Quinty, FBLAR 1

Erin Quinty Final Field-based Learning Application

Final Report (FBLAR)
Increasing Student Engagement with Math Word Problem Strategies
Spring 2022 __ Semester Report
4/21/2022

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose: Summarize study and update the initial contract focus.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The global COVID-19 pandemic morphed the educational world, creating learners who
molded to the demands of the ever-changing virtual learning environment. Educators in one of
Northern Virginia’s smallest school divisions, Manassas Park City Schools, noticed a shift in the
student skillset as a result of the virtual setting. Elementary students developed into adept technology
users; however, this mastery was accompanied by decreased exposure to paper-to-pencil skill work.
Now, side-effects of this skill shift are apparent in classrooms across all subjects, including math.
In reviewing benchmark data, student work samples, and classroom observations, teachers
at Manassas Park Elementary School (3rd-5th) identified common concerns when it came to student
progress on math assessments, particularly on word problem items. In order to address this concern,
an improvement team was formed with the intent of increasing student engagement with word
problem strategies. The team conducted a 90-Day Cycle. Initial data collection revealed a consensus
that students need further support in showing their work and applying strategies. From there, PDSA
cycles were conducted under the driver of developing collective teacher efficacy through the
creation of common language and math routines. Three cycles of change were tested: a tool of a
“Teacher Strategy Checklist” to review student work, an “MPE Math Word Problem Wheel” for student
use, and a routine for implementing the wheel. The work conducted through the 90 Day cycle proved
to be successful in increasing student engagement with word problem strategies.

I. Intent & Aim:

INTENT STATEMENT: To increase student engagement in using math word problem strategies.
AIM STATEMENT: By the end of the 90-Day Cycle, the improvement team will have collaborated to
develop and field test the “MPE Math Strategy Choice Board” resulting in an increase of student
engagement with word problem strategies within the 4th-5th grade focus group as evidenced by
student work samples & student surveys.
 Quinty, FBLAR 2

II. Background:
The Division of MPCS:
Manassas Park City Schools (MPCS) is
one of Northern Virginia’s smallest school
divisions serving 3,500 students from Pk-12
within just 2.6 square miles. The division is
composed of 4 schools: Cougar Elementary
School (PK-2), Manassas Park Elementary School
(3-5), Manassas Park Middle School (6-8), and
Manassas Park High School (9-12). Since the
year 2000, MPCS has experienced rapid growth
in population accompanied with changes in the
overall demographics as the majority racial &
ethnic makeup shifted from white to hispanic as
seen in Figures 1 & 2. The shift in student makeup
led to necessary changes in the school division’s
instruction at all schools - especially in relation to
the growing EL population.
In addition to the social, emotional, and
physical programs offered, MPCS strives to
provide all students with a 21st century skill set
driven by the profile of the Virginia Graduate. The
MPCS Strategic Plan (2018-2023) highlights
authentic learning experiences as goal 1,
objective 1 with a direct connection to the 5C’s in
objective 1, goal 2 (Manassas Park City Schools,
2018).

Authentic Learning of Students at

MPES
While a primary goal in the
MPCS overall vision, the application
of the authenticity is not quite
tractable in the everyday math
instruction at Manassas Park
Elementary School. The primary
measure of student academic
achievement continues to lie in SOL
pass rates & multiple choice
benchmark & STAR assessments.
Tables 1 & 2 show the overall
deficiencies in student
performance on math SOLs over the
 Quinty, FBLAR 3

years with a specific highlight in the disparity that is apparent within the EL population in math.
While changes to accreditation status based on WIDA growth likely account for the disparate jump in
scores in the 2017-2018 school year, it is clear that EL students are still struggling to find success in
math assessments.
This is troublesome as the total percentage of EL students at MPES appears to be increasing
over time and is greater than that of the entire division, as seen in Figure 3. In order to provide EL
students with an equitable math experience, further support is needed for teachers and students
alike. This support will assist EL students, but
should also impact all students.
In the 2021-22 school year, MPES
serves 721 students who are split amongst
10-11 homeroom classes per grade level. In
addition to the general education staff there
are seven ESOL teachers, three
self-contained SPED teachers, and five
inclusion SPED teachers all working with
caseloads across all three grade-levels. Of
the entire instructional staff, 51.6% have less
than 5 years of teaching experience while
48% hold advanced degrees (Virginia
Department of Education, 2021). These
staffing demographics mirror those of the
division.
Recent mid-year benchmark data reveals that all students are still struggling to find success
on multiple choice math assessments. The fifth grade overall pass rate was 54%, with more notable
concerns on word problem test items. In reviewing student work and teacher surveys, it was found
that students struggled to enact word problem strategies and frequently showed minimal or no work.
In a likert scale survey of 196 4th and 5th grade students, the average self-reported score for “I show
work on paper” was a 3.54/5. Further discussions with teachers & surveys revealed inconsistencies
in the instructional practices surrounding word problem strategies in math including the frequency of
word problems in everyday instruction, the types of strategies used, and the expectations of math
inquiry and communication of thinking. Of the 21 teachers who took the survey only 42% teach the
CUBES strategy. In previous school years, this strategy was the primary school sponsored technique.
Within the 42% there was variation with the verbiage used.
The causal analysis (appendix I) outlines potential causes to this word-problem achievement
deficiency. Primary contributing factors could include lack of math common language and routines
across the school, limited student exposure to higher order thinking tasks and opportunities to
engage in productive struggle, and teacher pedagogical content knowledge. A common thread
among the potential factors is in the inconsistencies students experience from class to class. These
inconsistencies in routines, strategies & acronyms, and math communities in general lead to an
overall challenge for students to engage fully and find stability in their understandings. In their book,
Math Pact: Achieving Instructional Coherence Within and Across Grades, authors Karp, Dougherty
and Bush (2021) confirm these student challenges as they describe how conflicting information year
 Quinty, FBLAR 4

