The thesis selected for this review was an interpretative phenomenological analysis study. The study examines the experiences of five principals who were placed in low-performing schools as “turnaround” principals. Mayo (2018) proposed the following research question: “How do principals make sense of and explain collective teacher efficacy in a turnaround school?” The researcher discussed the importance of the study as a way to eliminate the opportunity gap that currently exists between students in urban districts and those in wealthier districts. Mayo (2018) posits that "persistent educational disparities, combined with technical reforms and legislative mandates that have done little to advance student achievement, suggest the need to better understand the professional practice of teachers as a means of changing the path of urban students. » ». Mayo (2018) identified three key concepts, professional capital, teacher collaboration, and collective teacher efficacy, around which she generated ten semi-structured interview questions. She conducted face-to-face interviews with each of the five directors that lasted between an hour and 90 minutes. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayStudy results indicate that the five recovery directors “initiated systems and structures to build collective effectiveness teachers”. The principals all did this by creating opportunities for teachers to collaborate in meaningful ways, which led to improved student achievement and the removal of schools from the lowest-performing school lists in the state of Massachusetts. Mayo (2018) asserts that the results of his study should help policymakers understand that replacing educators as a model for reform may not be as effective as adopting structures that strengthen professional practice by strengthening the collective efficacy of teachers “as an intentional strategy for school recovery”. I found this thesis personally inspiring and motivating as an educator. Mayo's perspective as a scholar and practitioner added credibility and realism to his study. The position statement gives a clear representation of Mayo's personal educational philosophies and why this particular research was important to her as a superintendent, mother, teacher, and political operative. Analysis The introduction to Mayo's thesis poses a clear research question and practice problem. The author provides many details on the theoretical framework. She very effectively shows the reader how she arrived at her research question, not only through her review of current research, but also in her position statement where she explains how her life and professional experiences have influenced her frame of reference. . The theoretical framework of the problem of practice provides a clear and easy to understand process which will be explored through interviews with the five principals selected for the study. This dissertation's literature review focused on research on collective teacher efficacy, collective teacher efficacy as a group construct, and the effect of collective teacher efficacy on achievement students and school culture. The second section of the literature review focused on the role that teacher collaboration plays inthe development of the collective effectiveness of teachers. The literature review provided compelling and compelling background information to the reader and also provided a section on research issues that have been noted regarding research on teacher self- and collective efficacy. The review provided a comprehensive view of current research on collective teacher efficacy, but some confusion existed in the section on teacher collaboration. In the literature review section on teacher collaboration and collective efficacy, Mayo (2018) mentions a study by Goddard et al. (2007) that “identified an indirect relationship between teacher collaboration for instructional improvement and student achievement.” This same reference is repeated on page 46 of the magazine. The statement seemed incongruous with what Mayo was positing. After it was repeated a second time in two pages, I was forced to go read the newspaper article myself. I found the part of the article that Mayo was referring to, but I still felt that his explanation and interpretation of this article in his literature review left the reader perplexed and confused. As I read the original research article, I realized that Goddard et al. (2007) did not refer to an indirect relationship in the statistical sense of two variables moving in opposite directions. As a student at the very beginning of my doctoral journey, I was very interested in reading the third chapter of the thesis, research design. After reading Creswell's (2014) chapter on choosing a research approach, I immediately knew that I am drawn to the constructivist worldview and would likely be predisposed to qualitative research. Mayo very clearly and thoroughly explains the methodology of an interpretative phenomenological analysis. The way Mayo selected its participants was fair and representative of the target population. The study design seems very appropriate for the research question and practice problem. Mayo explains how she will achieve reliability in her study using several methods, including member checking. In my opinion, the use of member checking is a way to go the extra mile to ensure that the researcher's perceptions and interpretations of interviews accurately reflect the intentions of the study participants. Later in the study, in the research findings chapter, Mayo (2018) discusses repeatedly reviewing interview audiotapes in order to “account for tone and inferences.” This once again signaled to me, the reader, the great care and consideration she took to ensure her research was trustworthy. In chapter four, Research Results, I was struck by the detail and richness of the text's description. What I had read in Ary's (2014) section on phenomenological research on horizontalization came to life for me when I studied the tables that included direct quotes from the participants. The methodology of studying the interviews multiple times to extract common themes was evident. In the final chapter, Mayo (2018) discussed the findings, limitations, and implications for educational practice. This section is also filled with rich descriptions and direct quotes from participants, which provide the evidence needed to support the conclusions. Mayo (2018) discussed the limitations of her study, namely that the participants were all female and from the eastern part of the state. Although these were reasonable limits, I did not consider them to be.