Principals' Instructional Leadership and Teacher Development: Teachers' Perspectives

http://eaq.sagepub.com/Educational Administration Quarterly

http://eaq.sagepub.com/content/35/3/349The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0013161X99353003

1999 35: 349Educational Administration QuarterlyJoseph Blase and Jo Blase

Principals' Instructional Leadership and Teacher Development: Teachers' Perspectives

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

University Council for Educational Administration

can be found at:Educational Administration QuarterlyAdditional services and information for

http://eaq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://eaq.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://eaq.sagepub.com/content/35/3/349.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Aug 1, 1999Version of Record >>

at East Carolina University on September 29, 2014eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at East Carolina University on September 29, 2014eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://eaq.sagepub.com/

http://eaq.sagepub.com/content/35/3/349

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.ucea.org

http://eaq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://eaq.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://eaq.sagepub.com/content/35/3/349.refs.html

http://eaq.sagepub.com/content/35/3/349.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Educational Administration Quarterly

Blase,Blase / TEACHERS’ PERSPECTIVES

Principals’ Instructional Leadership andTeacher Development: Teachers’ Perspectives

Joseph BlaseJo Blase

In recent years, reflective, collaborative, inquiry-oriented approaches to supervision ofteachers and teacher development have been discussed in the professional literature.However, few published studies have directly examined teachers’perspectives on princi-pals’everyday instructional leadership characteristics and the impact of those charac-teristics on teachers. This article describes the everyday strategies of principals practic-ing exemplary instructional leadership and how these principals influenced teachers.The data were drawn from a qualitative study of more than 800 teachers in the southeast-ern, midwestern, and northwestern United States. An open-ended questionnaire wasdesigned to provide teachers with the opportunity to identify and describe in detail thecharacteristics of principals that enhanced their classroom instruction and what impactthose characteristics had on them. Inductive analyses of the data generated two majorthemes comprising 11 strategies, which were used to construct the Reflection-Growth(RG) model of instructional leadership. This article emphasizes those strategies and themeanings teachers identified with them.

During the past few years, many school districts throughout the UnitedStates have, in varying degrees, implemented school-based shared decisionmaking in their efforts to restructure schools. Hand in hand with such effortshas been a move to empower teachers, notably in the areas of curriculum,instruction, and staff development (Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996). At thesame time, supervision, as the external imposition of bureaucratic, rationalauthority, has been challenged by many who work to professionalize teach-ing (Glanz & Neville, 1997; Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 1995).

As a result, some of today’s successful schools have become centers ofshared inquiry and decision making and teachers have developed a collec-tive—not an individual—practice of teaching. Teachers are collaborating

349

Educational Administration QuarterlyVol. 35, No. 3 (August 1999) 349-378

© 1999 The University Council for Educational Administration

at East Carolina University on September 29, 2014eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from


with each other and with supervisors in a “kind of mutual nudging in the pro-foundly cooperative search for answers” to instructional problems (Dowling &Sheppard, 1976, p. 5). Instructional leadership is being shared with teachers,and in its most progressive forms it is being cast as coaching, reflection, colle-gial investigation, study teams, explorations into uncertain matters, and prob-lem solving (Glanz & Neville, 1997). Discussions of alternatives, not direc-tives or criticisms, are the focus, and administrators and teachers are workingtogether as “communities of learners” engaged in professional and moralservice to students.

The study we discuss in this article focused on determining teachers’per-spectives on effective instructional leadership. Specifically, two broad ques-tions were examined: What characteristics of school principals positivelyinfluence classroom teaching, and, conversely, what characteristics nega-tively influence classroom teaching? Although we studied both the princi-pals’ characteristics and their specific effects on teachers, the latter are onlybriefly identified here due to space limitations.

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP 1

This section discusses prescriptive models of instructional leadership,general studies of instructional leadership, studies of direct effects on teach-ers and classroom instruction, studies of direct and indirect effects on studentachievement, and research reported in administrator preparation textbooks.

Prescriptive Models of Instructional Leadership

Instructional leadership is often defined as a blend of several tasks, such assupervision of classroom instruction, staff development, and curriculumdevelopment (Smith & Andrews, 1989). Taken together, Glickman (1985)and Pajak (1989) succinctly conceptualize and illuminate the responsibilitiesand activities of what is broadly referred to as instructional leadership. Glick-man (1985) defined the five primary tasks of instructional leadership as directassistance to teachers, group development, staff development, curriculumdevelopment, and action research. He notes that it is the integration of thesetasks that unites teachers’needs with school goals. Pajak’s (1989) research onwhat functions “should” be a part of instructional leadership generated asimilar list of tasks, but also included planning, organizing, facilitatingchange, and motivating staff.

350 Educational Administration Quarterly



In recent years, democratic, collaborative, human resource–based, devel-opmental, and transformational approaches to instructional leadership,among others, have been widely advanced based on the principles of equality(not hierarchy) and reflection and growth (not compliance) (Gordon, 1997).For instance, from a review of models of supervision, Pajak (1993) con-cluded that, in contrast to the common practice of instructional leadership as“reinforcing specific prescribed teacher behavior and skills” (p. 318), theemerging dialogue stresses classroom teaching, curriculum, and staff devel-opment aspects of instructional leadership and “helping teachers discoverand construct professional knowledge and skills” (p. 318). He also reportedthat in much contemporary thinking, learning is viewed as contextual andcomplex, teaching is based on reflective judgment, and schools are seen asdemocratic teaching and learning communities.

Likewise, Schön’s (1988) concept of instructional leadership emphasizescollegial classroom observations and specifically focuses on support, guid-ance, and encouragement of reflective teaching. Glickman (1992) describedideal instructional leadership as a collaborative endeavor enacted in a suppor-tive environment that leads to an all-school action plan. Reitzug and Cross(1993) have discussed an inquiry-oriented practice of instructional leader-ship (i.e., “critical collaboration”) that encourages teacher voice andacknowledges diverse contexts as well as the complexity of teaching; theprincipal’s role is one of facilitating a teacher’s thinking about practice. Bycomparison, Smyth’s (1997) approach is more inclusive; he conceptualizesinstructional leadership as a discursive, collaborative, and critical study ofclassroom interaction to achieve a just and democratic world.

Despite the fact that many approaches to instructional leadership dis-cussed over the past 150 years have been conceptualized as collaborative innature (Cogan, Anderson, & Krajewski, 1993), the practice of instructionalleadership has often been limited primarily to one of inspection, oversight,and judgment of classroom instruction (Gordon, 1997). Gordon states, “Inthe present, control supervision still dominates professional practice” (p. 117).Glanz (1995, p. 107) argues that today’s classroom supervision is a “bureau-cratic legacy of fault finding” and uses terms such as “snoopervision,” “protec-tive political behavior,” and “a private cold war” (after Blumberg, 1980) tocharacterize the field. Sergiovanni (1992) refers to discussions between prin-cipals and teachers about classroom instruction as a “nonevent—a ritual theyparticipate in according to well-established scripts without much conse-quence” (p. 203).

Blase, Blase / TEACHERS’ PERSPECTIVES 351



General Studies of Instructional Leadership DemonstratingSome Direct Effects on Teachers

From a review of the first 10 volumes of theJournal of Curriculum andSupervision—the primary source of published scholarly work in the instruc-tional leadership and classroom supervision area in North America—Short(1995) found 82 articles that addressed various aspects of instructional lead-ership, including legal issues, teacher evaluation practices, the instructionalconference, reflective practice, and areas requiring further inquiry (p. 88).Short concluded that despite its contribution to the field, the journal had fea-tured a dearth of research on the practice of instructional leadership per se.For example, only a few exploratory studies of instructional conferenceshave appeared in the literature despite their long-standing importance toinstructional leadership (e.g., Blase & Blase, 1996; Dungan, 1993; Roberts,1991).