to year brought on by a lack of school-wide math coherence can cause a “disconnect that can hinder
learning or result in a backward step in retention of mathematical understanding” (Karp et al., 2021, p
5).
While multiple drivers (see driver diagram in appendix J) can lead to success in increasing
strategy use, the primary driver is in building collective teacher efficacy through the use of common
language and routines. In a meta-analysis of educational studies John Hattie, and contributing
authors, determined that collective teacher efficacy – with an effect size of 1.57 – has the greatest
potential to accelerate math student achievement (Almarode et al., 2019, p 235). Authors Michael
Fullan & Joanne Quinn support this focus on collective teacher efficacy as they claim two of the
“so-called right drivers for whole-system change” to be capacity building and collaboration (Fullan &
Quinn, 2015, p. 5). If teachers work together and believe they have the power to make collaborative
change then improvement should occur.
The MPE math improvement team sought to make collaborative change by developing a
common tool of a “MPE Math Strategy Choice Board.” In considering an instructional tool to be used
by all students, it was important to design something that provided all learners with an accessible
entry point. The tool serves as a common visual reminder of strategies that meets the needs of EL
and SPED students. Providing student choice in how students solve problems returns responsibility
of learning to the student, increases engagement, and “diminishes the feeling of powerlessness” that
often contributes to a students’ negative math identity (Willis, 2010, p. 143).
While the choice board format allows for student freedom and flexibility with strategy
selection, further research reveals the need for greater structure and cohesion through the
implementation of a common school wide attack strategy (Powell & Fuch, 2018). The long-term
solution for strengthening student success in math word problems lies in school-wide
implementation of schema instruction. However, Powell & Fuch indicate that prior to introducing
schemas, students must be secure in an “attack strategy” (Powell & Fuch, 2018). Because of this, the
improvement team developed a tool that guides students through an attack strategy while also
providing elements of student choice. The tool was tested in iterative PDSA cycles. The dual-purpose
of collaborating through these cycles aimed to build capacity collectively and individually with
teachers, while concurrently working to improve student confidence and engagement in math word
problem strategies.

DESCRIPTION OF WORK
Purpose: Outline the actions and processes of the 90-day plan to its completion.

STANDARD

DATE ACTIVITY Describe action demonstrated in the standard. 1.b 1.d 1.i 2.a 2.d 3.i 5.B 5.E 6.a

SCAN-
 Quinty, FBLAR 5

1/31-2/18 Conduct Initial Worked with team & identified sources providing x x
Literature Review research on effective implementation of math word
problem strategies at the elementary level.

Gather Data Reviewed historical SOL data, & determined significant x

deficit in math performance with EL students.
Reviewed grade level Q2 benchmark item analysis

Gather Data Created & sent teacher word problem survey to x

instructional staff. Revealed variation in currency word
problem instructional strategies .

Identify Emailed EL, SPED, & homeroom teachers inviting them x

Constituents for to sign up for an introductory zoom meeting to discuss
Collaboration their experiences, review causal analysis, and driver
diagram. 1 EL teacher,

Schedule and -Held an introductory meeting with interested staff to x x

conduct Interviews gather anecdotal data relating to their word problem
observations.
- Interviewed division math specialist to share causal
analysis and driver diagram and collect her
recommendations

Finalize and seek Submitted proposal to UVA professor for approval. x x x

AIM approval Discussed improvement aim with principal and
received verbal feedback & approval

Submit FBLA SCAN Submitted FBLA SCAN phase and received feedback x
from UVA professor

Gather Data Worked with improvement team members to develop a x

student word problem survey and administered it to
196 students. Results provide team with guidance on
student mindsets and familiarity with strategies.
-Student word problem baseline assessment

FOCUS: PDSA TRACKER

Develop Prototype Used feedback from initial team meeting to develop the x x x x
Teacher Strategy Checklist prototype in order to create
common language in teacher analysis of work

PDSA CYCLE 1: Goal of test: assist teachers in building common x x

Conduct Test in language and confidence in tracking student word
Theory problem strategies use through the Strategy Checklist.
Teachers administer baseline word problem and
review student work using the Teacher Strategy
Checklist.

Iterate on Met with team to review baseline data across x x x x

Innovation classrooms, collect feedback on prototype, & adapt it
based on feedback.

