Dusting Off the Conceptual Framework: Developing a Departmental Approach

Simone Sorteberg, Ph. D and Lindsay Grow, Ed. D

Education Department, Grand View University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA ssorteberg@grandview.edu;

Education Department, Grand View University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA, lgrow@grandview.edu 

Abstract

A conceptual framework can be more than a dust-gathering, accreditation-driven document. An effective, action-oriented process for the development of a conceptual framework can lead departments to collaboratively create a working framework that breathes life into departmental relations, mission, curriculum, assessment, and day-to-day operations. This study of a Teacher Preparation Program’s processes for developing a conceptual framework is rooted in theories related to conceptual framework purpose, collaboration and collegiality, and motivation. The study explores why Teacher Preparation Programs need theoretical frameworks, how to engage faculty in creating them, and the important work of bringing the framework to life after its creation. At the conclusion of the process, themes emerged about how a department might function during conceptual framework building. For example, team members may adopt different roles during the process, and some roles may be more or less constructive. Process leaders should also consider how to build consensus from team members, so that all feel acknowledged by the final product. Providing avenues for input during the creation of a conceptual framework is critical for cultivating team ownership.

Keywords: theoretical framework; conceptual framework; accreditation; collaboration; teacher preparation programs

Clearing Away the Cobwebs: Developing a Relevant Conceptual Framework for Practice and Assessment

Most Teacher Preparation Programs [TPPs] have a conceptual framework, but when was it created? Has it been revisited lately? Is it driving the program in helping to determine the vision, mission statement, assessment, and coursework?  Or is it collecting dust and cobwebs on a bookshelf in the chair’s or dean’s office? Now might be a good time for a fresh look at your conceptual framework, or perhaps now is the time for accreditation or reaccreditation. This report considers the definition of conceptual frameworks and their value in strengthening the important work of preparing preservice teachers. A process for leading a program through the development of a new conceptual framework is explored with consideration given to implementation, including possible roadblocks.

Problem Statement

Teacher Preparation Programs [TPPs] often become the focus of criticism when K12 students fail to meet state achievement expectations on state achievement tests (Darling Hammond, et al., 2005; Partelow, 2019). Also, with schools experiencing social issues, like growing poverty, the covid pandemic, and institutionalized racism, to name a few, the educational landscape is increasingly demanding of continuous evolution. TPPs must be able to quickly change by adapting the curriculum in response to K12 needs. Thus, TPPs should be in a continuous process of change and improvement based on self-assessment.  Nevertheless, TPPs must also maintain some coherence and cohesion in the midst of change. The conceptual framework can act as both an instrument of change and as an instrument of cohesion. When designing or updating a conceptual framework, a TPP can include new discoveries and respond to new needs in education, but can also maintain its shared philosophical tenets.

Often a conceptual framework can be an under-utilized document, a set of words that resides in a forgotten binder or computer file.  The conceptual framework might have been created by long ago departed faculty or by administration who interact on a limited basis with the day-to-day functions of student life.  A forgotten or out-dated conceptual framework misses a potentially powerful opportunity to unite a TPP around a common vision and improvement process. Ensuring that conceptual frameworks are living documents that provide a common ground from which TPPs can function is essential to TPP success in preparing preservice teachers.

This conceptual framework development process was completed in a state where the Department of Education oversees the accreditation of TPPs. The state requires every TPP to develop a conceptual framework that unites the TPP around shared theoretical underpinnings and common standards for pre-service teacher development. When our TPP used a consensus building process to create our conceptual framework, we were experiencing a unique intersection of events. All but one of the faculty members was new to the department, and we were under the pressure of a looming deadline for submitting an institutional report that included a conceptual framework. We harnessed the requirement to create a conceptual framework as an opportunity to engage in fruitful and productive conversations about our shared future.  The convergence of an accreditation self-study with a newly formed department allowed us to engage deeply, and on a purposeful timeline, with the work of scrutinizing past practices and developing new ground. With one veteran and four new faculty members facing the upcoming accreditation review by the state, our TPP needed to unify a disparate set of viewpoints in a short period of time to create a shared vision for the preparation of the university’s preservice teachers. 

