures Preparing and Organizing the Data for Analysis Generating Theory from the Data Open Coding Axial Coding Selective Coding Limitations of the Study Summary of the Chapter 54 55 56 56 56 57 58 59 59 60 60 62 64 65 66 67 67 67 73 74 74 76 78 79 83 85 89 92 92 93 94 95 97 99 100 102 103 104 105 106 106 107 107 PR EV IE .
Stage 4 Data Analyses: Initial Conceptualization of the Model Problem-Based Learning as a Central Category Initial Conceptualization of the Model Summary of Phase 2 of the Study Phase 3 of the Study Phase 3 Stage 1 Data Analyses Phase 3 Stage 2 Data Analyses Summary of Phase 3 of the Study 108 109 109 110 112 112 113 114 115 115 115 116 118 119 120 121 121 122 122 123 124 126 127 127 129 132 134 136 138 140 142 143 144 147 149 150 150 151 152 PR EV IE W .iii Summary of the Category of Instructional Strategies Assessment Summary of Phase 1 of the Study Phase 2 of the Study Phase 2 Stage 1 Data Analyses Phase 2 Stage 2 Data Analyses Technological Environment Emotional Environment Physical Environment Temporal Environment Intellectual Environment Refining the Category of Environment through Axial Coding Phase 2 Stage 3 Data Analyses Analyzing First and Second Round of Interviews Through the Lens of Instructional Design Planning to Teach 21st Century Skills Instructing 21st Century Skills Directly Using 21st Century Skills as an Instructional Strategy Practicing 21st Century Skills Assessing 21st Century Skills Identifying Student Dispositions Analyzing First and Second Round of Interviews Through the Lens of 21st Century Skills Problem Solving Problem Solving as a Skill Inquiry as an Instructional Strategy Collaboration Effective Communication and Literacy Self-Direction Curiosity and Imagination Information Literacy Adaptability Summary of the Analysis of First and Second Rounds of Interviews through the Lens of 21st Century Skills Phase 2.
iv Phase 4 of the Study Revisions to the Initial Conceptualization A Model of Instructional Design to Promote Students‘ Proficiency in 21st Century Skills Inquiry-Based Approach as the Central Category Environment Planning Instructing Assessing Summary of Phase 4 of the Study Summary of the Chapter Chapter 5: Model and Recommendations Introduction to the Chapter Summary of the Problem and Methodology A Model of Instructional Design for 21st Century Skills An Inquiry-Based Approach as the Central Category Environment Technological Environment Emotional Environment Physical Environment Curricular Environment Summary of the Dimension Environment Planning Instructing Using the 21st Century Skills as Instructional Strategies Modeling Practicing Talking with Students Reflecting Assessing Summary of the Model Recommendations for Practice Recommendation 1 Recommendation 2 Recommendation 3 Recommendation 4 Recommendations for Future Research Recommendation 1 Recommendation 2 Recommendation 3 Summary of the Chapter Afterthought References 153 154 156 157 158 159 160 161 161 162 163 163 163 167 168 172 173 175 176 177 178 179 181 182 183 183 184 184 185 189 191 191 192 192 193 194 194 194 195 195 196 197 PR EV IE W .
v List of Appendices Appendix A: Database Searches for 21st Century Skills Appendix B: School Districts in Connecticut with Missions and/or Goals including 21st Century Skills Appendix C: Semi-Structured Interview Guide for the First Round of Interviews Appendix D: Semi-Structured Interview Guide for the Second Round of Interviews Appendix E: Semi-Structured Interview Guide for the Third Round of Interviews Appendix F: Letter of Introduction Appendix G: Informed Consent Form Appendix H: Participant Demographics Appendix I: 21st Century Skills and Student Outcomes Appendix J: Letter of Approval from the Human Subjects Committee Appendix K: Revised Semi-Structured Interview Guide for the First Round of Interviews Appendix L: Coding Chart for Round-One Categories and Codes Appendix M: A Written Explanation of the Initial Conceptualization Appendix N: 21st Century Skills Questionnaire List of Figures Figure 1: The Building Blocks of Theory Figure 2: The Coding Chart for the Category Reflection Figure 3: Samples of Quotes from the Category of Reflection as Organized in Spreadsheets Figure 4: Early Diagram for the Classroom Environment Figure 5: Example of coding chart to determine in which content area participants are teaching 21st century skills Figure 6: The Initial Graphic Representation of Instructional Design to Promote Students‘ Proficiency in 21st Century Skills Figure 7: A Model of Instructional Design for 21st Century Skills Figure 8: A Model of Instructional Design for 21st Century Skills 209 215 219 226 229 231 233 236 239 241 243 246 256 266 12 86 87 117 125 147 157 168 51 54 54 70 71 73 75 76 76 78 80 81 List of Tables Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10: Table 11: Table 12: PR EV Summary of Study Timelines. Activities. and Procedures Demographic Data for Districts in Sample Demographic Data for High Schools in Sample Phases of the Study and Stages of Data Analysis Definitions of Key Terms Average Length of Interviews Select Sample Characteristics Grade Levels Taught by Participants Phase 1 Stages of Analysis Initial Concepts that Emerged from Phase 1 Stage 1 Analyses Initial In-Vivo and Researcher-Generated Codes Phase 1 Stage 2 Inductive Categories and Descriptors IE W .
