Action research—the process of systematically testing solutions to instructional problems—has been proven effective for decades. Teachers who engage in action research improve their practice, build confidence, and create measurable student outcomes.

So why don't more schools use it?

Because traditional action research feels:

• Too academic: Dense literature reviews, formal write-ups, IRB approvals
• Too time-consuming: Semester-long or year-long cycles that lose momentum
• Too isolated: Individual teachers working alone without administrative support
• Too directionless: Teachers identifying problems without clear strategic alignment to school priorities

Principals want to use action research. Teachers want to improve their practice. But the traditional model is too complicated and too slow for the realities of a busy school year.

Lead Spark Team changes that.

The shared belief among teachers that, working together, they can positively impact student learning.

According to John Hattie's meta-analysis of over 1,400 educational studies spanning 300 million students, collective teacher efficacy has an effect size of 1.39—the highest of any factor influencing student achievement.

What does that mean in practical terms?

An effect size of 1.39 is equivalent to 3+ years of student growth in a single school year.

It's more powerful than:

• Feedback (0.70)
• Classroom discussion (0.82)
• Teacher-student relationships (0.52)
• Reducing class size (0.21)
• Homework (0.29)

Why is collective efficacy so powerful?

When teachers believe they can solve problems together, three things happen:

1. They take ownership of challenges instead of waiting for external solutions
2. They persist when strategies don't work immediately
3. They learn faster by sharing insights and refining approaches collaboratively

But here's the key: Collective efficacy isn't built through workshops or motivational speeches.

It's built through structured cycles of collaborative inquiry where teachers test strategies, see results, and reflect together.

That's exactly what Lead Spark Team provides.

Traditional action research projects span 6–12 months. That might work in a university setting, but in K–12 schools, momentum is everything.

Lead Spark Team uses 2–8 week cycles because research shows short, focused inquiry builds capacity faster than long, complex projects.

Why short cycles work:

1. They're sustainable.
Teachers can commit to a 4-week experiment. Asking for a year-long commitment? That's where participation drops.

2. They create quick wins.
Seeing results in weeks—not months—builds confidence and motivation. Teams experience success and want to try again.

3. They allow iteration.
A 4-week cycle means teams can test 3–4 strategies per semester. More attempts = more learning = more capacity.

4. They align with school rhythms.
Two weeks = before the next grade-level meeting. Four weeks = one instructional unit. Eight weeks = a quarter. Schools operate in short cycles. Action research should too.

Research backing:

According to Learning Forward's Standards for Professional Learning, effective professional development is:

• Job-embedded: Happens in the flow of work, not extracted from it
• Sustained: Repeated over time, not one-and-done
• Collaborative: Teachers learn with and from each other

Short cycles check all three boxes. Long projects? Not so much.

Here's why:

1. Alignment with school priorities.
When principals identify challenges, teacher teams work on problems that actually move the school forward—not isolated, disconnected projects.

2. Strategic direction + teacher ownership.
Administrators set the direction. Teachers own the solution. This balance creates focus without micromanagement.

3. Built-in support.
When administrators activate teams, they're committing to facilitate and support the process. Teams don't feel abandoned or directionless.

4. Collective efficacy requires collective focus.
Random, individual teacher projects don't build school-wide capacity. Strategic, principal-identified challenges do.

Research backing:

According to Stanford SCALE's research on instructional rounds, administrator-led instructional improvement works when:

• Leaders identify problems of practice collaboratively
• Teachers are activated to test solutions systematically
• Teams reflect on evidence together
• Learning is shared across the school

That's the Lead Spark Team model.

You identify the challenge. Your teachers solve it. Everyone learns.

Traditional action research includes steps that work well in academia but kill momentum in schools. Here's what we've removed—and what we've replaced it with.

❌ Removed: Extensive Literature Reviews

Traditional approach:
Teachers spend weeks reading academic papers to identify research-backed strategies.

Lead Spark Team approach:
The platform recommends 2–3 vetted, high-impact practices tailored to your challenge—with clear descriptions and citations. You choose. Teachers implement.

Time saved: 4–6 weeks → 5 minutes

❌ Removed: Complex Data Collection Protocols

Traditional approach:
Design surveys, create observation rubrics, establish inter-rater reliability, analyze with statistical software.

Lead Spark Team approach:
Define simple success indicators: "What will students be doing differently?" Collect basic evidence (observations, work samples, quick check-ins).

Time saved: 2–3 weeks → 10 minutes

❌ Removed: Formal Write-Ups and Publication

Traditional approach:
Write a 15–30 page research paper formatted for academic journals.

Lead Spark Team approach:
Reflect with your team: Adopt, adapt, or abandon? Document what you learned in the Team Cycle Library. Move to the next challenge.

Time saved: 3–4 weeks → 1 meeting

✅ What We've Kept: The Core Elements That Build Capacity

• Identifying a focused problem
• Connecting to research
• Testing a strategy systematically
• Collecting evidence
• Reflecting on results
• Making informed decisions

Everything else? Removed.

Monday (30 minutes): Principal logs into Lead Spark Team and identifies the challenge:

"Students in 4th grade aren't retaining math vocabulary."

The platform recommends 2-3 research-backed strategies:

1. Frayer Model for vocabulary instruction
2. Math discourse protocols
3. Student-created anchor charts

Principal chooses: Math discourse protocols (effect size: 0.82)

Principal selects 4 teachers to form the team.