Having a purpose driven approach that is grounded in a shared, conceptual framework benefits faculty and students because of consensus built around shared goals. Also, the process of creating such a framework brings a shared purpose to the TPP, resulting in program cohesion rooted in the new research and best-practices.  A focus on the conceptual framework encourages conversations about common goals and vision, and creates a space for dialogue about theoretical values shared between courses.  These conversations allow for a deeper foundation to be built in the intellectual work of a department.   Creativity and academic freedom can still blossom with a conceptual framework because the concepts included should be broad enough for interpretation and debate. For example, our conceptual framework includes a shared commitment to instilling cultural competence and responsiveness in pre-service teachers, but how we do this is the subject of discussion. All of this internal department work coalesces to form a stronger, forward-facing entity, able to portray values and direction for all stakeholders.  

Context

Except for the Department Chair and the Administrative Coordinator, the TPP’s faculty and staff were all new to the University at the time we went through the conceptual framework development process. Our university is a small, non-profit, liberal-arts institution of Lutheran heritage with roughly 2,000 students in a city of about ½ million people in the Midwest. Our state’s TPP accreditation process is stringent. It begins with a lengthy self-study component where teacher preparation programs must thoroughly review their operation patterns and conceptual framework. This self-study is then translated into generating a significant institutional report. The report includes providing evidence related to all elements of the InTASC standards. Next, the report is subjected to a peer-review process, where colleagues from across the state, along with a state panel, critique and question the report. The TPP, along with relevant university administrators, is then asked to respond to the critique, followed by a multi-day site visit where evidence is collected from all constituents. Following the visit, a report is generated by the site visit team and Department of Education personnel which is presented to the institution for further response. When all standards have been met, the institution is presented to the state board for approval followed by a one-year review and annual check-ins.  

For our TPP, the accreditation process led to the creation of a new conceptual framework, as the one created seven years previously did not reflect the work or viewpoints of our mostly new department. Creating or updating a conceptual framework is arduous, challenging work that can feel superfluous at times because the process is visionary and ambitious with results being seen only long term. A conceptual framework may appear to some to be a limited set of ideals that exist only on paper with confusion regarding what a realistic implementation of the framework would look like. Thus, some stakeholders might approach the process with reluctance and anxiety. Our department generally approached the process as an opportunity to come together as a new team with purposeful work, work that ultimately allowed us to get to know one another and create a shared culture. Nevertheless, as in any group consensus building process, excitement for what we were doing ebbed and flowed with some participants acting consistently collaborative and others detracting at times from the process. An additional challenge for our team was the limited timeframe. We had less than three months to create and unify around the conceptual framework. We chose to view the limited timeline as an advantage because it caused us to reach consensus faster than if we had been provided with unlimited time.

Literature Review

The process of developing our conceptual framework was rooted in theories related to conceptual frameworks, collaboration and collegiality, and motivation.

Conceptual Frameworks

A conceptual framework is a matrix of related ideas that coalesce to form a theoretical foundation for a group and/or organization. Conceptual frameworks serve different purposes in different contexts. A conceptual framework can be used as a research tool (Rodman, 1980), an organizing matrix for program development (Shields & Ranjaran, 2012), or a tool for program assessment (Shields & Ranjaran, 2012). In addition, Fuller (1974) argues that the purpose of a conceptual framework is “to articulate the components or steps by which an educator or team of educators and a learner can set goals and implement procedures tailored to the personal needs of that individual learner” (p. 1).  A conceptual framework can become the foundation of a program’s development, while also serving as a tool for self-assessment and evaluation. 

Our TPP determined that we would use our conceptual framework to establish goals and action steps and as a self-assessment tool to monitor our program’s growth and development. This would ensure that we are serving our students in accordance with current research and best practices, so that students are set up for success in the teaching profession. 

A conceptual framework can provide how a TPP can address many potential pitfalls.  For example, TPPs can lack a coherent and cohesive approach that is connected to practice (Darling-Hammond & Grossman, 2005). Also, TPPs must be aligned to best practices that evolve and change over time. 