Used collegial inquiry to facilitate discussion involving x x x

collected research & student progress leading to focus
area for cycle 2: developing a prototype for a student
tool, Word Problem Wheel.
 Quinty, FBLAR 6

Team met and reviewed student & teacher survey data, x x

research collected from literature review, and teacher
opinions to determine a common attack strategy and
create the rough draft of the word problem wheel.

Collaborated with Instructional Technology Coach to x x

develop the finalized prototype of the Word Problem
Wheel

PDSA CYCLE 2: Goal: to determine if the use of a common visual tool, x x

Conduct Test in the MPE Word Problem Wheel, will increase student
Theory use of word problem strategies.
Team members introduce word problem wheel to
students using provided video only and administer
week 2 word problem of the week.
Teachers review student work by completing Teacher
Strategy Checklist

Iterate on Facilitated meeting to review collected data across x x x

Innovation classrooms identifying significant increases in
strategies used.

Team determined the wheel itself is impactful on its

own and will be adopted in everyday classroom use.

Team review of anecdotal record indicated variation

across classrooms in the instructional routine of
teaching the strategies and determines to focus on
routine for cycle 3.

PDSA CYCLE 3: Goal: to determine if a common routine for instruction x x

Conduct Test in on one strategy a week with 3 exposures will increase
Theory student performance on the ord problem of the week.
Team agrees to a routine of exposing students to the
Draw it strategy 3 times before giving the word
problem of the week.

Iterate on In reviewing cycle 3 data on teacher strategy x x x

Innovation checklists, improvements are seen on strategy use- but
not outstanding.
Team determines the looseness of the routine affected
the outcome.
Team agrees to focus cycle 4 on collaborative
planning.

FOCUS
DUE

SUMMARIZE

Finalize Innovation Summarize phase

Product
Analyze Data
Prepare
Presentation

Final Report Summarize submission

Development Submission 1:
(Summary, Executive Summary: Intent & Aim, Updated
 Quinty, FBLAR 7

Descriptions, background,
Conclusions, Submission 2:
Recommendations) Description of Work: Updated charts, hyperlinks active
and completed &
Results: Chart: explanation, evidence & rationale. Use
the standards language to describe, do not merely
repeat.
Submission 3:
Conclusion & recommendations:
Innovation: Product Not due at this time (but may be
submitted)

Finalize Innovation Begin working on final phase which is included in

Product Execute
Analyze Data
Prepare
Presentation

EXECUTE

Submission of Add to RESULTS: Innovation: Hyperlink product and x x

Innovation infographic/manual. Provide the summary and
Package description.

Demonstrate reflective practices through careful

Reflections consideration of leadership development. It is a
reflection of what you learned about leadership, your
own practices, assumptions, and expectations. The
goal is to be a reflective practitioner who demonstrates
a social-emotional awareness of him/herself, aligned
with best practices from what was learned this
semester and previous semesters.

Don’t leave blank. What questions remain? These can

be for practitioners, specialists, experts or university
partners.
Open Questions
Hyperlink to your appendices
● PDSA Cycles
● PDSA Tracker
● Innovation Product
Appendices
● Manual/Infographic
● Deck for Presentation
● Recorded Deck
● Additional materials (Surveys,
interview questions, protocols, etc.)
● References

Presentations

RESULTS
Purpose: Identify deliverables, outcomes, data collected and noted improvement.
Competency
1. Knowledge, understanding, and application of planning, assessment, and instructional leadership that builds collective professional capacity
including:
b. Collaborative leadership in
gathering and analyzing data to
identify needs to develop and
implement a school
improvement plan that results in
increased student learning;
d. Collaborative planning and
implementation of a variety of
assessment techniques,
including examination of
student work,
that yield individual, class,
grade level, and school-level
data as a foundation for
identifying existing
competencies and targeting
areas in need of further
attention.
i. Identification, analysis, and
resolution of problems using
effective problem-solving
techniques
2. Knowledge, understanding, and application of leadership and organizations, including;
Quinty, FBLAR 8
Explanation, Evidence & Rationale (Aligned to Theory)
What did you do to meet the competency? What evidence demonstrates you completed the
competency (all sub-elements? What is your rationale? The rationale is the HOW or WHY you
knew this to be an important step--alignment to theory)
(PDSA Col 1-3)
As a team we gathered a wide range of data points including: SOL performance across grades,
benchmark scores, teacher and anecdotal records, empathy interviews, surveys, collected strategy
checklists, student work and general demographics. The iterative nature of the cycles of change
prompted the team to center collaboration around being results oriented (Dufour, 2016) putting
greater focus on a more long-term vision for student progress. The analysis of the data, combined
with research gained from the literature review, led to the identification of an additional division-wide
problem of practice: reducing variation of word problem instruction across the division. The
information collected was brought to the attention of the Associate Superintendent of Teaching and
Learning with a goal to increase student performance on math word problems by developing a math
word problem pacing guide. In his Ontario Leadership Framework, Leithwood ( 2012) supports this
action through practice 2.5.3.
I used findings from teacher interviews, survey results and research to develop an initial prototype of
the “Teacher Strategy Checklist” tool. The tool was designed with the purpose of creating common
look-fors in student strategy use across classrooms to more reliably compare analyses of student work
at a broader level. The checklist would act as a core quantitative measure throughout the cycles,
helping us identify existing areas of strengths, weaknesses, and effectiveness. In considering the
median years of teaching experience of interested staff, I determined that cultivating a collaborative
culture to gain greater teacher buy-in would best be accomplished through focusing on social capital
rather than human capital as suggested by Fullen & Quin (2015). So after testing the prototype, I
invited individuals from a variety of social groups to provide feedback on the tool, and we worked
together to adapt accordingly. The collaboration on the checklist ensured teachers felt valued and
strengthened the collective efficacy of the group.
In cycle 1, the Teacher Strategy Checklist was created and tested. In following the steps of the PDSA
cycle, the “study” phase included evaluating the effectiveness of the tool based on collected data. As
we reviewed data it was apparent that the tool lacked clarity in certain areas leading to inconsistent
data collection across classrooms. Bryk and co-authors (2015) provide the options of acting as either:
adopt, adapt, or abandon. In considering OLF practice 2.3.1 (Leithwood 2012) I invited the team to
share their feedback on the tool since it was a tool they would be using in their daily work. Teachers
provided feedback and the tool was adapted to fulfill their requests: adding a key, holding a
discussion, and changing the strategy categories. In further cycles, the tool was more reliable.