vi Table 13: Example: Concepts and their Descriptors within the Category Learner-Grouping Arrangements Table 14: Phase 1 Stage 3 Categories about Designing Instruction for 21st Century Skills Table 15: Phase 2 Stages of Analysis Table 16: Newly Emerging Categories and Descriptors from Phase 2 Stage 3 Analyses Table 17: Phase 2 Categories and Propositions Table 18: Phase 3 Stages of Analysis 84 91 111 119 146 151 PR EV IE W .
definition of terms. Partnership for 21st Century Skills.1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY Introduction to the Chapter Rapid changes in business. a discussion of theory development. and lifelong learners in the 21st century. Shifting Global. Coughlin. Thadani. National. an outline of 21st century skill frameworks. communication. and Local Contexts in Education and the Workplace Over the past 50 years. and industry in the United States have not spread to the realm of education. The structure and functioning of schools today is more similar than dissimilar to the schools of 50 years ago. Business and educational leaders. . The intent of this qualitative study was to use a grounded theory approach to develop a model of the instructional design that high school teachers use to help students to attain proficiency in 21st century skills. skills. are concerned that students are not graduating from high school with the knowledge. Wagner. the world of work has changed dramatically on many levels. a statement of the problem emerging from a paucity of research on the instruction of 21st century skills. citizens. an initial research question. 2003. The economy of the United States has shifted from a focus on manufacturing to a focus on knowledge PR EV IE W dispositions needed to be successful employees. comprehensive theories about designing instruction to promote students‘ proficiency in 21st century skills seem to exist. few. 2008). This chapter contains a description of the context for the proposed study. 2007b. and Although research has led to the development of frameworks of skills that high school graduates should develop during their years of schooling (Lemke. and the significance of the study. as well as others. & Martin. if any.
and students IE W . Despite this rapid change in business. education in the United States has remained virtually unchanged (Wagner. For example. but the overall structure for teaching and learning in schools has remained the same. and industry. the federal government has intervened in state and local educational authority several times over the past forty-five years. PR EV Teachers continue to expect students to memorize large quantities of information. In response to the fluid economic context and a range of interest groups. students learn about one subject area during one class period and then move to another classroom to learn about another subject area. China.2 and services in a knowledge economy. including math. Typically. In 1981.S. The commission‘s findings and recommendations were published in the 1983 document. and social studies. the United States Secretary of Education created the National Commission on Excellence in Education to study the quality of education in the United States. ―A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform‖ (U. must demonstrate their learning on written tests and exams. friends. Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 (ESEA. People are more connected than ever to their jobs. a student‘s day in high school in 2008 looks very similar to a student‘s day in high school in 1950. most notably to give funding to states to improve the quality of primary and secondary education for the country‘s poorest students. 1965). English. science. Manufacturing and service jobs have been outsourced to India. The world around schools has changed dramatically. and families through email and cell phones. and other countries around the world (Friedman. 2007). Most high school students are enrolled in required classes for each of the major subject areas. 2008). communication. Information can be gained at an instant through the World Wide Web from virtually anywhere with a wireless connection to the Internet.
More recently. 2006). 1983). The Partnership for PR EV represented a significant shift in accountability because schools were required to focus on the IE W . Achieve (2005) found that almost 40 percent of recent high school graduates reported that there were gaps between what they learned in high school and the skills they needed after high school. 2005.3 Department of Education [USDE]. and new options for parents if their child was attending a low-performing school (USDE. This has led to an increased focus on mandated state assessments that require students to answer multiple-choice questions under time constraints. Even with these major reports and federal mandates. and students were not developing higher order thinking skills. 2002). recent empirical studies have revealed that students are graduating from high schools underprepared for the working world of the 21st century (Achieve. in light of the growing emphasis on technology in business and the home. The four pillars of NCLB were school and district accountability for the learning of all students. American students were not achieving in the same ways as students from other countries. greater freedom for states to use federal education funds. 2008). 2004). A mismatch seems to have developed between the knowledge and skills that schools are teaching and the knowledge and skills that business leaders are looking for in new employees. The commission found that achievement scores of American students were stagnant or declining. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. These findings were especially concerning to business and educational leaders. rather than problem solving or critical thinking (Wagner. Critics have claimed that such assessments push teachers to emphasize test preparation. an emphasis on scientific research-based interventions (SRBI). concerns over the growing achievement gap among low-income and minority students and their more affluent peers led to the passage of the landmark No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (NCLB. The NCLB mandates achievement of all of their students.