Diverse viewpoints and educational philosophies may exist within the faculty of a TPP, but consensus can be reached through the overarching ideas included in a conceptual framework. Conceptual frame working can accomplish consensus building around vision setting, action planning, and self-assessment and may target or influence some or all below by providing a shared lens for planning and discussion. TPP needs that may be addressed by a conceptual framework include:  

• Course curriculum design.
• Course sequencing. 
• Student assessment.
• Program self-assessment. 
• Advising and coaching of students. 
• Dispositions for teaching. 
• Overall program goals. 
• Pedagogy.
• Philosophy. 
• Cultural competency and responsiveness. 
• Development of practicum and student teaching expectations and evaluation.
• Adoption of frameworks for evaluation of teaching (e.g. Danielson / Marzano / InTASC)
• Partnerships with area schools 

Conceptual Framework Development

The creation of a conceptual framework requires collaboration, as opposed to “contrived collegiality” (Hargreaves, 1994). Each creator of the conceptual framework must feel as though they have a voice and that their viewpoints are acknowledged as valuable. Sharing sometimes contradictory viewpoints regarding the major concepts of education can lead to conflict, and framework creators must understand that conflict is in fact a valued aspect of a collaborative process. Avoiding “contrived collegiality” includes a willingness to engage in authentic discussion and conflict. 

The development of a conceptual framework within a limited timeframe demands intellectual freedom and disagreement (Datnow, 2011). Space must be provided within the process for conflict (Hargreaves, 1994). Participants must feel that they can be honest and can disagree in order for the conceptual framework to truly represent the beliefs of individuals. Nevertheless, at the conclusion of the process, consensus must be developed so that unity around the vision and goals exists. Consensus building processes, like nominal group technique (Delbecq, VandeVen, & Gustafson, 1975) and Consensus Oriented Decision Making [CODM] (Hartnett, 2011) are required to reach agreement at the end of the process. Also, because of the process, trust among participants should increase (Zakrewski, 2015), and group members should feel as though they are valued. Without consensus building, group members may feel resentful of the process and reluctant to implement the vision. A TPP should not be expected to agree about everything, but the TPP should be able to narrow down to some shared ideas that unite the group philosophically. At the same time, the shared ideas should not be so watered down that they do not reflect the values held by the department. This is a challenging balance to strike. 

A wide variety of viewpoints and beliefs might exist within the faculty of a teacher education program regarding the items above. On the one hand, this variation is a strength because pre-service teachers will be exposed to a myriad of perspectives, mirroring educators in the field and the literature of educationists. On the other hand, some program cohesiveness will serve pre-service teachers well as they develop their individual philosophical and pedagogical approaches. Too much disparateness in core values may suggest divisiveness, leading to confusion among students. Moreover, some educational tenets are decidedly more effective than others, and the conceptual framework can assist teacher education faculty and instructors when calibrating their beliefs to share with students either implicitly or explicitly. For example, in our state it is illegal for teachers to discriminate against students based on gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. Thus, we made a commitment to culturally responsive teaching as a major tenet of our conceptual framework, also reflecting our commitment to social justice as a settled issue. 

We are also committed to constructivism, as we know that it mirrors the neurological basis of learning and implies that our preservice students should be skeptical of lecture-based classrooms because they are ineffective. Yet, even with a shared conceptual framework, teacher education program faculty can express varied viewpoints about the shared components of the framework, avoiding limitations on individuals’ academic freedom. Students and faculty should understand that the shared concepts of the framework are those that the TPP values and emphasizes. 

Through consensus-building processes described in detail below, we developed and committed to seven major concepts in our conceptual framework including: constructivist inquiry-based teaching and learning, social justice and cultural responsiveness, standards-driven teaching and learning, teacher leadership and collaboration, differentiated planning and universal design, reflective, responsive, and flexible praxis, and innovative use of technology. These seven concepts emerged from a review of the literature and collaborative discourse regarding which concepts best aligned with research-based practices in education and the philosophical commitments of individual faculty. A literature review also revealed that Danielson’s Framework for Teaching (2007) aligned well with the seven major concepts. Thus, the Danielson Framework was formally adopted by the department to provide standards for teaching in addition to the InTASC standards.

Motivation

A primary challenge when creating a conceptual framework is motivating collaborators both during the process and after. Participants must be motivated to participate in creating and then implementing the conceptual framework at its completion. Without this commitment, the conceptual framework may become a mere token of the accreditation process and not a working document. Thus, in the foreground of the conceptual framework design process was research regarding human motivation. Based on an exploration of 40 years of research, Pink (2011) concluded that human beings are most motivated by autonomy, including choice, mastery, and purpose. Therefore, in the conceptual framework development process, faculty were provided with multiple opportunities for autonomy. For example, faculty members each had a voice in the process and significant determination over the framework’s implementation. A conceptual framework is inherently about mastery and purpose, as it establishes and encapsulates the department’s vision for best practice and educational philosophy and values. 