a. The change process of
systems, organizations, and
individuals using appropriate
and effective adult learning
models;
d. Using data as a part of
ongoing program evaluation to
inform and lead change;
3. Knowledge, understanding, and application of management and leadership skills that achieve effective and efficient organizational operations
and sustain an instruction program conducive to student academic progress, including;
i. Application of data-driven
decision-making to initiate and
continue improvement in school
and classroom practices and
student achievement
5. Knowledge, understanding, and application of the purpose of education and the role of professionalism in advancing educational goals, including
b. Integration of high quality,
content-rich job-embedded
professional learning that
respects the contribution of all
faculty and staff members in
building a diverse professional
learning community;
e. Intentional and purposeful
effort to model continuous
Quinty, FBLAR 9
In their book Leading Change Together, Drago-Severson & Blum Destefano (2018) explain that
successful collaboration relies on the development of a holding environment created through the
preconditions of trust, safety, and respect ( pp. 48-49). In order to build those preconditions I focused
on how to support and stretch individuals on the team based on their suspected way of knowing. In
cycle 2 we each designed our version of the word problem wheel before coming together to blend
visions. I supported an instrumental knower by purposefully modeling the potential prototype,
providing written direction and specifically asking her to share her feedback and opinions in the
meeting. For the socializing knowers, I provided them with ample time to collaborate with one another
before the meeting. In our meeting, I complimented their work and invited them to stretch themselves
by asking the individuals guiding questions. In doing so I was creating a space in which the
self-transforming knower was able to listen to the perspectives of others and ask questions for greater
understanding. These actions lead to the development of the secure holding environment which
strengthened the internal capacities of the knowers leading to greater potential for system change.
The CUBES method was a school-wide suggested strategy from the 2016-2019 school years. In the
process to increase student use of strategies, we first had to evaluate the effectiveness of current
practices. The team developed a word problem teacher survey to gather more information about how
CUBES is being implemented across the school. The majority of the teachers surveyed revealed they
either do not teach it at all (40%) or that their students are only slightly familiar with it (15%). Additionally,
data from the teacher Strategy Checklist on the baseline word problem revealed that of the 73 students
reviewed, only 1 student used all 5 steps of CUBES with only 38/73 students using 1 or more steps of
CUBES (mostly underlining the question). In reviewing multiple data points, the team felt comfortable
coming to a conclusion to continue to use elements of the CUBES strategy in the choice board, but to
switch to a new attack strategy. Hinnant-Crawford (2020) explains the need for a variety of
measurement forms. In improvement science the practical measurement methods are necessary in
initiating and focusing change.
After reviewing student progress on the baseline word problem assessment it was determined that
students struggled with engaging math strategies on tests so the 90 Day cycle was initiated (Park &
Takahashi, 2013). The results of cycle 2 indicated that the tool of the Word Problem Wheel had majorly
positive effects on student outcomes with a total of 116 more strategies used from baseline to week 2.
This led the team to adopt the wheel as is without making changes and continue the work towards
increasing student use of word problem strategies, but with a new focus. In understanding the
interconnectedness between instructional tools and routines outlined by Spillane (n.d). in his
distributed leadership model, our continuation of improvement led into a change of focus for cycle 3:
developing a classroom routine.
In working to cultivate a collaborative, learning focused, and results oriented professional learning
community as prescribed by Dufour et. al (2016), I invited a diverse group of individuals (all
instructional staff) to share their concerns, questions, and ideas about student math progress by
joining the improvement team. In doing so, direction was focused on teacher reflection and student
results. The pillar practice of collegial inquiry was employed to guide teachers through reflecting on
individual and school-wide math instructional practices while sharing a dialogue about potential
causes and solutions while reviewing the causal analysis & driver diagrams. Involving teachers in
decisions that impact their daily work and providing them a chance to share their concerns fulfilled
practice 2.3.1 in the OLF (Leithwood, 2012).
In chapter 3 of their book, Coherence: The Right Drivers in Action for Schools Districts, and Systems
(2015) Fullan & Quinn describe the positive impact of struggling alongside teachers in learning