Other studies on principal-teacher interaction have produced some find-ings regarding the influence of principals’ instructional leadership on class-room instruction. In a qualitative case study of effective high school princi-pals’ overall influence on teachers, for instance, Blase (1987) describedseveral instructionally related impacts on teachers’time on task, expectationsfor student achievement, focus, and problem-solving orientation. A subse-quent study linked principals’ leadership with teachers’ consideration andtolerance for students, planning, creativity, and monitoring of student learn-ing (Blase & Roberts, 1994). In a case study of instructional leadership,Reitzug (1994) examined the instructional leadership behaviors of one prin-cipal who provided staff development, modeled inquiry, asked questions,encouraged risk taking, required justification of practices, and critiqued bywandering around. These behaviors led to teachers’ greater critique of prac-tice, consideration of alternatives, teamwork with colleagues, and implemen-tation of innovations. Such instructional leadership behaviors and effects aresimilar to those we found in research focusing on the practices of empower-ing instructional principals (Blase & Blase, 1994, 1997; Blase, Blase, Ander-son, & Dungan, 1995).

Studies That Demonstrate Direct Effectson Teachers and Classroom Instruction

Thus far, empirical studies have generated only scant descriptions of thebehaviors of effective instructional leaders and their impact on teachers andclassroom instruction (Blase, 1993; Holland, 1989; Short, 1995). Most nota-bly, Sheppard’s (1996) synthesis of existing studies showed a positive and




strong relationship between effective instructional leadership behaviorsexhibited by principals and teacher commitment, professional involvement,and innovativeness. Principal behaviors associated with these effects onteachers included framing school goals, communicating school goals, super-vising and evaluating instruction, coordinating the curriculum, monitoringstudent progress, protecting instructional time, maintaining high visibility,providing incentives for teachers, supporting professional development ses-sions, and providing incentives for learning. In addition, Sheppard reportedthat promoting a teacher’s professional development was the most influentialinstructional leadership behavior at both the elementary and high school lev-els, and that the use of only three to five principal behaviors (selected accord-ing to context) accounted for most of the influence on a teacher’s commit-ment, involvement, and innovativeness in the classroom.

Studies That Demonstrate Direct and IndirectEffects on Student Achievement

Hallinger and Heck (1996a, 1996b) assessed 40 studies of the principal’sinstructional role vis-à-vis school effectiveness (i.e., direct-effects studies onschool outcomes, including student achievement). They reported that threequarters of these studies conceptualized the principal’s role in school effec-tiveness as instructional leadership (based on theoretical models discussedby Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, & Lee, 1982). Hallinger and Heck (1996a,1996b) noted a trend in this body of research moving from simple, direct-effects models to more comprehensive models wherein antecedent variables(e.g., contextual, interactive features of the school and its environment, suchas community socioeconomic status [SES]) are included in mediated-effectsmodels employing sophisticated analytic techniques (e.g., Heck, Larsen, &Marcoulides, 1990; Heck & Marcoulides, 1993).

Hallinger and Heck (1996a, 1996b) also indicated that, in contrast to ear-lier studies, recent studies define the principal’s role more broadly, using con-structs such as transformational leadership, participative leadership, and thedecentralization of decision making. To illustrate, Leithwood (1994) haslinked principals’ transformational leadership to measures of improvementin teachers’ classroom behaviors, attitudes, and effectiveness (i.e., studentachievement). Similarly, research on empowering instructional principalshas underscored the importance of collaborative inquiry as opposed to cur-rent principal-centered supervisory practices (Blase & Blase, 1994; Reitzug,1997). Hallinger and Heck conclude that the study of instructional leadershipis “complex and not easily subject to empirical verification” (1996b, p. 5).




They further demonstrate how extant studies are methodologically limitedand how the power of advanced analytical treatments can be exploited.

Lastly, researchers have linked principal behaviors (e.g., authenticity ininteractions and granting access to information and knowledge) to effects onschool climates, which in turn have been shown to indirectly affect studentachievement (Bredeson, 1989; Halpin & Croft, 1963; Kirby & Colbert,1992).

Reports of Studies Focusing on InstructionalLeadership in Administrator Preparation Textbooks

Glanz (1995) found that reports of research in the area of instructionalleadership are noticeably lacking in administrator preparation textbooks,both in quantity and quality; in fact, he indicated that few of these textbooksaddress this area at all. Sergiovanni and Starratt’s (1998) text is an exception:Instructional leadership (also called supervision) is explicated in depth and isviewed as a moral enterprise in which teachers work together as colleaguesusing peer observation, mentoring, and action research to better understandpractice. However, Sergiovanni and Starratt include very little supportingempirical research.

Indeed, a number of scholars have recognized that although some prog-ress has been made in understanding the relationships among instructionalleadership, teaching, and even student achievement, most aspects of thiscomplex phenomenon have not been adequately studied (Leithwood, Begley, &Cousins, 1990). Specifically, Short (1995) has called for more research intothe effects of leader behavior on teacher behavior, the relationship of instruc-tional leadership to teaching, instructional leaders’ characteristics, and con-ditions necessary for effective instructional leadership.

OUR STUDY

The difficulties of studying instructional leadership (including the equivo-cal nature of some findings) notwithstanding, our study has yielded newknowledge about the principal-teacher relationship as it relates to instruc-tional leadership. This was done by closely examining teachers’ reports offormal and informal instructionally oriented situations across a variety ofschools, an approach that has been recommended by researchers and theo-rists in the field for some time, but seldom used (Blumberg, 1980). To ourknowledge, our study is the first comprehensive, in-depth, empirical report ofthe experiences of teachers—as reported by teachers—in effective




instructionally oriented interactions (cf. Herbert & Tankersley, 1993). Assuch, it explores in detail teachers’ perspectives on principals’ instructionalleadership strategies and interactions and their impacts on a broad range ofdimensions of classroom instruction.

Among other things, we describe our findings about developing reflective,collaborative, problem-solving contexts for dialogue about instruction.Along these lines, we examine and describe a specialized form of teacherthinking—reflection and reflectively informed behavior. This form of think-ing arises from a teacher’s questions about perplexing classroom experienceand leads to purposeful inquiry and problem resolution (Dewey, 1933).Finally, we present the Reflection-Growth (RG) model, the first inductivelyderived, data-based model of effective instructional leadership based on astudy of teachers to appear in the professional literature.

Method

The research questions, instrument construction, data collection, andanalyses were based on the Blumer (1969) and Mead (1934) approach tosymbolic interaction theory. In contrast to some approaches to qualitative re-search, this methodological perspective emphasizes the study of human per-ceptions and meanings that people construct in their social settings. Humanbeings are viewed as social products who are influenced by external factors(e.g., school policies, principal leadership) but who are also capable of main-taining distance and able to initiate individual action through interpretiveprocesses. Meltzer, Petras, and Reynolds (1975) summarize that

Human beings are defined as self-reflective beings. The behavior of men andwomen is “caused” not so much by forces within themselves [e.g., in-stincts] . . . or by external forces impinging upon them . . . but what lies in be-tween, a reflective and socially derived interpretation of the internal and exter-nal stimuli that are present. (p. 2)Perception functions as a mediative experience for the individual in the rela-tionship between himself/herself and the social environment. (p. 52)

A number of symbolic interactionists have discussed the use of unsolic-ited personal documents (e.g., diaries, letters) and solicited personal docu-ments (e.g., open-ended questionnaires, unstructured interviews) in qualitativeresearch focusing on perception and meaning (e.g., Blumer, 1969;Bogdan &Taylor, 1975; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Meltzer et al., 1975; Strauss &Corbin,1990). Allport (1942) suggested that an open-ended questionnaire is a usefulpersonal document for qualitative research that focuses on the subjective percep-tions of people. Such an instrument is defined as “any self revealing document




that intentionally or unintentionally yields information regarding the struc-ture, dynamics and functioning of the author’s life” (p. xii). A questionnaireis defined as a personal document when the research participants exercisesubstantial control over the content of their responses (Blumer, 1969;Bogdan & Taylor, 1975; Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

Such questionnaires are particularly powerful primary sources of data col-lection because they focus on a single topic or event and can be readily assem-bled for analyses (Bogdan & Taylor, 1975). Open-ended protocols that sam-ple people across many situations increase the probability of gathering abroad range of relevant data about the phenomenon under investigation andof producing empirical and conceptual generalizations (Glaser & Strauss,1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

Consistent with symbolic interaction theory, no concepts from the litera-ture were employed a priori to direct data collection. We used an open-endedformat to investigate two broad questions: What characteristics (e.g., strate-gies, behaviors, attitudes, goals) of school principals positively influenceclassroom teaching? and conversely, What characteristics of school princi-pals adversely affect classroom teaching? In both cases, we examined princi-pals’ actions (and lack of action) that influence classroom teaching from theteacher’s perspective.

