This explorative study offers much needed perspective on students' role and development as instructional leaders (Halverson & Clifford, 2013) through answering the following questions: (a) How can students be involved in distributions of instructional leadership in a studio learning environment; (b) What is the value of their contribution; and (c) What patterns of distributed instructional leadership (DIL) facilitate student involvement? I chose an animation studio at a large western university for the setting, on account of its collective-leadership structure involving students. I randomly sampled a pre-recorded data set of participants' studio interactions and participant interviews to use for the study; participants involved students, faculty, and industry mentors involved in studio productions during qualitative data collection of studio interactions.My method of data analysis involved pairing the DIL framework with additional approaches, per analysis focus: An ethnographic approach (Merriam, 2002) for a birds-eye overview of the setting influencing studio interactions, Interaction analysis (Jordan & Henderson, 1995) for in-depth exploration of studio interactions, and Spradley's (1980) recommendations for qualitative analysis ensuring trustworthiness of codes and themes.The study's findings answered each of the three exploratory questions, revealing that students voluntarily took ownership for their learning, and engaged in an instructional leadership capacity over support for their needs and interests. They were valuable in negotiating mutually beneficial compromises as contributed to member capacity and organizational development in academia and industry. Studio leadership and policies facilitated students' interdependent development as instructional leaders through providing guided autonomy in their supportive and formal roles in the studio. More specifically, the studio's deliberate focus on students' development of leadership virtues shaped students' experience and approach toward interpersonal and technical problem solving as contributed to studio production and overall development.Pairing the DIL framework with additional methods per analysis focus was a useful approach in exploring in exploring the study questions. Future research should replicate the study in different contexts to add perspective to the questions asked. It should also assess the verity of patterns DIL that this study delineates as contributing to individual and organizational capacity, and school development.

Abstract is available to download.

The purpose of this explanatory, mixed methods case study was to examine instructional leadership within the context of rural secondary schools. This investigation followed an explanatory mixed methods design of sequential quantitative and qualitative phases (QUAL→quan). For the quantitative phase, the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS) was administered to eight principals and 312 teachers in eight rural secondary schools in the southeastern United States. Descriptive analysis of principal and teacher results found that principals were most engaged in the subscales of framing school goals, coordinating curriculum, and promoting professional development and least engaged in the subscales of maintaining high visibility, protecting instructional time, and providing teaching and learning incentives. Independent t-tests found statistically significant differences in the instructional leadership of principals based on four contextual factors: school size, school SES, principal administrative experience, and district funding (per pupil expenditure). Two principals and their schools were selected for participation in the qualitative phase of the study. Interviews and observations of principals and interviews with teachers added insight to the findings of the quantitative phase. Participants characterized the principalship as a multifaceted job where secondary school principals fulfilled four leadership roles: instructional leader, district/community liaison, organizational manager, and problem solver. Participants also identified important instructional leadership behaviors not measured by the PIMRS, such as hiring effective teachers, providing instructional resources, and sharing leadership responsibilities. The study concludes with suggestions for future instructional leadership research and practical advice for rural secondary school principals.

The purpose of this study was to explain and describe the differences in a principals and four teachers perceptions and understandings of instructional leadership and supervision. In the literature review of Blasé and Blasé, Glanz, McEwan, Andrews and Soders, Quinn, and Hallinger and Heck, to name a few, I examined two focal areas: instructional leadership and supervision. The first area I examined was reasons for the lack of principal instructional leadership. I described the historical context, purpose, function, and personal qualities required for instructional leadership. Then, I discussed the negative and positive impacts that the implementation of instructional leadership may have on teachers. The second area I explored was the concept of supervision and, based on instructional supervision literature, I examined two core concepts that emerged: staff development and reflection. My conceptual framework for instructional leadership was based primarily on the works of Blasé and Blasé and Glanz and was centred on supervision, staff development, and reflection.<p> For the case study I used questionnaires and interviews conducted with the principal from Colourful School, along with two teachers from the primary grades and two teachers from the elementary grades. I collected data from the questionnaires and interviews of the principal and the four teachers I analyzed, and aggregated to examine the respondents differences in perceptions on instructional leadership and supervision.<p> Regarding the theme of instructional leadership, the findings revealed a few differences between the principals and teachers perceptions. Concerning the theme of supervision, differences emerged about the purpose of supervision. There was no consensus on the portion of time a principal should spend on instructional leadership; none of the teachers chose the same portion of time as the principal did. Another difference was with the definition of instructional leadership. Teachers focused on personal characteristics to define an instructional leader, whereas the principal emphasized enhancing instruction. A third difference on instructional leadership centred on the impact of the instructional leader on a school; the principal focused on establishing school culture, whereas the teachers emphasized the support teachers must provide the principal. With respect to the theme of supervision, the difference concerned the purpose of supervision. The teachers perceived supervision as being primarily evaluative, while the principals perception was that purpose of supervision was for teacher growth and recognition.<p> The implications of these findings emphasized the need for school educators to engage in clear communication and on-going dialogue about the responsibilities of the principal. Also, clarification is needed on the purpose and process of supervision. Finally, the policies and procedures needed to be put in place to provide the necessary professional development to enhance both principals and teachers skills and abilities to do their jobs more effectively.