professional learning and to
work collegially and
collaboratively with all members
of the school community to
support the school's goals and
enhance its collective capacity.
6. Knowledge, understanding, and application of basic leadership theories and influences that impact schools including
a. Concepts of leadership
including systems theory,
change theory, learning
organizations, and current
leadership theory;
1. INNOVATION
a. See this Google Folder with all relevant materials
b. Learn how to use the materials by viewing these implementation guide slides
CONCLUSIONS:
Quinty, FBLAR 10
stating that it “builds credibility, trust, and knowledge of both the innovation and what is needed by
the organization to move ahead…thereby becoming more and more effective” (p55). I purposefully
modeled continuous learning during the SCAN phase as we used collegial inquiry to discuss Powell’s
& Fuch’s (2018) research around math schemas. In sharing my questions, misconceptions and
reflections I strengthened trust with my team and developed a collaborative space in which team
members could feel more confident sharing their ideas. This building of internal capacities leads to a
stronger collective capacity while aligning with MPCS strategic goal 2, objective 2: cultivating
professional development and growth opportunities (Manassas Park City Schools, 2018).
Systems Theory: The Teacher Strategy Checklist tool was developed to support the teachers’ analysis
of student work. The MPE Word Problem wheel was a tool developed to assist students in their use of
word problem strategies. Cycle 3 focused on building the bridge between the stakeholders by
creating a routine for teachers to employ in order to teach students how to use the tool. Spillane’s
(n.d.) description of routines, tools, and structures allowed me to see the necessity in balancing out
system components. Acknowledging that those components work together to create change. While
one on its own can show success, true long-term improvement is seen in the partnership between
tools, structures, and routines.
Change Theory:
In this 90 Day Cycle I used the change process reviewed by Park & Takahashi (2013) in order to
venture into the unfamiliar using iterative cycles. Fullen & Quin (2018) describe change theory as an
integral part of focusing direction in chapter 2. After initially reviewing data I had a plan for a “word
problem choice board”. Instead of designing the board and focusing on discrete steps for innovation,
I started off one cycle at a time with a set focus in a more “organic process of diffusion & continuous
learning” (Fullan & Quin, 2018, p.27). This decision was uncomfortable, but proved to be beneficial in
the end leading a team of teachers through a math change idea.
Learning Organizations:
In working with the improvement team I used my knowledge about the individual teachers’ ways of
knowing and constructive development theory to support them through the pillar practice of collegial
inquiry. After independently consuming research, the team held a focused dialogue about the idea of
coherence in the math classroom and schema instruction. As recommended by Drago-Severson &
Blum Destefano (2018) the collegial inquiry dialogue was intended to draw out greater perspectives in
order to problem solve. To accommodate instrumental knowers I provided clear written goals of the
conversation and took notes. I would regularly individually invite her to share. For socializing knowers,
I provided greater think time before sharing and provided plenty of positive feedback. The
self-transforming knower was asked to provide outside connections and perspectives from other
sources she was familiar with. The discussion ultimately led to equal sharing of the conversation and
positive feedback.
Current Leadership:
In his third claim for successful leadership Leithwood (2019) asserts that effective leaders must be
responsive to the context in the building environment. Being contextually responsive acts as a
relationship and trust builder. During cycle 3, I had to strongly consider the context of the school as
teachers struggled to balance responsibilities nearing the end of the quarter. Because of this I opted
for proposing a routine that Dufour (2016) claims as “loose”. The acknowledgement of the
 Quinty, FBLAR 11

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Purpose: Reflect on outcomes and next steps for the future study

As the first semester of the 2021-2022 school year came to an end, teachers across grade
levels at Manassas Park Elementary School commenced their analysis of grade-level benchmark
assessments. A shared finding among educators was general underperformance on the math
assessment. Specifically, it was concluded that third through fifth grade students struggled to show
their work. As a result of the findings, an MPES Math Word Problem Improvement Team was
developed (3i). The changemakers sought to increase student engagement with word problem
strategies by implementing iterative cycles through a 90-Day Cycle as suggested by Bryk and
coauthors (2015). By the end of the 90-Day Cycle improvement team members would have
collaborated to develop and field test the “MPE Math Strategy Choice Board” resulting in an increase
of student engagement with word problem strategies within the 4th-5th grade focus group as
evidenced by student work samples & student surveys. Following the advice of Fullan & Quinn (2015),
the change was implemented through an “organic process of diffusion and continuous learning,
rather than getting all the pieces in alignment at the front-end” (p. 27). This “learning by purposeful
doing” was accomplished through three PDSA cycles in which an overall increase in student use of
word problem strategies was found.