The Inventory of Strategies Used by Principals to Influence ClassroomTeaching (ISUPICT), an open-ended questionnaire, was designed to elicitfree expression of personal meanings on the study topic. We developed aninitial version of the questionnaire in consultation with professors and agroup of five teachers. This instrument was pilot-tested with 30 full-timeteachers who were graduate students at a major university in the southeasternUnited States. We used suggestions made by both groups to construct thefinal form of the instrument.

The ISUPICT consisted of three legal-size pages. On the first page, weintroduced the research topic and explained that several factors led us to thinkthat principals’ characteristics may influence classroom teaching. We alsostated that despite these factors, teachers may not feel that their principalspositively or negatively influence their teaching. On page 1, teachers are alsoasked to give background information.

On page 2, teachers were asked to provide detailed descriptions of onecharacteristic of a principal with whom they worked that had a positive im-pact on their classroom teaching, and on page 3 one characteristic of a princi-pal with whom they worked (this could be a different principal) that had anegative impact on their classroom teaching. Each of the following items islisted on page 2 and repeated on page 3 for the negative-impact question.




1. Describe and give a detailed example of a positive characteristic (overt or cov-ert, formal or informal) that your instructional supervisor uses frequently toinfluence what you think or do that directly improves something about yourclassroom teaching.

2. Describe and give a real-life example of the effects (impacts) that the charac-teristic has on your thoughts (related to teaching) and behavior (related toteaching).

3. Describe and illustrate your instructional supervisor’s goals associated withthe characteristic you identified above.

4. How effective is the characteristic in getting you to think or do what the in-structional supervisor intends?

ineffective effective|___|___|___|___|___|___|

Please explain why.5. What feelings do you have about the instructional supervisor’s characteristic?

Exploratory research of this nature is designed to produce data-basedcategories and conceptual understandings by increasing the variation amongthe research participants (Bogdan & Taylor, 1975; Glaser, 1978, 1992; Glaser &Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Because of the open-ended design ofthe Inventory, the substantial time required for completion (about 40 min-utes), and the sensitivity of the research topic to principals and teachers, amail survey was ruled out. Rather, 17 professors from a variety of disciplinesin education administered the Inventory to a total of 809 full-time publicschool teachers taking courses at both on- and off-campus sites at three majoruniversities located in the southeastern, midwestern, and northeastern UnitedStates. Data were collected from a variety of locations, in part to reduce thepossibility that teachers would be describing the same principal, althoughthis undoubtedly happened to some extent. Involvement in the study wasvoluntary; teachers were not instructed to write their names on the researchinstrument.

Our study sample consisted of male (n= 251) and female (n= 558) teach-ers from rural (n= 275), suburban (n= 291), and urban (n= 243) school loca-tions. Elementary (n= 380), middle/junior (n= 177), and high (n= 252)school teachers participated. The average age of teachers was 37; the averagenumber of years in teaching was 11. The sample included tenured (n= 606)and nontenured (n= 203) teachers. Married (n= 598) and single (n= 211)teachers participated. Degrees earned by these teachers included B.A./B.S.(n= 218), M.Ed. (n= 459), Ed.S. (n= 97), and Ed.D./Ph.D. (n= 35). Teachersdescribed both male (n= 398) and female (n= 411) principals. The meannumber of years with the current principal at the time of this study was 4.




Data from the 809 teachers who participated in the study were codedaccording to guidelines for inductive-exploratory research and comparativeanalysis (Glaser, 1978, 1992; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin,1990). This form of analysis requires a comparison of each new elementcoded previously with emergent categories and subcategories. Each teacherwrote approximately 250 words for each of the two questionnaire pages(positive and negative). Line-by-line analysis of each questionnaire page pro-duced categories and subcategories for principal characteristics (e.g., strate-gies, behaviors) that teachers identified with both effective instructional lead-ership and ineffective instructional leadership.

Subsequently, questionnaire pages describing the same instructional lead-ership strategies (positive and negative) were clustered. Line-by-line analysisnow focused on analyzing questionnaire items 2, 4, and 5 to determineimpacts on teaching (i.e., teachers’ thoughts, behaviors, and feelings relatedto teaching, and effectiveness of each leadership characteristic). The catego-ries and subcategories produced by this analysis were organized in displaymatrices. This allowed comparisons across all coded leadership characteris-tics and related impacts, effectiveness, and feelings.

Two major themes were identified: talking with teachers to promotereflection and promoting professional growth. Taken together, these themesand related strategies describe the RG model of instructional leadership,derived from our data and discussed throughout this article (Bogdan & Tay-lor, 1975; Miles & Huberman, 1984; Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

Because of space considerations, this article focuses on the strategiesteachers identified with effective instructional leadership; a more detaileddiscussion of how such leadership enhances teachers’ classroom teaching(i.e., impacts on teachers) is in preparation (Blase & Blase, 1999b). Negativeprincipal behaviors and their adverse effects on teachers will be the topic ofanother article (Blase & Blase, 1999a).

Two researchers analyzed the entire data set, which required approxi-mately 750 hours. Professors, doctoral students, and teachers were consultedon a regular basis when questions arose. To check the researchers’ analysis,coders inspected segments of the research data. In brief, coders matched quo-tations drawn from the data with categories constructed by the researchers forall characteristics coded for effective instructional leadership and relatedimpacts on teachers. The degree of consistency among raters was high (.90).(It should be noted that on a scale from 1 to 7, the mean effectiveness score[questionnaire item 4] for all positive principal characteristics with regard toimpact on the classroom teacher was 5.4.)

Consistent with guidelines for inductive-grounded analyses, all of thedescriptive categories, themes, and ideas discussed in the following section




emerged directly from data produced by the Inventory. Due to space limita-tions, only brief excerpts from the data are presented here to illustrateselected ideas. Teachers often used principals’ first names in their descrip-tions. To preserve principals’ anonymity, we have replaced first names withthe pronouns “he” or “she” or the phrase “my principal.”

Although questionnaires like this have been used in much publishedresearch recently, it should be noted that the teachers’perceptions would notnecessarily be consistent with, for example, those of principals. In fact, theperspectives of others can be expected to vary (Blumer, 1969; Bogdan & Tay-lor, 1975; Mead, 1934).

Results

In general, our findings demonstrate that in effective principal-teacherinteraction about instruction, processes such as inquiry, reflection, explora-tion, and experimentation result: Teachers build repertoires of flexible alter-natives rather than collecting rigid teaching procedures and methods. A focuson instructional leadership, of course, contrasts with broad-based research oneffective school leadership (e.g., Blase, 1993; Blase & Blase, 1994; Blumberg &Greenfield, 1986; Leithwood, 1994; Murphy & Louis, 1994; Parkay & Hall,1992). We describe the RG model of effective instructional leadership, whichconsists of the two major themes—talking with teachers to promote reflec-tion and promoting professional growth—and related strategies. Briefdescriptions of teachers’ perspectives on affective and reflective/reflectivelyinformed behavioral effects of such leadership are also presented.