Platform generates materials in under 5 minutes:

✓ Mini PD Presentation (20-35 minutes)
Research overview on math discourse, why it works, examples of implementation

✓ Facilitator Guide
Talking points and prompts for presenting the PD (not a script—flexible guidance)

✓ Parent Letter
Communication to families explaining the strategy and how to reinforce math vocabulary at home

✓ Suggested Learning Walk Look-Fors (3-5 items)
Observable indicators for when principal/coach visits classrooms:

• Students using sentence stems during partner talk
• Evidence of wait time for processing
• Math vocabulary visible on anchor charts

Note: LeadSpark Team does NOT generate meeting guides or check-in scripts. Teachers are already used to following curriculum scripts—this platform gives structure but lets teams decide HOW to collaborate and facilitate their own process.

Friday (45 minutes): Principal facilitates mini PD session with the 4-teacher team using the generated presentation:

• Presents the research on math discourse (why it works)
• Shows examples of implementation
• Asks team: "What would this look like in YOUR classrooms with YOUR students?"
• Teachers discuss and co-create their implementation plan together (they decide the specifics—not the principal)
• Team sets shared success indicator: "Students use math vocabulary during partner talk"

Parent letters go home that week explaining what families can expect and how to support at home.

Teachers leave with:

• Clarity on the strategy
• Autonomy to implement in ways that fit their context
• Shared commitment to try it

No scripts. No mandates. Just structure + teacher ownership.

Daily: Teachers test math discourse protocols in their classrooms:

• Structured partner talk with math sentence stems
• Intentional wait time for processing
• Visible math vocabulary on anchor charts

Principal conducts Learning Walks (2-3 times/week):
Uses the platform's "Look-Fors" to observe implementation across classrooms:

• ✓ Students using sentence stems during discussions
• ✓ Evidence of wait time (teacher pausing before calling on students)
• ✓ Math vocabulary posted and referenced

Principal provides feedback to individual teachers based on observations.

Mid-Cycle Check-In (Team decides when/how to meet—no scripted guide):

Teachers gather to discuss what they're seeing:

• What's working? Sentence stems help. Kids are using more precise language.
• What's challenging? Some students dominate discussions while others stay silent.
• What should we adjust? Team brainstorms together and decides to add role cards (Speaker, Listener, Recorder) to balance participation.

Teachers refine their approach based on what they're observing with THEIR students in THEIR context.

Platform doesn't tell them how to run this meeting—they own the conversation.

Friday (45 minutes): Team meets to reflect on the full cycle:

Evidence discussed:

• Principal shares observations from Learning Walks: "I saw sentence stems in use in all 4 classrooms. Students were more confident explaining their thinking."
• Teachers share: "85% of students are now using math vocabulary during partner talk—up from 40% at baseline"
• Student work samples show improved vocabulary retention

Team discusses:

• What did we learn about OUR students?
• What did we learn about THIS strategy?
• Should we adopt, adapt, or abandon this approach?

Team decision: Adopt math discourse protocols as standard practice in 4th grade math. Document what worked in Team Cycle Library for future reference.

Outcome:

✓ The team solved the problem (vocabulary retention improved)
✓ Teachers built a new skill (math discourse facilitation)
✓ Knowledge stays in the school (documented in Team Cycle Library)
✓ Teachers know how to do this process again for the next challenge

Next cycle? Team is ready to tackle a new instructional challenge—without waiting for a consultant.

This is what capacity building looks like: structure + autonomy + collaboration.

If action research feels complicated, teachers won't do it.

If it takes 6 months, principals won't prioritize it.

If it requires extensive training, schools won't sustain it.

Lead Spark Team makes action research simple enough to use every day.

• 30 minutes to activate a team (not 6 weeks to plan)
• 2–8 week cycles (not semester-long projects)
• Ready-to-use guides (not starting from scratch)
• Research built in (not hunting through journals)
• Administrator support (not isolated teacher projects)

Simple doesn't mean simplistic.
We haven't removed rigor. We've removed bureaucracy.

The research foundation is rock-solid. The process is doable.

That's how you build capacity that lasts.

Lead Spark Team is grounded in decades of research on teacher collaboration, collective efficacy, and instructional improvement. Here are the key sources that inform our approach:

Collective Teacher Efficacy:

• Hattie, J. (2023). Visible Learning: The Sequel. Routledge.
  View Hattie's Rankings →

Professional Learning Standards:

• Learning Forward. (2022). Standards for Professional Learning.
  View Standards →

Action Research in Schools:

• Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity (SCALE). Instructional Rounds and Collaborative Inquiry.
  Learn More →

Teacher Leadership & Collaboration:

• ASCD (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development). Teacher Leadership and Professional Learning Communities.
  Explore Resources →

Effect of Professional Development:

• TNTP (The New Teacher Project). The Mirage: Confronting the Hard Truth About Our Quest for Teacher Development.
  Read Report →

You know the research works.
You know your teachers are capable.
You know traditional PD isn't cutting it.

Lead Spark Team gives you a simple, research-backed system to activate teacher teams and build permanent capacity—in 2–8 week cycles your school can actually sustain.

March 2026 pilot applications are open. Apply for Pilot Access