Scan Phase:
After noticing a shared problem of practice amongst teachers, I began looking into
additional data points to help gain a greater understanding of student math performance as a
whole. An equity audit was conducted at the advice of Skrla et al (2009) revealing that, historically, EL
students were performing at a disproportionately lower rate on the math SOL compared to that of
their monolingual English speaking peers as seen in tables 1 and 2 (2c). An empathy interview with
the math specialist revealed further deficits in the inconsistencies in word problem instruction across
classrooms. Using this data, I developed a draft of a causal analysis (appendix I) identifying key
contributing factors and a driver diagram (appendix J) identifying a potential pathway to a solution
(Bryk et al, 2009). I then initiated the creation of the improvement team (3i).
As the majority of teachers at the school have less than 5 years of teaching experience, I
relied on the pull of social capital in order to cultivate collaboration among multiple grade levels by
holding a collaboration interest meeting (Fullan & Quinn, 2015). During the meeting I conducted
empathy interviews and asked for feedback on the fishbone and driver diagrams in order to build
relationships with teachers while stimulating growth in professional capacities and providing
consideration for their individual perspectives aligning with Leithwood’s Ontario Leadership
Framework practices 2.3.2 and 2.3.1 (2012). Eight homeroom teachers, the instructional technology
coach, and the division math specialist agreed to continue working towards the solution by joining
the improvement team (5e). The members then brainstormed ways in which we could gather more
 Quinty, FBLAR 12

specific data through the creation of teacher and student surveys and suggested a baseline word
problem assessment leading into PDSA cycle 1 (1b). Members also conducted a literature review to
guide proposed solutions.
PDSA Cycle 1: Teacher Strategy Checklist
In knowing that we would be tracking improvement on student strategy use, it was vital to
develop a shared understanding of what strategies were already apparent in student work to help
guide continuous change (2d). The student and staff survey results indicated a selection of strategies
already in place. Using a systems theory approach as suggested by Spillane (n.d) in his distributed
leadership model, we developed a tool of a strategy checklist that teachers could use to analyze
student work (1d). This data would act as a practical measure of progress as suggested by
Hinnant-Crawford (2020) and would drive a routine of teacher collaboration in analyzing data. As
John Hattie describes, “Teachers are also learners, and as a rule they learn better together
than they do alone” (Hattie, 2020, p 132).
Teachers tested the tool while administering a “baseline word problem of the week”. Our
meeting revealed that there were flaws in the checklist and adaptations were needed in order to
build greater collective understanding of strategies (1i). Improvement team members were invited to
share their feedback on the tool during a team meeting. In considering Bryk & co-authors’ (2015)
options of action in adapting, adopting, or abandoning, the team decided to adapt the tool to meet
their needs (OLF 2.3.1, Leithwood, 2012).
These adaptations led to a greater discussion in which I engaged teachers in
Drago-Severson & Blum DeStefano’s (2018) pillar practice of collegial inquiry to hold a dialogue about
our current math instruction in relation to the research provided by Powell & Fuch ‘s (2018) work on
schema instruction and Karp et al.’s (2021) work on cohesion in school-wide math instruction (5b).
The dialogue allowed me to develop a holding environment in which teachers of all ways of knowing
(WOK) could contribute their ideas while strengthening the collective capacity of the group (2a).
PDSA Cycle 2: MPE Math Word Problem Wheel
In the previous meeting a consensus was made as to which attack strategy would be taught to engage
students in their understanding of word problems. In
considering the WOK of the improvement team members I
proposed the idea of developing their own prototype for
the word problem wheel so that we could come together
to merge ideas and create an agreed upon tool. This was
done with Kegan’s constructive development theory in
mind as described by Drago Severson & BlumDestefano
(2018) (2a). In providing clear guidelines of what was
expected of the wheel the instrumental knower was able
to successfully engage in creative planning
independently while the socializing knowers had the
space to collaborate outside of the meeting. Focusing on
the WOK allowed me to differentiate the professional
learning activity leading to a robust collaborative learning experience for teachers (5e). The tool was then
finalized in collaboration with the expert instructional technology coach.
 Quinty, FBLAR 13

Once the tool was finalized, teachers introduced it to their students by showing a consistent
introductory video which aimed to decrease variation across classrooms. This specific change cycle was
targeted in identifying the effectiveness of the tool on its own rather than the instruction. After administering
the word problem of the week and utilizing the improved Teacher Strategy Checklist, it was found that overall
student strategy use increased by an average of 15%, with some strategies like drawing pictures (40.9%),
circling numbers (62.5%), and underlining the question (56.8%) showed even more significant gains. However,
problems in consistent data collection arose as some teachers differed in their introduction of the wheel to
students and compared checklist data from the baseline. Since the Teacher Strategy Checklist was revised no
subsequent test cycle was conducted to collect more comparable baseline data. This led to challenges in the
analysis of student growth in some categories, like “showing work (+76.1%)” since it was not included on the
initial checklist (1b).