Talking With Teachers to Promote Reflection

According to our data, talking with teachers in and outside of instructionalconferences was the cornerstone of effective instructional leadership; princi-pals valued dialogue that, above all, encouraged teachers to become aware ofand critically reflect on their learning and professional practice:

[Talking] makes me think deeper. It makes me get more information and col-lect more concrete data needed for instructional decisions.

Principals used five primary talking strategies with teachers to promotereflection: (a) making suggestions, (b) giving feedback, (c) modeling, (d) us-ing inquiry and soliciting advice and opinions, and (e) giving praise (see Ap-pendixes A and B).




Making suggestions. We found that making suggestions—proactivelygiving advice for the improvement of instruction—was one central and pow-erful element of principals’verbal interaction with teachers. Principals madesuggestions to teachers both during postobservation conferences and infor-mally in day-to-day interactions. Teachers disclosed that principals madepurposeful, appropriate, nonthreatening suggestions characterized by (a) lis-tening, (b) sharing their experiences, (c) using examples and demonstrations,(d) giving teachers a choice, (e) contradicting outdated or destructive poli-cies, (f) encouraging risk taking, (g) offering professional literature, (h) rec-ognizing teachers’ strengths, and (i) maintaining a focus on improving in-struction.

Principals’ suggestions strongly enhanced teachers’ reflective behaviors,which included implementing new ideas, using greater variety in teaching,responding to student diversity, preparing and planning more carefully, tak-ing more risks, achieving better instructional focus, and using professionaldiscretion to make changes. Teachers also reported positive effects on moti-vation, satisfaction, self-esteem, efficacy, sense of security, and feelings ofsupport:

In teaching measurement to first graders, I needed to think about “real-life”situations in order to bring my students’ learning to a level of synthesis. Myprincipal gave me some ideas on how to do this, which I will consider next year.She helps me look at my teaching through the eyes of another.Her suggestions encouraged me to continually be reflective about my teachingand student responses/outcomes. As I am teaching, I am more conscious of stu-dent attention, understanding, and independent work. I am not afraid to changemy strategies or desired outcomes based on the feedback I receive from eachstudent’s success or lack thereof.

She encourages creative teaching methods. This encourages me to stretch mythought processes and try new strategies. With the expectation for creativity, Idon’t feel that new experiences are too risky. I have been able to generate awhole series of learner activities for the fundamental skills course. She helpsmove the faculty beyond their comfort zone and the use of traditional teachingmethods.

Giving feedback. Our data indicate that by visiting classrooms and givingpostobservation feedback to teachers, effective instructional leaders “hold upa mirror,” serve as “another set of eyes,” and are “critical friends” who engagein thoughtful discourse with the teacher about what was observed for instruc-tional improvement. Effective feedback (a) focused on observed classroombehavior; (b) was detailed and specific; (c) expressed caring, interest, andsupport in a nonjudgmental way; (d) provided praise; (e) established a




problem-solving orientation based on trust and respect; (f) responded to con-cerns about student behavior; (g) discussed teacher-student interaction andrelationships; and (h) expressed the principal’s availability for follow-uptalk.

Feedback produced many effects on teachers; however, prominent effectswere on reflective teacher behavior, including reinforcement of strong in-structional strategies, use of innovative ideas, more variety in instruction, apositive response to student diversity, careful planning/preparation of les-sons, and better instructional focus. Teachers also reported that feedback hadpositive effects on motivation, self-esteem, efficacy, and sense of security:

When we have postobservation conferences, he describes what he has seen. In-terestingly enough, he tends to select the things that I too think are important. Ithink I have influenced him in listening for types of questions, follow-up ques-tions, and so on. I’ve worked for him a long time and we’ve spent hours dis-cussing good teaching. He’s very open to ideas. After he has given his positivecomments, he usually tries to make a suggestion for something to try, such asattention to wait time.

Feedback builds my efficacy. My supervisor reinforces the fact that I am ateacher. As I collaborate with her, I learn more about my teaching. I look for-ward to her next visit as a chance to grow. The efficacy I have described showsin my teaching. As I gain positive feedback, I continue using what works in theclassroom. And because I do not fear negative evaluation, I am willing to takerisks.

Even classroom visits (“walk-throughs”) without dialogue or feedback byprincipals had some positive impact on teacher motivation, self-esteem, andreflective behavior, including better planning/preparation, focus, and greaterinnovation/creativity:

My principal’s visits make me feel that I’m seen as a valuable individual. I’mmore motivated to teach better and to investigate better ways of teaching. Hisvisits encourage me to get input from others and to have an open mind.

Modeling. Teachers reported that their principals, on occasion, actuallydemonstrated teaching techniques during classroom visits to model good in-struction. Modeling was always followed by a conference in which it was dis-cussed. Such modeling and subsequent discussions were not considered of-fensive because principals had cultivated respectful and trustingrelationships with teachers. Modeling (like suggestion and giving feedback)was viewed as an impressive example of instructional leadership, one thatprimarily yielded positive effects on teacher motivation as well as reflective




behavior, including increases in innovation/creativity, variety in teaching, fo-cus, and planning/preparation:

My principal utilized a great deal of informal coaching and mentoring. Also, heis in and out of the entire faculty’s classes. I value his insights because he wasan excellent teacher. His love of children and young people was so obvious thatwe trusted him somehow . . . often he asks if he could teach a class. Watchinghim is a job. I honestly believe I did some of my best reflecting after talkingwith or watching this man teach.

After watching her principal teach a complicated concept to students, an-other teacher commented that

Now when I create lesson plans, I think in terms of how to make a concept un-derstandable to a teenager. I understand that I should present material in di-gestible parts. I also tend not to get annoyed if a student misses something; in-stead, I redirect my method of instruction.

Sometimes principal modeling occurred in interactions with teachers dur-ing the conference:

My principal showed me how to ask “different” types of questions that got thestudents to respond more often. It helped me to be more student-focused. Shealso went over my quizzes and tests and showed me how to make sure my ques-tions met the objectives by forming specific question items.

Using inquiry and soliciting advice/opinions. We found that effective in-structional leaders often used an inquiry (questioning) approach with teachers:

The principal, in observing what is taking place in my room, will ask me ques-tions about why I am doing what I am doing, or what my intended outcomesare. This encourages me to be reflective about what I do. She rarely has a sug-gestion, but her questions cause me to evaluate what I do.

I don’t feel threatened; he knows I’m a good teacher. When we talked aboutwait time, he phrased it positively: “You ask wonderful, thought-provokingquestions. Should you give kids longer to think about answers?” I knew it wastrue, so I paid attention and improved.

Principals also solicited advice and opinions about classroom teaching.Using inquiry and soliciting advice were related to positive impact onteacher motivation, self-esteem, efficacy, sense of security, and reflectivebehavior, including greater innovation/creativity and variety in use of in-structional materials:




He asks for my advice in designing new programs of instructional strategies.As I study the new strategies/programs, I become motivated to try these newtheories of learning. I become more enthusiastic. My enthusiasm causes me tospend more time developing lessons and strategies. My enthusiasm influencesthe student.

Giving praise. Praise focusing on specific and concrete teaching behav-iors significantly affected teacher motivation, self-esteem, and efficacy. Italso fostered teacher reflective behavior, including reinforcement of effectiveteaching strategies, risk taking, and innovation/creativity:

My principal’s praise gets me searching for new and innovative things on myown. I am constantly thinking about innovative and creative things I can trywith my classes regarding technology.

In addition to the strategies discussed above, other principal behaviors thatenhanced teacher reflective behavior included distributing professional lit-erature, encouraging teachers to attend workshops and conferences, and en-couraging reflective discussions and collaboration with others.

Promoting Professional Growth

The second key theme of effective instructional leadership derived fromour data was promotion of teachers’ professional growth with respect toteaching methods and collegial interaction about teaching and learning.According to teachers, effective instructional leaders used six teacher devel-opment strategies: (a) emphasizing the study of teaching and learning; (b)supporting collaboration efforts among educators; (c) developing coachingrelationships among educators; (d) encouraging and supporting redesign ofprograms; (e) applying the principles of adult learning, growth, and develop-ment to all phases of staff development; and (f) implementing action researchto inform instructional decision making (see Appendixes A and B).