Process for Conceptual Framework Development

To develop a conceptual framework, a department should first set forth the intended steps of the process for the entire group. This leads to clarity of the goals and methods that will be used to achieve the end result.   Presenting anticipated challenges that might arise during the creation process is recommended. The leaders should anticipate the strengths of the group and individuals who might benefit/hinder the process and can use the “participant roles” discussed later as a framework for this.  

The process can then be tailored to the needs of participants and pitfalls may be thwarted. For example, if a facilitator anticipates that a participant may be reluctant or resistant to participation, then the facilitator may meet with them beforehand to discuss what measures might lead to increased collaboration. Also, before creating the TPP conceptual framework, other conceptual frameworks should be explored and examined to better understand what might be included and to see how other programs visually organized their frameworks. Our search led to a few conceptual frameworks from TPPs and some from health programs and nonprofit organizations. This type of exploration can broaden the scope of what is possible and spark creative ideas.  Below are the steps that were taken to create the conceptual framework with an explanation of each following.

Steps for Conceptual Framework Creation

1. Must first understand the theory of conceptual frameworks and explore and examine examples from their own program and others.
2. Engage the department faculty in a discussion of conceptual frameworks, allowing them to compare examples of other organization’s conceptual frameworks, so that they develop a deep understanding of the work.
3. Explain the importance of respecting time limits. Less time “forces” decision making and consensus building although this decision should be guided by participants’ comfort and needs.
4. Facilitate the development of norms via a round robin or other process.
5. Provide guiding questions that allow participants to express individual thoughts that they would like included in the conceptual framework via a group meeting, email, or in a one-on-one interview. 
6. Share the results of what beliefs emerged, presenting the list as the shortest possible, based on redundancies between faculty. After viewing the list, faculty should determine if any gaps exist that should be addressed. 
7. Present concepts from the literature and state guidelines for the group to consider, if they have not been previously addressed. 
8. Utilize any consensus-oriented decision making process, like Nominal Group Technique (Delbecq & Vande, 1971) or a list/group/label process, to determine what to include in the final version of the conceptual framework. 
9. Compile the beliefs before the next meeting into a working conceptual framework document.
10. Scrutinize the compilation to make sure it aligns to all individual perspectives that are represented.
11. Create a graphic representation for the group to critique briefly. 
12. Engage the department faculty in a final critique of the final version of the conceptual framework, seeking unanimous approval. 

Discussion

As a result of the processes described previously, our department arrived at the conceptual framework depicted in Figure One. We then used the framework to develop a vision statement and long-term goals. In considering the graphic organization of our framework, it was important to us to capture the various layers in one concise page.  We wanted to be able to show how various components nested together to support the total vision and direction of our work. Our framework is hanging on the wall in our department area and makes regular appearances at our meetings to shape conversation and drive the work of our department.

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework.

Description of our Framework

Figure One is the Conceptual Framework our department developed. Each spoke of the wheel shows the essential components of our program and what is important to infuse in our students during their time at our institution.  The red circle around the outside shows that our program is nested in the Danielson Framework for Teaching as a method for explaining the nuances of the teaching process to students. The white circle represents essential elements from our unique institution; these are phrases that frequently appear in university-level communication. The white space around the circle explores other elements that are part of our program. We use the InTASC standards for evaluation and integrate the Iowa Teaching Standards because our students need to be familiar with those upon graduation.  The other corners consider dispositions and further assessment instruments that are components of our program. 

Framework Drives Vision and Aims

As we conceptualized the components and graphic representation of our conceptual framework, we considered the work we felt to be important for our department. We contemplated the work we were doing and what we aspired to do. An alignment between the conceptual framework and our vision and long-term aims was necessary.  To be transparent and provide ideas for others, Figures Two and Three show our vision statement and long-term aims that we developed at the time of this conceptual framework creation.

Figure 2. Vision Statement.

Figure 3. Long-Term Aims.