PDSA CYCLE 3: Instructional Routine: Strategy of the Week

In the final cycle, the team wanted to address the variation in how students were exposed to
the strategies since cycle 2 revealed inconsistencies across classrooms. Guided by Spillane’s (n.d).
work on distributed leadership, the team focused on developing a routine to accompany the Word
Problem Wheel tool with a goal of providing consistent exposure to strategies (6a).
By the third cycle, it was evident that the preconditions of trust, safety, and respect were well
established within the team as evidenced by the teachers’ contributions in dialogue. In his article,
“Seven Strong Claims About Successful School Leadership '' Leithwood et al. (2019) explain the
impact of being responsive to context. In considering the additional factors placed on teachers’
plates during this timeframe, I encouraged teachers to develop the routine that worked for them,
despite my initial hesitations (OLF 2.3.1) (5b) . As Fullan & Quinn (2015) describe the new change
dynamic, they describe the need of balancing push and pull strategies. The decision to develop a
routine that was flexible in nature was a purposeful “pull strategy” used to engage teachers and
invite them to take ownership of their collective work .
In the subsequent week teachers focused on one strategy from the plan layer throughout the
week while exposing students to the strategy a minimum of three times before testing (1d). Consistent
with cycle 2, students showed an increase in strategy engagement from the baseline assessment.
The percent of students utilizing the “draw it” strategy alone increased from 9.6% of students in the
baseline to 25% of students in cycle 3 with even greater improvement seen in the initial CUBES
strategies of circling the number (+34.7%) and underlining the question (+22%).
Conclusion
In analyzing this data as a team it was determined that, while successful in showing
improvement, the rate at which students improved is still something we can improve upon (1d). Team
members discussed the potential recommendations for how to move forward in future iterations
stemming in the overarching driver of collaboration in the PLC environment. This is evidence that the
90-day cycle acted as a successful plan that initiated the transformation from a common team to a
professional learning community as the continuation of iterative cycles “creates conditions for
perpetual learning” (Dufour et al., 2016, p. 13).

Recommendations:
 Quinty, FBLAR 14

Recommendation Reasoning

Overarching recommendation is to focus more on the teacher side with the collaborative planning of implementing
strategies. As confirmed by Fullan & Quinn (2016), “deep collaborative experiences that are tied to daily work, spent
designing and assessing learning, and built on teacher choice and input can dramatically energize teachers and
increase results. In subsequent cycles of change, the team would like to test how the collaborative planning time is
spent to be most effective on student and teacher progress.

1. Utilize a specific protocol to
structure collegial inquiry
discussions in order to include all
members and maximize
contributions.
Drago-Severson & Blum DeStefano (2018) provide various convening protocols
aimed to aid teams in analyzing challenges and viewing multiple perspectives.
This would contribute to a more secure holding environment while also
familiarizing the team with conversation protocols.

2. Timing of implementation: think
through the timeline of how cycle
3 will be fitting into the calendar
considering additional demands
placed on teachers at the end of
the quarter.
The end of the quarter brings additional demands on teachers including
benchmark testing, finalizing report cards, planning for upcoming units and
more. Leithwood’s third claim for strong leadership is in understanding and
adapting to the context of the school (Leithwood, 2019).. Beginning these cycles
at the beginning of the year would also buy greater student buy-in, allow time
for greater iterations, and implementations of schema strategies.

3. Increase clarity of defining the
word problem strategy in order to
reduce variation - Provide
examples and nonexamples of
the strategy in application or
include microteaching,
performing video examples of
strategy to increase continuity of
understanding
Teacher understandings of certain strategies showed variation. Within the
focus of collaborative planning, an additional component should be collectively
defining strategies and using examples and non-examples to increase clarity.
Microteaching is proven to be a strong indicator of change with an effect-size
of .88 (Alamorode et al, 2019, p.235). This is supported by effect sizes of the
following factors: teacher clarity (.75) & worked examples (.35) (Almarode et al,
2019).

4. Increase Team Clarity - make a This would help the teachers know what strategies are coming and would help
pacing guide to keep everyone focus the direction of instruction.
on track for the long term vision
of implementation of strategies

5. Delegate Creation of
Collaborative Resources -
designate the time to delegate
creation of specific strategy tools
(ex: everyone take a strategy and
make a video of example and
non-example)
Meetings were very focused on setting the direction and developing the single
product of the Word Problem Wheel. The team could have simultaneously
delegated certain strategies in order to build a common library of word
problems and instructional tools. Delegating tasks is helpful to improving the
collective efficacy of the team. Distributing the responsibilities can allow
teachers to take ownership of a strategy and increase our effectiveness.
Supported by the OLF 2.4.1 and 2.4.2: Building Collaborative Cultures &
Distributing Leadership & Structure of the Organization to Facilitate
Collaboration (Leithwood, 2012)

6. Student Buy-In - Consider ways We determined the wheel was effective without student excitement, however
in which we can gain greater the team can still work to build greater engagement with the wheel.
student buy-in. Perhaps making it
a physical wheel that spins could
increase engagement

7. PLC Agenda - follow a more Dufour et al. (2018) outline three big ideas driving the work of PLCs. One way to
 Quinty, FBLAR 15

consistent agenda that reflects ensure that our actions are consistently aligning with the vision and goals
our educational visions and we’ve established is to follow a consistent PLC agenda. We can work together
focuses on results. to identify key values of the PLC and develop the agenda as supported through
OLF practice 2.3.1 (Leithwood, 2012).

REFLECTION
Purpose: Reflect on processes, expectations, and learning. Consider your development as a leader.