Emphasizing the study of teaching and learning. Generally speaking, wefound that principals who were effective instructional leaders provided for-mal staff development opportunities to address emergent instructional needs.These opportunities, along with teacher input, discretion in attending, andsupport for innovation, resulted in effects on reflective behavior: innovation/creativity, variety in teaching, risk taking, positive responses to student diver-sity, and instructional focus, as well as effects on motivation, efficacy, andself-esteem.




We are given a lot of opportunities to learn new strategies and new learningtechniques at staff development meetings, many of which are optional. Ourstaff development always supports our major instructional goal, which we allhave input on. We have a lot to say in what and how we want to do things.The exposure to new ideas is refreshing. It motivates me to put in a bit more ef-fort. I am willing to introduce new strategies . . . and varied methods. It helpsprevent getting stuck in a rut.

Most of our staff development is optional. By giving us voice and choice, weare more motivated to go to in-services and learn new things that we can try outand actually use, instead of going to tons of meetings and never really havingthe time to try out new strategies.

Principals enhanced the value of staff development sessions by becominglearners themselves and participating with teachers:

One of the most dynamic, full-of-impact strategies that my principal uses is toattend in-services and conferences with us! Whenever and whatever! We knowshe knows exactly how technology should be used in the classroom. I’m so im-pressed that she values this shared learning so much!

Supporting collaboration among educators. Our data indicate that princi-pals’ instructional leadership hinged on the development of teachers as learn-ers who collaborate with one another to study teaching and its effects. Princi-pals described in our study seemed to recognize that collaborative networksamong educators were essential for successful teaching and learning andcould be expanded through staff development. This was accomplished bymodeling a philosophy of teamwork, providing time regularly for collabora-tive endeavors, and advocating sharing and peer observation. Collaborationamong teachers resulted in increased teacher motivation, self-esteem, effi-cacy, and reflective behavior, such as risk taking, instructional variety, andinnovation/creativity:

Working as a team to plan, implement, and evaluate instruction provided mewith new strategies and ideas and the efficacy that my plans were meeting stu-dent needs and school goals. I was motivated to “stay on target” with theagreed-upon plans and pacing. I was focused on working with my team to pro-vide the best instructional program to students.

I stretched out and tried new strategies because of the support the team pro-vided. I liked my job more. I liked the staff and kids more because we supportedeach other and were responsible for each other. I became a better teacher, Iworked harder to find solutions, and I was anxious to share whatever I learnedwith other members of our team. Our conversations were more open and ourprofessional dialogue became richer.




By observing other teachers, I have been able to think of my own teachingstrengths and weaknesses from a new perspective. I have become more willingto ask for help from my principal and fellow teachers. We have all becomemore open to admitting difficulties and asking for help rather than closing our-selves off and complaining. I am very happy to be valued in that environment.

To promote professional growth, principals also encouraged teachersto visit other teachers, even in other schools, to observe classrooms andprograms:

Visiting other schools helped me to keep an open mind when approaching newtopics. I have felt validated as a professional by my principal. It has encouragedme to develop as a risk taker. I have been better able to make decisions about thecurriculum, and I feel free to use professional judgment in how I implementnew strategies.

Developing coaching relationships among educators. Teachers reportedthat, in addition to supporting collaboration, principals advocated coachingamong teachers for purposes of teacher development. Joyce and Showers(1995) have concluded that classroom implementation of a training design iseffective only when training includes coaching from a peer at the classroomlevel. Indeed, teachers in our study said that principals encouraged and facili-tated coaching among teachers so as to recognize exemplary teachers as wellas to improve teaching. This led to greater teacher efficacy, motivation, self-esteem, and impact on reflective behavior, including innovation/creativity,risk taking, variety in teaching, planning/preparation, and focus.

He encourages me to share my teaching techniques with others; it makes methink that what I’m doing is working. Having another pair of eyes in myroom, whether it is a student teacher, recruit, or tenured teacher, makes mewant to improve.

He sent teachers to observe my classes and discuss them with me. This mademe feel good about myself and my teaching and also inspired me to look forways to stay on top of current topics. I was more confident when I went into theclassroom. It caused me to think about what I did well and figure out what canbe done better.

Encouraging and supporting redesign of programs. Our findings demon-strate that principals encouraged teachers to redesign instructional programs.These principals also encouraged a multitude of diverse approaches to teach-ing and learning as well as flexibility with regard to elements (e.g., objec-tives, student grouping, teaching and learning strategies, staffing, and alloca-




tion of time) that enhanced teachers’ development and reflective teaching.Principals who were seen as effective instructional leaders also provided es-sential resources, sometimes in liberal amounts, to support program redes-ign. Supporting program redesign resulted in increased motivation, efficacy,and reflective behavior, including greater variety in classroom instruction, in-creases in risk taking, and increases in planning/preparation.

I am more willing to try more various activities that might be considered a littleextreme, but knowing I have her support, I know I can make it work for the kids.I really don’t mind taking some chances because of our support base.

Applying the principles of adult learning, growth, and development tostaff development. Teachers reported that principals who practiced effectiveinstructional leadership worked to create cultures of collaboration, inquiry,lifelong learning, experimentation, and reflection. In so doing, the actions ofsuch principals were consistent with the principles of adult learning and anunderstanding of teachers’ life cycles, roles, and motivations (see, e.g.,Glickman et al., 1995). Effects included greater teacher motivation, self-esteem, and reflective behavior, and especially increases in innovation/crea-tivity, variety in teaching, and risk taking:

It is motivating to work with a leader who shows great confidence in our abili-ties and is so encouraging of taking risks. I take more risks, try new programsand teaching strategies, and work toward inclusion and integration. I have agood deal of latitude in how to achieve these goals.

She asks me to share my ideas with other teachers and to be a mentor to newteachers. I think of myself as an effective teacher . . . I look for new, innovativemethods, ones that require the use of higher order thinking skills.

Implementing action research to inform instructional decision making.Calhoun (1994) argues that without class- and school-based data about learn-ing, specifically the impact of implementing new strategies on student learn-ing, teachers cannot properly determine the effects of what they do in theclassroom. Many principals described by teachers in our study were begin-ning to conduct staff development as a large-scale action research project de-spite the fact that, according to our data, they largely failed to use action re-search to study student readiness, progress, conduct, and achievement.Consequently, no strong effects on teachers were apparent in our data.




Subthemes

The effectiveness of the instructional leadership strategies discussedabove for both themes was also related to each of the following subthemes:

1. Teacher choice and discretion: Teachers were not typically required by princi-pals to implement anything; they were asked to consider ideas and then giventhe opportunity to choose their own paths.

2. Nonthreatening interaction: Interactions between teachers and principalswere not based on direct and overt critiques of the teachers’ teaching. Rather,interactions were growth oriented, supportive, positive, and built on mutualrespect and trust. The core of such interactions was expanding teachers’strengths instead of focusing on minor deficits.

3. Authentic interest: Principals’positive behaviors reflected true caring and in-terest in the teachers’ professional growth. For instance, giving suggestionswas seen as an expression of wanting to help and support teachers, and praisewas seen as credible and based on concrete data.

Summary

This article describes the characteristics of principals’ effective instruc-tional leadership and, briefly, the effects associated with such leadership, asreported by teacher respondents working in a variety of schools. The twomajor themes of instructional leadership that emerged in our study asrevealed in our RG model include (a) talking with teachers to promote reflec-tion and (b) promoting professional growth.

Our data indicate that the theme of talking with teachers to promote reflec-tion included principal strategies of making suggestions, giving feedback,modeling, using inquiry and soliciting advice and opinions from teachers,and giving praise. Strategies associated with promoting professional growthincluded emphasis on the study of teaching and learning, support for collabo-ration, development of coaching relationships, support for program redesign,application of the principles of adult growth and development to all phases ofteacher development programs, and use of action research.