These studies confirmed that business and educational leaders still have the same concerns as they did when the National Commission on Excellence in Education (USDE. the State Department of Education (SDE) has expressed similar concerns about the gap between high school students‘ knowledge and skills and the skills demanded by employers. communications. 1983) reported in ―A Nation at Risk‖ that students did not have the higher order thinking skills or technology skills needed to be successful for citizenship. 2008).e. creativity.4 21st Century Skills similarly found that 42.. numeracy. and technology (i.. the Ad Hoc Committee for Secondary School Reform released its recommendations in draft form in ―The Connecticut Plan: Academic and Personal Success for Every Middle and High School Student‖ (Connecticut State Department of PR EV Partnership for 21st Century Skills. 2002. information literacy. 2002. In 2008. termed by some as 21st century skills (Lemke et al. A movement to reform Connecticut‘s high schools to close this gap has been underway since 2001. 2005. 2002. Friedman. The soft skills or 21st century skills are considered as important as the better understood trainable or hard skills in determining the eventual success of individuals operating in the knowledge economy (Partnership for 21st Century Skills. employment. Wagner. In Connecticut. includes abilities such as IE W . and their personal lives. problem solving. 2007. 2008). In 2006. high school reform became one of three priorities for the SDE (2007) in its strategic plan. Several authors (Breivik. Wagner. 2003. systems and processes). Partnership for 21st Century Skills. The latter category. and adaptability. 2008) have identified that in a knowledge-based economy workers need to possess both technical or ―hard‖ skills and general or ―soft‖ skills. Wagner. The former category includes a worker‘s facility with language or literacy.4% of employers believed that high school graduates lack the requisite skills to be successful employees.
Twenty-first century learning. and problem-solving skills that business leaders and educators view as critical for the success of students in the 21st century. a framework of the skills. and core beliefs that students will need to be successful in life and an increasingly complex and technologically based workplace. technology. along with engagement and rigor. (c) PR EV should develop during their years of schooling. three complementary frameworks IE W . In particular. published the enGauge 21st Century Skills for 21st Century Learners. the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2007b) (hereinafter referred to as the Partnership) published the 21st Century Student Outcomes. The Ad Hoc Committee recommended embedding 21st century skills into curriculum units and daily lessons. business and educational leaders have developed frameworks of skills that they believe high school graduates have emerged. communication. Skills for the 21st Century Workplace In reaction to concerns about the disconnect between the current educational system under NCLB and the skills necessary for success in the 21st century workplace. for example.5 Education [SDE]. A listing of the skills contained in each framework is presented below. (b) learning and innovation skills. (2003). Likewise. the Partnership (2007b) developed the 21st Century Student Outcomes. The SDE (2008a) explained that they have plans to identify best practices. is an organizing concept for this plan. Lemke et al. The skills are organized into four areas: (a) core subjects and 21st century themes. but this work has not yet been conducted. the Ad Hoc Committee neither explicitly defined 21st century skills nor did it provide a model of instructional design to promote students‘ proficiency in these skills. In 2002. and Wagner (2008) published the Seven Survival Skills for the 21st century. Nevertheless. 2008a). Detailed descriptions are provided Chapter 2. knowledge. These frameworks contain the thinking.
and (g) curiosity and imagination. Partnership. he suggested seven broad areas of skills: (a) critical thinking and problem (d) initiative and entrepreneurialism. 14). Similarly. (2003) did. 2008) revealed that there are several overlapping skills. which is a framework that gives business and educational leaders a common language for the skills needed by students in the 21st century. Twenty-first century skills are now understood to be the foundation for successful citizenship and lifelong learning in the 21st century. educational leaders. Wagner (2008) developed a framework of skills that high school graduates need to be successful for ―today‘s workplace. The areas of overlap cluster into seven areas: (a) problem solving. Rather.6 information. state-of-the-art results. (b) inventive thinking. (f) information literacy. and technology skills. 2003. (c) agility and adaptability. (c) adaptability. and (d) life and career skills. and (d) high productivity and quality. Finally. (e) effective oral and written communication. These competencies are clustered into four areas: (a) digital-age literacy. Lemke et al. Statement of the Problem IE W . 2007b. Wagner. media.. This list of skills was developed based on Wagner‘s interviews with military leaders. He did not cluster the skills into areas as the Partnership (2007b) and Lemke et al. (b) collaboration across networks and leading by influence. which have common characteristics. (e) effective communication and literacy. Furthermore. (2003) developed the enGauge 21st Century Skills for 21st Century Learners. and business leaders from major corporations around the United States. (f) accessing and analyzing information. (b) collaboration. A side-by-side comparison of the frameworks (Lemke et al. (c) effective communication. (d) self-direction. they encompass the PR EV solving. They are further described in Chapter 2. as well as for lifelong learning and active citizenship‖ (p. and (g) curiosity and imagination.
