Cultivating Collaborative Relationships: A Case Study of Teacher Collaboration and Professional Development

Students often receive instruction from specialists, professionals other than their general educators, such as special educators, reading specialists, and ESOL (English Speakers of Other Languages) teachers. The purpose of this study was to examine how general educators and specialists develop collaborative relationships over time within the context of receiving professional development. While collaboration is considered essential to increasing student achievement, improving teachers’ practice, and creating comprehensive school reform, collaborative partnerships take time to develop and require multiple sources of support. Additionally, both practitioners and researchers often conflate collaboration with structural reforms such as co-teaching. This study used a retrospective single case study with a grounded theory approach to analysis. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with thirteen teachers and an administrator after three workshops were conducted throughout the school year. The theory, Cultivating Interprofessional Collaboration, describes how interprofessional relationships grow as teachers engage in a cycle of learning, constructing partnership, and reflecting. As relationships deepen some partners experience a seamless dimension to their work. A variety of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and external factors work in concert to promote this growth, which is strengthened through professional development. In this theory, professional development provides a common ground for strengthening relationships, knowledge about the collaborative process, and a reflective space to create new collaborative practices. Effective collaborative practice can lead to aligned instruction and teachers’ own professional growth. This study has implications for school interventions, professional development, and future research on collaboration in schools.

SPINNING NARRATIVES ACROSS POLITICAL DIVIDES: HARNESSING THE CULTURAL POWER OF A STORY WELL-TOLD

This dissertation explores how two American storytellers, considered by many in their to be exemplary in their craft, rely on narrative strategies to communicate to their audiences on divisive political topics in a way that both invokes feelings of pleasure and connection and transcends party identification and ideological divides. Anna Quindlen, through her political columns and op-eds, and Aaron Sorkin, through his television show The West Wing, have won over a politically diverse fan base in spite of the fact that their writing espouses liberal political viewpoints. By telling stories that entertain, first and foremost, Quindlen and Sorkin are able to have a material impact on their audiences on both dry and controversial topics, accomplishing that which 19th Century writer and activist Harriet Farley made her practice: writing in such a way to gain the access necessary to “do good by stealth.” This dissertation will argue that it is their skilled use of storytelling elements, which capitalize on the cultural relationship humans have with storytelling, that enables Quindlen and Sorkin to achieve this. The dissertation asks: How do stories shape the beliefs, perspectives, and cognitive functions of humans? How do stories construct culture and interact with cultural values? What is the media’s role in shaping society? What gives stories their power to unite as a medium? What is the significance of the experience of reading or hearing a well-told story, of how it feels? What are the effects of Quindlen’s and Sorkin’s writing on audience members and the political world at large? What is lost when a simplistic narrative structure is followed? Who is left out and what is overlooked? The literature that informs the answers to these questions will cross over and through several academic disciplines: American Studies, British Cultural Studies, Communication, Folklore, Journalism, Literature, Media Studies, Popular Culture, and Social Psychology. The chapters will also explore scholarship on the subjects of narratology and schema theory.

Happy and Other Stories

The characters in “Happy,” “The Price of Independence,” “Itch,” and “Guillotine” all struggle with their loss of power and ability to successfully navigate their own lives. Though different genders, ages, and worlds are rendered each character must choose to either face their conflict head on or submit to the external pressure present. “The Price of Independence” and “Itch” highlight the precariousness of relationships and how one relationship, whether it be romantic or platonic, can change everything. “Happy” and “Guillotine” feature characters struggling from within, they are separated from the world around them and their failures force a spotlight on the misconceptions of mental health care.

Relations among Topic Knowledge, Individual Interest, and Relational Reasoning, and Critical Thinking in Maternity Nursing

Critical thinking in learners is a goal of educators and professional organizations in nursing as well as other professions. However, few studies in nursing have examined the role of the important individual difference factors topic knowledge, individual interest, and general relational reasoning strategies in predicting critical thinking. In addition, most previous studies have used domain-general, standardized measures, with inconsistent results. Moreover, few studies have investigated critical thinking across multiple levels of experience. The major purpose of this study was to examine the degree to which topic knowledge, individual interest, and relational reasoning predict critical thinking in maternity nurses. For this study, 182 maternity nurses were recruited from national nursing listservs explicitly chosen to capture multiple levels of experience from prelicensure to very experienced nurses. The three independent measures included a domain-specific Topic Knowledge Assessment (TKA), consisting of 24 short-answer questions, a Professed and Engaged Interest Measure (PEIM), with 20 questions indicating level of interest and engagement in maternity nursing topics and activities, and the Test of Relational Reasoning (TORR), a graphical selected response measure with 32 items organized in scales corresponding to four forms of relational reasoning: analogy, anomaly, antithesis, and antinomy. The dependent measure was the Critical Thinking Task in Maternity Nursing (CT2MN), composed of a clinical case study providing cues with follow-up questions relating to nursing care. These questions align with the cognitive processes identified in a commonly-used definition of critical thinking in nursing. Reliable coding schemes for the measures were developed for this study. Key findings included a significant correlation between topic knowledge and individual interest. Further, the three individual difference factors explained a significant proportion of the variance in critical thinking with a large effect size. While topic knowledge was the strongest predictor of critical thinking performance, individual interest had a moderate significant effect, and relational reasoning had a small but significant effect. The findings suggest that these individual difference factors should be included in future studies of critical thinking in nursing. Implications for nursing education, research, and practice are discussed.