Theoretically speaking, our data suggest that each of the instructionalleadership strategies described above have strong enhancing effects on teach-ers emotionally, cognitively, and behaviorally. Moreover, these three catego-ries of impacts tend to interact with one another: Typically, affective impactsprovoke and sustain cognitive and behavioral impacts. For example, effectson motivation and self-esteem prompt/sustain reflection and tend to result ingreater reflectively informed instructional behavior.




Furthermore, although teachers only described one positive strategy indepth, they frequently alluded to other strategies that their principals used (inconjunction with the described strategy) that had positive effects on class-room instruction. For instance, when teachers described the feedback strat-egy, they often identified strategies such as suggestion, praise, classroom vis-its, and so on, with the same principal. This suggests that principals who aredefined as effective instructional leaders by teachers tend to use a range of thestrategies described in this article, and such strategies tend to interact withand enhance each other.

Finally, it should be noted that although our data do not indicate the exactfrequency with which principals used the strategies we describe in this arti-cle, their use was viewed as frequent. Statements such as, “She’s always visit-ing my classroom and making positive comments” and “We talk a lot. . . herfeedback and suggestions are great” were coded throughout the data base.Effective instructional leadership is embedded in school culture; it isexpected and routinely delivered.

DISCUSSION

Our study assumed that the impact achieved by principals on school out-comes (i.e., student achievement) derives, in part, from the principals’ interac-tion with and influence on teachers. Pitner (1988) argues that a mediated-effects study (such as ours) is more likely than direct-effects studies to contrib-ute to theory building. To enhance the strength of our conclusions, we relied ona large sample of teachers from a variety of schools and the analytical proce-dures and techniques consistent with symbolic interaction theory.

We sought to expand the research that demonstrates direct effects onteachers and classroom instruction (cf. Sheppard, 1996) and to add specific-ity and detail to descriptions of effective instructional leadership and itsimpacts on aspects of teachers’ performance and professional growth. Spe-cifically, we have accounted for changes in teachers by describing and con-ceptualizing principals’ work behaviors (i.e., strategies) and their effectsfrom the perspectives of teachers.

By comparison, Hallinger and Heck’s (1996b) review was limited to stud-ies of the effects of principals’ beliefs and behaviors that included explicitmeasures of school performance (most often measured in terms of studentachievement). By excluding studies that examined effects of principal behav-ior on intervening variables such as teacher perceptions and classroombehavior (i.e., they excluded those that did not also include measures of out-comes), Hallinger and Heck shifted the focus away from the principal’s work




behavior as such. Clearly, our study informs practice by focusing preciselyon the principal’s work behavior—and with specific attention to instructionalleadership—and its effects.

Significantly, our results provide empirical data that illustrate what Glick-man (1985) and Pajak (1989) have defined as effective instructional leader-ship. For example, Glickman’s (1985) model of instructional leadership,which emphasizes staff development, is detailed by the theme promotingprofessional growth and related staff development strategies that emerged inour study. Pajak’s (1989) emphasis on facilitating change and motivatingstaff is explicated by the theme involving talking with teachers to promotereflection and strategies such as modeling and using inquiry and solicitingopinions. In addition, the RG model of instructional leadership presentedherein provides descriptive data regarding many aspects of more abstractmodels (e.g., Reitzug & Cross’s [1993] critical collaboration, and Smyth’s[1997] discursive critical study of classroom interaction).

By implication, our findings suggest that effective approaches to instruc-tional leadership (and supervision) should integrate many specific elementsdescribed in the RG model (e.g., collaboration, peer coaching, inquiry, colle-gial study groups, reflective discussion, and action research) into a holisticapproach to promote professional dialogue among educators. Research thatsupports several disparate aspects of the RG model can be found in the workof Calhoun (1994; action research), Joyce and Showers (1995; growth andcollaboration), Joyce and Weil (1996; studying teaching and learning),Schön (1987; reflection), and Schmuck and Runkel (1994; communicationand group development).

Moreover, our findings echo research that discusses long-understood fun-damental human needs for trust, support, and professional interaction(Herzberg, 1966; Maslow, 1954), as well as findings of the past two decadesin several branches of research in psychology. For example, many research-ers have found that adults who remain mentally healthy as they age developcomplex, subtle, and reflective forms of reasoning; live happier, healthier,and longer lives; and maintain feelings of control, energy, and even flow (i.e.,absolute absorption and deep enjoyment in an activity; Csikszentmihalyi,1990; Jarvik, 1987; Labouvie-Vief, 1982). The key to such health is related tocontinuous change and growth, engagement in fruitful searches for meaning,and maintenance of wonder and delight—in short, lifelong learning (Friedan,1993; Merriam & Clark, 1991; Mezirow, 1981, 1990).

Our findings are also consistent with research on teacher career develop-ment, revealing that teachers have a strong need for growth (e.g., engaging incontinuous collaboration, reflection, and critical thinking; Brookfield, 1986;Mezirow, 1990; Zemke & Zemke, 1995). Unfortunately, such findings about




adult health and needs often stand in disappointing contrast to findings aboutprincipals’ role behaviors and treatment of teachers (Gardner, 1983; Stern-berg, 1990; Zepeda & Ponticell, 1996).

The importance of autonomy and choice to teachers’ classroom perform-ance is confirmed by our findings; this suggests that exploration of autosu-pervision, that is, teachers’ supervision of their own instructional practices,including self-analysis, reflectivity, monitoring their own progress towardgoals, and implementing changes based on reflection, may prove useful.Autosupervision is compatible with collaborative exchanges with otherteachers, and some teachers prefer and respond best to such an approach toprofessional growth (see Glickman et al., 1995, regarding collaborative andreflective discussions among peer teachers, coaches, and mentors). However,we are not arguing that instructional leadership/supervision should becomeentirely nondirective. For some teachers in some circumstances (e.g., anoverwhelmed preservice teacher, a weak teacher, or a teacher with underde-veloped analytical skills), a prescriptive approach (e.g., including step-by-step directions) may be useful.

Although it was beyond the scope of our study to examine linkagesbetween principal behavior and student effects, our findings are suggestive ofsignificant elements of effective instructional leadership from teachers’points of view. For example, to be effective instructional leaders, principalsshould emphasize autonomy and choice for teachers, not control of and com-petition among teachers. Instructional leaders should avoid restrictive andintimidating approaches to teachers, as well as approaches that provoke littlemore than teachers jumping through hoops and giving dog and pony showsbased on reductionist algorithms presumed to define good teaching. Theprevalent negative associations that derive from the myriad behaviors that, toteachers, represent control supervision must give way to behaviors that pro-mote collegiality among educators (i.e., between principal and teacher aswell as between teacher and teacher).

IMPLICATIONS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERS

Our data suggest that principals who are effective instructional leaders use abroad-based approach; they integrate reflection and growth to build a schoolculture of individual and shared critical examination for improvement. Indoing so, they appear to embrace the challenges of growing and changing; forexample, teachers’ resistance to change (Rusch, 1993) and the difficulty of




altering roles and behaviors to effect change (Schmuck & Runkel, 1994).These principals believe, as Fullan and Miles (1992) have stated, that changeis a journey of learning and risk taking. They demonstrate fundamentalrespect for the knowledge and abilities of teachers, conceiving of “teacher asintellectual rather than teacher as technician” (Little, 1993, p. 129). We sug-gest the following guidelines for prospective and practicing principals.

Above all, talk openly and frequently with teachers about instruction. Thisrequires skills, knowledge, attitudes, and personal characteristics differentfrom those routinely taught and developed in many traditional educationalleadership programs (Murphy, 1992). Specifically, make suggestions, givefeedback, and solicit teachers’ advice and opinions about classroom instruc-tion in an inquiry-oriented approach. Strive to develop cooperative,nonthreatening teacher-supervisor partnerships—characterized by trust,openness, and freedom to make mistakes—that are crucial for analysis of thecomplex art of teaching, its behaviors and effects (Cangelosi, 1991). Asinstructional leaders, emphasize the study of teaching and learning, and bewilling to model teaching skills.