The 90-Day Plan allowed me to gain greater insight into my own beliefs about my leadership
abilities. After LEAD I, I felt somewhat prepared to lead a team of teachers in continuing our work in
math improvement, but I knew that this semester required a further focus on how to better lead and
grow a team of people. There were certainly downfalls of my leadership abilities in LEAD I, including
my organization and my distribution of work. Going into LEAD II, I wanted to be proactive about these
downfalls and be more deliberative about how I approached them.
Starting the semester with the Clifton Strengthsfinder assessment was extremely beneficial. I
had actually already taken this assessment two years ago and I remember reading through my top
talents feeling a sense of connectedness to them. However, I don’t think I ever took the time to really
reflect on the talents and understand how they are applicable to my educational leadership roles.
Additionally, I never took the time to consider how the “blindspots” affect my day to day experiences.
Last semester, a downfall I had was in taking on a bulk of the work. In my mind I believed that
my teammates were only helping me because they were my friends and they were doing me a favor
for grad school. I believe this was due to my top talent of being an “individualizer.” Strengthsfinder
results describe individualization as an ability to understand people on an individual level including
understanding what they are thinking, feeling, and other perspectives they may have. A downfall to
this is that sometimes I assume I know what people want and what they can handle, and I am not
always right. While this is still a great skill to have, I found that in the previous semester I often let this
get in the way of the good of the group. I often was overly cautious of their emotional states and
stress levels leading me to take on more work to provide for them rather than build together.
This semester I was more cognizant of this downfall. I realized that, in order to create real
change I needed to assume that teachers were participating because they genuinely cared about
working towards the improvement aim. Changing this mindset allowed me to rethink the purpose of
the collaboration. Of course, I was still aware of their perspectives, but I leaned into how I can use my
knowledge of their perspectives to better scaffold their involvement. This was mostly done through
better understanding their ways of knowing as described by Drago-Severson & Blum-Destefano
(2018). Throughout this improvement project I learned that I do have a strength in identifying
teachers’ perspectives. When I change my mindset about their own individual motivations and
capacities then I am able to more easily grow change-makers and adapt the ways in which I lead. I
found that other people in the improvement team were more aware of my mindset change. They saw
the differences in the basic organization of the team meetings, communications and the shift to a
“results-oriented PLC” mindset. I greatly improved my understanding of “data driven decision
 Quinty, FBLAR 16

making” and the power that it holds. I had never thought of data as a motivating force for building
collective capacity- it always had such a negative connotation. However, in taking the time to collect
and review data we were able to reap the benefits of our hard work and individual contributions,
leading us to stay motivated and excited to make change.
An area that challenged me, but I do think I grew in, was in my ability to give up control. In
addition to “individualization” some of my other top talents are in being an “achiever”, “deliberative”
and understanding “significance”. These talents ultimately combine to create someone who is
methodical while working very hard on a task or change that is highly impactful. I am used to having
a very well-thought out plan before acting. At the beginning of this 90 Day Plan I had my proposed
course of action and solutions in mind. However, in working with the team I had to balance my own
opinions with the opinions of the group. Sometimes this was tough, like in cycle 3 when I wanted to
make corrections to the routine the team was proposing to set tighter guidelines. I was aware that
we may not see success in the data. I predicted that many teachers would not follow the routine and
that it would lead to some disruptions in data collection. However, I stood by my decision to be
flexible and adaptive to the context. My Clifton strength of being “deliberative” proved to be helpful. I
seriously weighed all pros and cons prior to setting the PDSA goal with the team, but was proud of
myself for being able to move past the potential risk of failure and put the people first. I also
anticipated that making this decision for a “loose” routine would allow the teachers to see for
themselves the need for “tighter” routines ultimately becoming a pull strategy. This showed me that
giving up the power can bring greater results.
Finally, there are a few areas I need to continue to work on. Primarily, I had challenges
meeting deadlines throughout the assignment. There were certainly some situations that were out of
my hands, but overall, I need to work more towards fixing my “achiever” blindspot. Throughout the
semester I often found myself overthinking in order to ensure the work I was submitting was of high
quality. However, there has to be greater balance in completing the work at a high level while also
being more cognizant of deadlines. In future leadership roles I simply will not have the time to
dedicate to perfectionist tendencies and need to learn how to better manage the time and prioritize
appropriately. I look forward to continuing on with this self-improvement throughout my leadership
experiences.

OPEN QUESTIONS
Purpose: Capture lingering questions

TO WHOM QUESTION

Improvement Team How do we take what we have done this semester and build upon it for the beginning
Members of the school year next year?

n/a n/a
 Quinty, FBLAR 17

APPENDICES
Purpose: Link all documents associated with this project, contained in
your shared folder.
A. PDSA Cycles
B. PDSA Tracker
C. Innovation Product
a. Teacher Strategy Checklist
b. MPE Word Problem Wheel
D. Manual/ Implementation Guide
E. Deck for Presentation
F. Recorded Deck for peer review
G. Additional materials (Surveys, interview questions, protocols, etc.)
a. Surveys Folder
b. Research & Resources
c. Word Problems of the Week
H. References
I. Causal Analysis - Fishbone
J. Driver Diagram