The purpose of this study was to explain and describe the differences in a principals and four teachers perceptions and understandings of instructional leadership and supervision. In the literature review of Blasé and Blasé, Glanz, McEwan, Andrews and Soders, Quinn, and Hallinger and Heck, to name a few, I examined two focal areas: instructional leadership and supervision. The first area I examined was reasons for the lack of principal instructional leadership. I described the historical context, purpose, function, and personal qualities required for instructional leadership. Then, I discussed the negative and positive impacts that the implementation of instructional leadership may have on teachers. The second area I explored was the concept of supervision and, based on instructional supervision literature, I examined two core concepts that emerged: staff development and reflection. My conceptual framework for instructional leadership was based primarily on the works of Blasé and Blasé and Glanz and was centred on supervision, staff development, and reflection.<p> For the case study I used questionnaires and interviews conducted with the principal from Colourful School, along with two teachers from the primary grades and two teachers from the elementary grades. I collected data from the questionnaires and interviews of the principal and the four teachers I analyzed, and aggregated to examine the respondents differences in perceptions on instructional leadership and supervision.<p> Regarding the theme of instructional leadership, the findings revealed a few differences between the principals and teachers perceptions. Concerning the theme of supervision, differences emerged about the purpose of supervision. There was no consensus on the portion of time a principal should spend on instructional leadership; none of the teachers chose the same portion of time as the principal did. Another difference was with the definition of instructional leadership. Teachers focused on personal characteristics to define an instructional leader, whereas the principal emphasized enhancing instruction. A third difference on instructional leadership centred on the impact of the instructional leader on a school; the principal focused on establishing school culture, whereas the teachers emphasized the support teachers must provide the principal. With respect to the theme of supervision, the difference concerned the purpose of supervision. The teachers perceived supervision as being primarily evaluative, while the principals perception was that purpose of supervision was for teacher growth and recognition.<p> The implications of these findings emphasized the need for school educators to engage in clear communication and on-going dialogue about the responsibilities of the principal. Also, clarification is needed on the purpose and process of supervision. Finally, the policies and procedures needed to be put in place to provide the necessary professional development to enhance both principals and teachers skills and abilities to do their jobs more effectively.

This dissertation was designed to gain insight in the area of central office instructional leadership support from the perception of the high school principal. With increasing standards and high student performance expectations coupled with strict federal and state accountability measures, it is impossible for the high school principal to bear the sole responsibility of meeting the needs of their students, staff, and community without further support. Central office is a critical factor in school improvement. The primary aim of this study was to provide insight and a deep understanding how successful high school principals feel supported as the instructional leader specifically in the area of planning, coordinating, and evaluating teaching and the curriculum. The research was guided by a single overarching question: What are high school principal perceptions of support given to them by district central office administrators in the areas of planning, coordinating, and evaluating teaching and the curriculum? Qualitative research was selected for this study to allow for deep and thorough investigation of a small group of high school principals' beliefs regarding the central office administrator instructional leadership support. Interviews were conducted with six successful high school principals from three large school districts. The findings that emerged from the interviews were categorized into eight themes including: the school district focus; instructional leader toolbox; effective use of data; deployment of curriculum and instruction; quality professional development; collaboration; connections; and communication. A synthesis of participants' responses and prior research lead to three overall conclusions: setting high learning expectations; focusing on curriculum and instruction; and establishing district-campus partnerships. Campus principals need assistance in meeting the high standards and challenges they face today. District central office administrators can assist principals become the instructional leader all schools need. This study begins to fill the gap in the literature on how high school principals can be supported by district central office administrators in the areas of planning, coordinating, and evaluating of teaching and the curriculum.