Effective instructional leaders are deeply committed not only to enactingschool improvement and reform, but also to enhancing professional commu-nity in schools (Louis et al., 1996). Support collaborative efforts among edu-cators by supporting the development of coaching skills and reflective con-versations among educators. Work to provide time and opportunities for peerconnections among teachers. This will send two powerful messages to teach-ers: that you realize that collaborative processes among educators (in contrastto a principal’s authoritarian approach) elevate teachers as thoughtful,responsible, growing professionals; and that you believe that growth anddevelopment are most likely to occur with open, mutual, critical dialogueamong professionals, rather than with judgmental, evaluative criticism (seeFreire, 1985, on this point).

More broadly, develop structural conditions by providing resources andsupport for redesign of programs and applying the principles of adult growthto staff development programs and activities. In addition, develop corehuman and social resources; for example, promote positive school climateand group development, teamwork, collaboration, innovation and continualgrowth, trust in staff and students, and caring and respect to enhance teacherefficacy (Blase & Blase, 1994, 1997; Hipp, 1995). Enhance these efforts bymodeling effective teaching, inspiring group purpose, and providing rewardssuch as praise.




FURTHER RESEARCH

As noted earlier, comprehensive studies of teachers’ experiences ininstructionally oriented interactions with principals have not previously beenconducted. Thus, our study significantly expands the literature regarding thenature of principal influence on classroom instruction. Nevertheless, theeffects of instructional leadership on teachers’ instructional behaviorssrequire further investigation. Our study, for example, provided no detailedcontextual data about the particular schools in which the teacher participantsworked. We suggest that the use of case studies of effective instructional lead-ership incorporate the perspectives of teachers, students, and parents andemploy methods such as depth interviewing and observation. Other researchhas suggested that principals’ personal characteristics (e.g., gender, experi-ence) may influence their instructional leadership orientations (Boyan, 1988;Leithwood et al., 1990); such characteristics were beyond the scope of thepresent study but should be investigated in future research.

Larsen and Malen (1997) described the fundamentally political nature ofprincipal-teacher interactions, and raised questions about the complexity ofleadership and influence as well as the conditions in which political interac-tions occur. These authors concluded that principal influence on curriculumand instructional decision making may be contingent on a multitude of politi-cal factors (e.g., goals, resources, motivations, strategies, and setting). Wewould argue that as instructional leadership becomes more collaborative,collegial, and democratic, it may become increasingly political in terms ofthe (a) frequency of power and influence-based interactions between, forexample, principals and teachers; and (b) the kinds of political interactionsthat can be expected (e.g., power with vs. power over interactions) from allparticipants, based on greater trust and respect for professional knowledge.

We also note that in discussing school leadership in general, other theo-rists and researchers have suggested a variety of roles and behaviors for edu-cational leaders that relate to instructional leadership behaviors and strate-gies as described in our study; for example, principals who are criticalhumanists (Foster, 1986; Soder, 1995); who adopt an ethic of caring (Beck,1994; Noddings, 1986); who operate from their personal values (Giroux,1992); who lead with soul, passion, and purpose (Bolman & Deal, 1995); whopractice ethical and moral leadership (Beck & Murphy, 1994; Beck et al.,1997; Sergiovanni, 1996, 1997; Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1998); and whoembrace diversity and ambiguity to promote excellence and professionalgrowth (Glanz, 1997). The interesting findings of our study, as well as theemergence of diverse related issues in the literature, suggest the fruitfulnessof further study.




APPENDIX AMajor Themes of Effective Instructional Leadership

and Related Strategies: The Reflection-Growth Model

Theme One: Talking With Teachers to Promote Reflection

Related strategies:

• making suggestions• giving feedback• modeling• using inquiry and soliciting advice and opinions• giving praise

Theme Two: Promoting Professional Growth

Related strategies:

• emphasizing the study of teaching and learning• supporting collaborative efforts among educators• developing coaching relationships among educators• encouraging and supporting redesign of programs• applying the principles of adult learning, growth, and development to all

phases of staff development• implementing action research to inform instructional decision making

APPENDIX BEffects of Effective Instructional Leadership on Teachers

Affective Effects

Positive impacts on:

• motivation• satisfaction• self-esteem• efficacy• sense of security• feelings of supporta

Reflective/Behavioral Effects

Positive impacts on:

• innovation/creativity• variety in teaching




• instructional focus• risk taking• planning/preparation• reinforcement of good teaching practicesa

• professional discretiona

a. Less frequently reported effect.

NOTE

1. The termssupervisionandinstructional leadershipare used interchangeably throughoutthis article to avoid confusion. In point of fact, these terms are the subject of theoretical debateamong scholars.

REFERENCES

Allport, G. (1942).The use of personal documents in psychological science. New York: SocialScience Research Council.

Beck, L. G. (1994).Reclaiming educational administration as a caring profession. New York,NY: Teachers College Press.

Beck, L. G., & Murphy, J. (1994).Ethics in educational leadership programs: An expandingrole. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Beck, L. G., Murphy, J., Mertz, N. T., Starratt, R. J., Shapiro, J. P., Stefkovich, J. A., Duke, D.,Grogan, M., & O’Keefe, J. (1997).Ethics in educational leadership programs: Emergingmodels. Columbia, MO: The University Council for Educational Administration.

Blase, J. (1987). Dimensions of effective school leadership: The teachers’perspective.AmericanEducational Research Journal,24(4), 589-610.

Blase, J. (1993). The micropolitics of effective school-based leadership: Teachers’perspectives.Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(2), 142-163.

Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999a).Ineffective instructional leadership and its effects on classroomteaching. Manuscript in preparation.

Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999b).Principals’ instructional leadership and its effects on classroomteaching. Manuscript in preparation.

Blase, J., & Blase, J. R. (1994).Empowering teachers: What successful principals do. ThousandOaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Blase, J., Blase, J. R., Anderson, G., & Dungan, S. (1995).Democratic principals in action:Eight pioneers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Blase, J., & Roberts, J. (1994). The micropolitics of teacher work involvement: Effective princi-pals’ impacts on teachers.Alberta Journal of Educational Research,40(1), 67-94.

Blase, J. R., & Blase, J. (1996). Micropolitical strategies used by administrators and teachers ininstructional conferences.Alberta Journal of Educational Research,XLII(4), 345-360.

Blase, J. R., & Blase, J. (1997).The fire is back! Principals sharing school governance. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Blumberg, A. (1980).Supervisors and teachers: A private cold war. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.




Blumberg, A., & Greenfield, W. (1986).The effective principal: Perspectives on school leader-ship(2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Blumer, H. (1969).Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S. (1975).Introduction to qualitative research methods: A phenomenol-ogical approach to the social sciences. New York: John Wiley.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1995).Leading with soul. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Bossert, S., Dwyer, D., Rowan, B., & Lee, G. (1982). The instructional management role of the

principal.Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 34-64.Boyan, N. (1988). Describing and explaining administrative behavior. In N. J. Boyan (Ed.),

Handbook of research in educational administration(pp. 77-97). New York: Longman.Bredeson, P. V. (1989). Redefining leadership and the roles of school: Responses to changes in

the professional work life of teachers.High School Journal,23(1), 9-20.Brookfield, S. (1986).Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.Calhoun, E. (1994).How to use action research in the self-renewing school. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Cangelosi, J. S. (1991).Evaluating classroom instruction. New York: Longman.Cogan, M., Anderson, R. H., & Krajewski, R. (1993).Clinical supervision: Special methods for

the supervision of teachers(3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990).Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper &

Row.Dewey, J. (1933).How we think. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.Dowling, G., & Sheppard, K. (1976).Teacher training: A counseling focus. Paper presented at

the national convention of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, New York.Dungan, S. L. (1993).Effects of evaluation, demographics, and perception on control strategies

in supervisory conferences in the southeast. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofGeorgia, Athens.

