The thesis selected for this critique was an interpretive phenomenological analysis study. The study investigates the experiences of five principals who were placed in low-performing schools as “reversion” principals. Mayo (2018) proposed the research question, “how do principals make sense of and explain teachers' collective efficacy in a turnaround school?” The researcher discussed the importance of the study as a means to eliminate the opportunity gap that currently exists between students in urban districts and students in more affluent districts. Mayo (2018) posits that “continued educational disparity, combined with technical reforms and legislative mandates that have done little to move the needle on student achievement, suggests the need to gain deep insight into teachers' professional practice as a means to change the course for urban students”. Mayo (2018) identified three key concepts, professional capital, teacher collaboration, and collective teacher efficacy, around which he generated ten semi-structured interview questions. He conducted face-to-face interviews with each of the five principals that lasted from an hour to 90 minutes. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The results of the study indicated that the five turnaround principles “launched systems and structures to build collective teacher efficacy.” All principals 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 lists of low-performing schools in the state of Massachusetts. Mayo (2018) posits that the findings of his study should help policy makers understand that replacing educators as a model for reform may not be as effective as adopting structures that build professional practice through building collective efficacy of teachers “as an intentional strategy for school change”. I found this thesis personally inspiring and motivating as an educator. Mayo's perspective as a scholar-practitioner added credibility and realism to her study. The positionality statement provided a clear representation of Mayo's personal educational philosophies and why this particular research was important to her as a superintendent, mother, teacher, and policy agent. Analysis The introduction of Mayo's thesis provides a clear research question and a practical 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 positionality statement where she discusses how her life and professional experiences have influenced her frame of reference. The theoretical framework for the practice problem provides a clear and easy to understand process that will be explored through interviews with the five principals selected for the study. This thesis's literature review focused on research on teacher collective efficacy, teacher collective efficacy as a group construct, and the effect of teacher collective efficacy on student achievement and school culture. The second section of the literature review focused on the role that teacher collaboration plays in developing collective teacher efficacy. The literature review provided information ofcompelling and persuasive basis for the reader and also provided a section on the research issues that have been noted regarding research on the teacher self and collective efficacy. The review provided a comprehensive view of current research on teacher collective efficacy, but there was some confusion 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 review. The statement appeared to be incongruent with what Mayo postulated. After it was repeated a second time within two pages, I was forced to go and read the newspaper article myself. I found the part of the article that Mayo referenced, but still felt that his explanation and interpretation of that article in his literature review left the reader perplexed and confused. After reading the original research article, I realized that Goddard et al. (2007) was not referring to an indirect relationship in the statistical sense of two variables moving in opposite directions. As a student in the very early stages of my doctoral journey, I was very interested in reading the third chapter of the thesis, the research design. After reading Creswell's (2014) chapter on selecting a research approach, I quickly realized that I would be attracted to the constructivist worldview and would probably be predisposed to qualitative research. Mayo explains the methodology of an interpretive phenomenological analysis very clearly and thoroughly. The way Mayo selected its participants was fair and representative of the target population. The research design of the study appears to be very appropriate to the research question and practice problem. Mayo explains how to achieve trustworthiness in his study using several methods, including member checking. In my opinion, the use of member checking is a means of going the extra mile to ensure that the researcher's perceptions and interpretations of the interviews accurately represent the intentions of the study participants. Later in the study, in the research findings chapter, Mayo (2018) repeatedly discusses reviewing audio recordings of interviews in order to “consider tone and inference.” This once again signaled to me, the reader, the great care and consideration he was taking to ensure his research was reliable. In chapter four, Research Results, I was struck by the detail and richness of the description in the text. What I had read in Ary's (2014) section on phenomenological research on horizontalization came to life for me as I studied the tables that included direct quotes from participants. The methodology of repeatedly studying interviews to identify common themes was evident. In the final chapter, Mayo (2018) discussed findings, limitations, and implications for educational practice. This section is also filled with rich descriptions and direct quotes from participants, which provide the supporting evidence needed to make the conclusions valid. Mayo (2018) discussed the limitations of her study, as the participants were all female and from the eastern part of the state. While these are reasonable limitations, I did not feel that they were significant enough to truly influence the outcome of the study. However, I must admit that I began to wonder if the gender of the principal might have an effect on how.