the aim of this instructional design for 21st century skills were found. 2006). 2003.. In their white paper. Partnership. A review of this related PR EV investigation. (b) cooperative learning. the Partnership (2007a) recommended five broad instructional strategies that might prove effective: (a) problem-based learning. Lee. While empirical evidence supports a need for 21st century skill development (Lemke et al. (d) educational technologies. 2002) and the second study focused on an examination of the assessment of 21st century skills (Gawel. (c) using real-world contexts. and dispositions that leaders in business and industry want in the 21st century workplace. A search of databases that contain empirical investigations revealed that there appear to be no investigations designed to develop or examine a model of instructional design that high school teachers use to help students gain proficiency in 21st century skills. skilled workforce development. instructional design was defined as the process of planning instruction. 2008). Svihla. Phillips. skills. Broader than the term instructional strategies. and (e) teaching through interdisciplinary topics. Wagner. the delivery of instruction. & Chow. Finally. 2008). scant research examining the instructional design that teachers use to promote students‘ proficiency in 21st century skills is available.7 knowledge. and the assessment of student learning (Skowron. & Bransford. the searches of the databases did uncover several related empirical investigations that were conducted in the following broad areas: technology. Nevertheless. In this investigation. these recommendations were not supported by empirical studies that determined their effectiveness in promoting students‘ proficiency in 21st century skills. and the effectiveness of 21st Century Community Learning Center programs. One study focused on instructional strategies for 21st century skills (Law. 2002. Vye. instructional design encompassed the main processes used to teach students and assess their learning. Only two studies and one theoretical article directly related to teachers‘ IE W .
Notably.g. While some investigations have been conducted on instructional strategies to promote the 21st century skills of problem solving (e. a comprehensive theory of instructional design to promote students‘ proficiency of 21st century skills did not seem to exist. Several meta-analyses (e.. Scammacca et al. Siegel. 2007. Specifically. Therefore. Marzano. Marzano et al. 1998. the purpose of this qualitative investigation was to use a grounded theory approach to develop a model of instructional design that high school teachers use to promote students‘ proficiency in 21st century skills. English.. 2004... Graham & Perin.. Research investigating whether any of these evidence-based instructional strategies are effective in promoting students‘ proficiency in 21st century skills was scarce. Despite the lack of empirical research on the instructional design that teachers use to help students develop proficiency in 21st century skills. 2004) and collaboration through cooperative grouping (e. & Pollock. (2001) identified nine instructional strategies proven by research to be effective at increasing student achievement. it was apparent that the majority of studies focused on instructional strategies that were content-based. study participants were drawn from the PR EV meta-analyses on instruction in specific content areas. A chart detailing the search of the databases can be found in Appendix A.g. a significant body of empirical research has been conducted on instructional strategies for traditional content areas. 2005). Wise.g. 2007.8 literature is presented in Chapter 2. as well as content-neutral research. 2007. Wise. Hancock. Scammacca et al. The authors analyzed findings from research in different content areas. 2001.g. IE W . Pickering. 2007.. 1996) have conducted In reviewing these meta-analyses on instructional strategies. other researchers (e. Harper. Similarly. Graham & Perin. 1996) have been conducted to identify the most effective evidence-based instructional strategies.
PR EV understanding of the instructional design (Skowron. from participants‘ perspectives. 2006) that helps students to achieve IE W .9 population of high schools in Connecticut that aimed to have students demonstrate proficiency in the 21st century skills. 2005). A series of three face-to-face. the following overarching research question guided this study: How do high school teachers design instruction to promote students‘ proficiency in 21st century skills? The qualitative research approach and methodology used to develop the model was grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin. the terms grounded theory and model will be used interchangeably. It explains real life processes. high school teachers from different content areas were recruited so that a variety of individual perspectives are represented (Rubin & Rubin. happening at a particular time. 1998). For the purposes of this study. This qualitative approach was used because a model about the instructional design that might promote students‘ proficiency in 21st century skills did not exist. The analysis of data from the initial set of interviews and the emergence of conceptual categories informed and guided the development of questions for the second set of interviews. the model is generated from or grounded in participants‘ understandings of the phenomenon under investigation. Because 21st century skills are content neutral. In this approach. semi-structured interviews were conducted with each study participant to elicit their proficiency in 21st century skills. Likewise. Data collection and analysis were performed in tandem. it seems important to understand how high school teachers are designing instruction to promote students‘ proficiency in 21st century skills. Given the emphasis that is being placed on students‘ development of 21st century skills both nationally and in Connecticut. As such. the analysis of data from the second set of interviews informed and guided the development of questions for third and final set of interviews.