Foster, W. (1986).Paradigms and promises: New approaches to educational administration.Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.

Freire, P. (1985).The politics of education: Culture, power and liberation. Hadley, MA: Bergin &Garvey.

Friedan, B. (1993).The fountain of age. New York: Simon & Schuster.Fullan, M., & Miles, M. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn’t.Phi Delta

Kappan,73(10), 744-752.Gardner, H. (1983).Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligence. New York: Basic

Books.Giroux, H. A. (1992). Educational leadership and the crisis of democratic government.Educa-

tional Research,21(4), 4-11.Glanz, J. (1995). Exploring supervision history: An invitation and agenda.Journal of Curricu-

lum and Supervision,10(2), 95-113.Glanz, J. (1997). The Tao of supervision: Taoist insights into the theory and practice of educa-

tional supervision.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,12(3), 193-211.Glanz, J., & Neville, R. F. (1997).Educational supervision: Perspectives, issues, and controver-

sies. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.Glaser, B. G. (1978).Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory.

Mill Valley, CA: Sociology.




Glaser, B. G. (1992).Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing. Mill Valley,CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967).The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualita-tive research. Chicago: Aldine.

Glickman, C. D. (1985).Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach. Boston: Allyn &Bacon.

Glickman, C. D. (Ed.). (1992).Supervision in transition. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (1995).Supervision of instruction: A

developmental approach(3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Gordon, S. P. (1997). Has the field of supervision evolved to a point that it should be called some-

thing else? In J. Glanz & R. F. Neville (Eds.),Educational supervision: Perspectives, issues,and controversies(pp. 114-123). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996a). The principal’s role in school effectiveness: An assessmentof methodological progress, 1980-1995. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallin-ger, & A. Hart (Eds.),International handbook of educational leadership and administration(pp. 723-783). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996b). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: Areview of empirical research, 1980-1995.Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1),5-44.

Halpin, A. W., & Croft, D. B. (1963).The organizational climate of schools. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.

Heck, R. H., Larsen, T. J., & Marcoulides, G. A. (1990). Instructional leadership and schoolachievement: Validation of a causal model.Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(2),94-125.

Heck, R. H., & Marcoulides, G. A. (1993). Principal leadership behaviors and school achieve-ment.NASSP Bulletin,77(553), 20-28.

Herbert, J. M., & Tankersley, M. (1993). More and less effective ways to intervene with class-room teachers.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,9(1), 24-40.

Herzberg, F. (1966).Work and the nature of man. New York: World.Hipp, K. A. (1995).Exploring the relationship between principals’ leadership behaviors and

teachers’sense of efficacy in Wisconsin middle schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Holland, P. E. (1989). Implicit assumptions about the supervisory conference: A review andanalysis of literature.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,4, 362-379.

Jarvik, L. (1987, November).Aging of the brain: How can we prevent it?Paper presented at theannual meeting of the Gerontological Society of America, Washington, DC.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995).Student achievement through staff development(2nd ed.). NewYork: Longman.

Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1996).Models of teaching(5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Kirby, P. C., & Colbert, R. (1992, April).Principals who empower teachers. Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.Labouvie-Vief, G. (1982). Dynamic development and mature autonomy.Human Development,

25, 186.Larsen, M. L., & Malen, B. (1997, April).The elementary school principals’influence on teach-

ers’ curricular and instructional decisions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring.Educational Administration Quar-terly, 30(4), 498-518.




Leithwood, K., Begley, P., & Cousins, B. (1990). The nature, causes, and consequences of prin-cipals’ practices: An agenda for future research.Journal of Educational Administration,28(4), 5-31.

Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’professional development in a climate of educational reform.Edu-cational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,15(2), 129-151.

Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’professional community in restructur-ing schools.American Educational Research Journal,33(4), 757-789.

Maslow, A. H. (1954).Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.Mead, G. H. (1934).Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Meltzer, B. N., Petras, J. W., & Reynolds, L. T. (1975).Symbolic interactionism: Genesis, varie-

ties, and criticism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Merriam, S. B., & Clark, M. C. (1991).Lifelines: Patterns of work, love and learning in adult-

hood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Mezirow, J. D. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education.Adult Education,32(1),

3-24.Mezirow, J. D. (1990).Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and

emancipatory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984).Qualitative data analysis: A source book of new meth-

ods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Murphy, J. (1992).The landscape of leadership preparation: Reframing the education of school

administrators. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.Murphy, J., & Louis, K. S. (Eds.). (1994).Reshaping the principalship: Insights from transfor-

mational reform efforts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Noddings, N. (1986). Fidelity in teaching, teacher education, and research for teaching.Harvard

Educational Review, 56(4) 496-510.Pajak, E. (1989).Identification of supervisory proficiencies project. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Pajak, E. (1993).Approaches to clinical supervision: Alternatives for improving instruction.

Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.Parkay, F. W., & Hall, G. E. (Eds.). (1992).Becoming a principal: The challenges of beginning

leadership. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Pitner, N. (1988). The study of administrator effects and effectiveness. In N. Boyan (Ed.),Hand-

book of research in educational administration(pp. 99-122). New York: Longman.Reitzug, U. C. (1994). A case study of empowering principal behavior.American Educational

Research Journal,31(2), 283-307.Reitzug, U. C. (1997). Images of principal instructional leadership: From supervision to collabo-

rative inquiry.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,12(4), 356-366.Reitzug, U. C., & Cross, B. (1993, October).Deconstructing principal instructional leadership:

From “super” vision to critical collaboration. Paper presented at the annual conference ofthe University Council for Educational Administration, Houston, TX.

Roberts, J. (1991). Administrator training: The instructional conference component.Journal ofEducational Administration,29(2), 38-49.

Rusch, E. A. (1993, April).Resistance to change: Fact or stereotype?Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

Schmuck, R., & Runkel, P. (1994).Handbook of organization development in schools(4th ed.).Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Schön, D. A. (1987).Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teachingand learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.




Schön, D. A. (1988). Coaching reflective teaching. In P. P. Grimmett & G. F. Erickson (Eds.),Reflection in teacher education(pp. 19-30). New York: Teachers College Press.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992). Moral authority and the regeneration of supervision. In C. D. Glick-man (Ed.),Supervision in transition: The 1992 ASCD yearbook(pp. 203-214). Reston, VA:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1996).Moral leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Sergiovanni, T. J. (1997). How can we move toward a community theory of supervision? In

J. Glanz & R. F. Neville (Eds.), Educational supervision: Perspectives, issues, and controver-sies (pp. 264-280). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. J. (1998).Supervision: A redefinition(6th ed.). New York:McGraw-Hill.

Sheppard, B. (1996). Exploring the transformational nature of instructional leadership.AlbertaJournal of Educational Research,42(4), 325-344.

Short, E. C. (1995). A review of studies in the first 10 volumes of theJournal of Curriculum andSupervision.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,11(1), 87-105.

Smith, W., & Andrews, R. (1989).Instructional leadership: How principals make a difference.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Smyth, J. (1997). Is supervision more than the surveillance of instruction? In J. Glanz & R. F.Neville (Eds.),Educational supervision: Perspectives, issues, and controversies(pp. 286-295). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Soder, R. (Ed.). (1995).Democracy, education, and the schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Sternberg, R. J. (1990).Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of intelligence. New York:

Cambridge.Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990).Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures

and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Zemke, R., & Zemke, S. (1995). Adult learning: What do we know for sure?Training, 32(6),

31-34, 36, 38, 40.Zepeda, S. J., & Ponticell, J. A. (1996, April).At cross purposes: What do teachers need, want,

and get from supervision?Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educa-tional Research Association, New York.




Documents

Principals' Instructional Leadership and Teacher Development: Teachers' Perspectives