Part of a larger study of high-performing districts in Ontario, this mixed method (qualitative and quantitative) study identified school district actions perceived by principals to help them make sense of their leadership work and contribute to their sense of efficacy in carrying out that work. Qualitative data included interviews with 23 principals, 10 senior district leaders, and 5 trustees in two high-performing districts in the province. Narrative analysis was used to analyze these data. Quantitative data were provided by the responses of 1,563 principals and 250 senior district leaders to two forms of a survey which included sub-sets of questions about variables of special interest to this study. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the survey results. Interview results showed that in the two study districts, each of 12 district actions framing the study were perceived to influence principals’ efficacy or principals’ sensemaking or both. Of those 12 district actions, principals in one of the two study districts identified 8 of the 12 district actions as especially influential in helping them to make sense of their work and to develop their sense of efficacy for carrying out that work; 10 of the 12 district actions were identified by principals in the second study district. Four of the 12 district actions were common across the responses of principals in both study districts including: networking interactions among principals; job-embedded and regional professional development opportunities; support from superintendents with the writing of school improvement plans; and emphasis and support with data interpretation and use for decision making processes. Except for one of these four district actions (use of evidence for decision making), survey results pointed to the same sets of district actions as particularly influential to both principals’ efficacy and sensemaking. This research adds to the understanding of what districts do that helps their school leaders work more effectively. Implications are identified for the actions of district leaders and for future research.

Public education is in the ongoing process of developing student-focused and personalized learning approaches. This transformation effort requires school staffs to shift cultures toward collaboration and continuous professional development in pursuit of meaningful and equitable learning success for all students. In order to address this need, close examination of social interactions during recurring professional discussions is required. The purpose of this sociocultural study was to investigate how a group of educators collectively made sense of pedagogical practices and beliefs over time, and to identify practices conducive to their professional learning in a situated series focused on instructional leadership within a British Columbia school district. Participants were 10 newly appointed vice-principals and vice-principal candidates, one assistant superintendent, and myself as the researcher and series facilitator. Data collection included audiotaping of five 3-hour sessions across a three-month period, participant reflections written during sessions and in blog posts between sessions, and associated artefact and macro-Discourse data. Transcriptions provided the primary data source for the critical discourse analysis (Gee, 2011a) and sociocultural discourse analysis (Mercer, 2008, 2010) methods. Findings indicated shifts in the nature of participation for the group of educators across sessions, including the development of sense of community, collective familiarization with and application of productive discursive interactions, and the co-construction of common pedagogical knowledge. The findings extend the literature on educational leadership and professional development, as I elaborate how these shifts emerged as a collective endeavour over time and discuss noteworthy supportive conditions. / Graduate

The purpose of this study was to determine the extent secondary assistant principals in large Texas high schools demonstrate behaviors consistent with what the literature describes as instructional leadership. Three hundred seventy principals and assistant principals of large Texas high schools participated in this study. The Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (Hallinger, 1987) was used to quantify instructional leadership in 10 different job functions. The study found that (a) assistant principals perceive themselves as exhibiting instructional leadership behaviors at a high frequency, (b) principals perceive their assistant principals exhibiting instructional leadership behaviors at a high frequency, (c) the perceptions of the principals and assistant principals were similar, and (d) principals and assistant principals reported more engagement in instructional leadership responsibilities and felt more pressured over the last five years under the new accountability and rating requirements of No Child Left Behind and the state assessments. These findings suggested that the administrative roles and responsibilities in high schools should be restructured to allow assistant principals to focus on instructional leadership.

AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OFNdeye Helene Oumou Diack, for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Curriculum & Instruction, presented on October 23rd, 2019, at Southern Illinois University Carbondale.TITLE: ADDRESSING THE CRITICAL STEPS OF BUILDING A CULTURE OF COLLABORATION IN A PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITY (PLC): A CASE STUDYMAJOR PROFESSOR: Dr. John McIntyre This case study examined PLC leaders and team members during their first year setting up their PLC collaborative process. It investigated the PLC design and activities, the team members lived experiences during the setting up of the PLC, and its impact on members’ interpersonal relationships and also their personal and professional growth. I collected the data by means of observations of team meetings, PLC documents analysis, an interview of an administrator, and a focus group of a team of three Caucasian American female experienced elementary teachers. The research took place in a school district at a semi-rural Midwestern town in the USA during the 2018-2019 school year. DuFour et al. (2016) model of a PLC provided the main framework for the study that took into account Situated Learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991) and Social Constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978). The findings showed that despite hindrances due to the design process, accountability measures of school improvement reporting weights, and the individual PLC members’ personalities, the team members I studied, unlike some other teams in the building, were doing a great collaborative work. They were driven by collective commitment to the PLC mission, values, visions and goals. They showed resiliency that is strengthened by mutual trust, mutual support, mutual respect, and protection for each other. They had a high level of dedication to improve their students’ achievements by means of common formative assessment of their academic and behavioral issues, intervention plans to address issues, and a very rigorous benchmarking of collectively designed instructional units. Vulnerability of both administrators and team members were evidenced, and the limitations of the study, recommendations for improvement, and implication for Policy Makers, as well as directions for future research are provided.