Implications for the Development of Conceptual Frameworks Before, During, and After the Process

As we have continued to work within our conceptual framework model and analyze the process used for development, we have reflected on some considerations and recommendations for other TPPs seeking implementation of a similar process. Primarily these reflections center on problems that could be encountered and ideas to smooth the process before, during, and after development of a conceptual framework.

Before

It is important for the group to frame the reasons why the work of creating a conceptual framework is being undertaken (Kishnor & Godfrey, 1999). It might be easy to be swayed from the importance of the work with the seemingly more urgent, regular day-to-day tasks of departmental life. Situating the reasons why this work is being done will help to chart goals and end products that the group hopes to accomplish. For example, perhaps the work is being initiated because of a looming accreditation visit or as part of university visioning processes. Maybe the work is rooted in the need to revise assessment practices or chart new strategic enrollment initiatives. 

 Also important is to engage the group in sharing a common definition of a conceptual framework in order to engage the members in the task ahead. Finally, enumerating the variables under which the work is being accomplished can help the group bring to the forefront some of the obstacles that might be ahead. Some variables that might be influential on the process include the duration of employment of the different members of the group and the urgency of other pressing matters. There may be certain institutional goals and pressures that need to overlap with the department-level conceptual framework. For instance, if the institution has a strong emphasis on service learning, study-abroad, vocation, or finds identity in a particular religious or enrollment pattern - these variables would be important to set before the group so all are on common ground.

Participant Roles

The steps provided for engaging the group in conversation surrounding the conceptual framework tend to work well, but group members should be prepared to respond and notice when things may be getting off track. Of importance is for several members to be comfortable with calling out situations that get the group off track. 

Also, being cognizant of the different “roles” that group participants adopt will help to move the process forward and aid participants in interacting in fruitful ways. After reflection, we found we could categorize the roles of participants into contributors, detractors, and some combination of both. Figure 4 shows how these roles could be labelled.

Figure 4. Participant Roles.

Those who participated in a role of contributor tended to be in sync with the process and timeline. They were reflective and brought valuable ideas and questions to group conversations. Contributors helped to manage the time and participated in polite “whistle-blowing” to keep the group on track. They experienced a sense of ownership in the process and felt that the work was valuable. They invited others to participate, asking questions that would bring forth new ideas and help move the process forward. 

Those who leaned toward the role of detractor tended to have a presence that brought challenges to the group. This presence seemed to derail and distract the group from the goal of creating the conceptual framework.  In considering the role of detractor, we looked for different themes surrounding the reasons behind the most salient impetus for the label.  We found that individuals tended to detract from the process related to four main themes - they were either resistant, a couch potato, a time waster, or too competitive. 

• The role of resistant seemed to be the most complex for us. Resistant behaviors brought negative energy.  Resisters included those who were multi-tasking, those who made off-topic or intentionally negative comments, or both. Body language of resistant individuals often conveyed disinterest or overt negativity.   Sometimes the resistance led to leaders needing to reframe while other times the person moved to the “couch potato” role.
• “Couch potatoes,” as we have labeled them, tended to sit back and not share their valuable voice. “Couch potato syndrome” could be caused because someone was newer to the group or didn’t feel that their voice was valued. Couch potatoes may have felt that others had already contributed all important ideas.  One of our couch potatoes actively resisted the process of conceptual framework creation by claiming that they “just wanted to teach” and all this administrative stuff is not why they took the job.
• Time wasters stole the floor and spent too much time sharing their opinions. When they spoke, others didn’t feel included and time management was sometimes needed to get them back on track with the overall mission.
• Those who were competitive were looking to portray an academic advantage, so this role could be closely tied to the time waster role.  In the creation of a conceptual framework, drawing upon theories and history is necessary. Competitive individuals seemed to feel the need to “air” their knowledge in front of the group.  We recommend groups identify ahead of time that folks in higher education often have the tendency to want to abundantly share their knowledge and work to develop a signal or method for people to say what is important (or write it) but concede to the greater good of moving forward in a timely manner.

Interestingly, people could vacillate sometimes, portraying attitudes that were unhelpful (crossing arms, being distracted by technology, making negative comments, etc.) while occasionally inserting meaningful comments.   As mentioned earlier, intellectual conflict in the process was actually valued because it helped to strengthen the end result. Also, individuals who were primarily detractors did not always detract from the process, sometimes they also contributed -thus we have the role category of both.  Sometimes individuals displayed behaviors that were helpful and at other times their behaviors detracted from forward momentum. 

Some members may feel very engaged with the process and conversation, while others may not have as much to contribute. There are a variety of reasons for the disparity in contribution levels, but of importance is for the leader to engage with the work of helping all come into the conversation.  Sometimes personal invitations at group meetings could be extended to solicit input from those who are withholding. But other times, private coaching conversations may be necessary to scaffold the understanding of weaker or resistant group members.  

During the process of conceptual framework conversations, implementing an “exit ticket” component may be valuable. The exit ticket would allow individuals to weigh-in with the group leader on how they are experiencing the process. The exit ticket would allow group members to express if they are feeling heard and provide indications about other topics that need to be considered or perspectives to evaluate.

After

After the creation of the conceptual framework, we began to use it in our work. We have come across some challenges and share them here to help others in the implementation process.  Now that we are living the conceptual framework, we are able to remark on some considerations that may make implementation smoother as departments carry on day-to-day business.   

After Implementation:

1. Have a plan for getting new people on board. 
2. Use the framework when making hiring decisions and when staffing courses.
3. Communicate the framework to students and stakeholders (administration, adjuncts, marketing, and advisory).
4. Arrange seminars to engage around each of the areas to develop shared understanding. 
5. Have a process for critique - Stakeholders including the administration, students, advisory board, accreditation team, and university marketing may have input to share that makes the framework implementation stronger and smoother. 

Figure 5 highlights and summarizes information that leadership will want to consider as a process is developed to create and utilize a conceptual framework.

Figure 5. Considerations in various phases of development.

Conclusion

Conceptual frameworks, like vision and mission statements, can either be driving documents that form the foundation of Teacher Preparation Program [TPP] work, or they can gather dust and be forgotten. Devising a way to purposefully involve department colleagues in the creation, aids in a shared ownership of the work of the department. To keep the conceptual framework alive, the department should implement it across their work for a variety of purposes. The conceptual framework can act as a road map for program development and revitalization. A TPP can continuously use the framework as a tool for assessment by asking if the department is implementing the ideas effectively. If not, the department can engage in collaboration around further implementation and improvement. TPP decisions can be driven by the ideas contained in the conceptual framework. When new ideas and perspectives arise within the department and educational research, the TPP can recalibrate their ideas around the conceptual framework or may consider revising it. Consideration should be given to how, and how often, the framework is revised. TPPs must determine if the document will be revised at accreditation only, or if revisions can be made in the meantime and for what reasons. A conceptual framework inherently contains a consensus of the faculty’s driving ideas and philosophies, so that it serves as a basis for all departmental work. 

References

Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed.). ASCD.

Darling-Hammond, L. & Hammerness, K. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. In Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. Jossey-Bass.

Datnow, A. (2011). Collaboration and contrived collegiality: Revisiting Hargreaves in the age of accountability. Journal of Educational Change. 12(2): 147-158. 

Delbecq, A. L. &VandeVen, A. H. (1971). A group process model for problem identification and planning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7, 466–491.

Delbecq A. L., VandeVen A. H., and Gustafson D. H., (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and delphi processes, Scott Foresman.

Fuller, F. F. (1974). A conceptual framework for a personalized teacher education program, Theory Into Practice, 13:2, 112-122.

Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. Teacher’s College Press.

Hartnett, T. (2011). Consensus-oriented decision-making: The CODM model for facilitating groups to widespread agreement. New Society Publishers.  

Kishor, N., & Godfrey, M. (1999). The effect of information framing on academic task completion. Educational Psychology, 19(1), 91–102. 

Partelow, L. (2019, December 3). What to make of declining enrollment in teacher preparation programs.   Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues /education-k-12 /reports/2019/12/03/477311/make-declining-enrollment-teacher-preparation-programs/

Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Simon and Schuster. 

Rodman, H. (1980). Are conceptual frameworks necessary for theory building? The case of family sociology. The Sociological Quarterly, 21(3), 429-441.

Shields, P. & Rangarjan, N. (2013). A playbook for research methods: Integrating conceptual frameworks and project management. [1]. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.

Zakrzewski, V. (2015). How to build trust in schools. Greater Good Magazine. Retrieved May 25, 2018, from https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item /how_to_build_trust_in_schools.