Volume 3 - Issue 1 - DBU Journal for K-12 Educational Research - Page 46

44 Principal Leadership Development Framework With a desire to compile a comprehensive and detailed guide of effective leadership approaches tied to student success, the ASCD≠≠ Principal Leadership Development Framework (PLDF) was developed identifying instructional leadership as a key role for a campus leader (Hall et al., 2016). The ASCD framework, grounded in the belief that the growth of a leader translates into systemic growth of teams that positively influences student learning, identifies four criteria for the instructional leadership role of campus administrators: • builds a culture of a robust professional learning community; • builds individual capacity through differentiated supervision, coaching, feedback, and evaluation practices; • ensures alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment; and • promotes the use of data to monitor and adjust instruction (Hall et al., 2016). Effective Professional Learning Merely attending learning does not ensure a change in practice or beliefs (Knight, 2009; Learning Forward, 2011; Spillane, Hallett, & Diamond, 2003). Multiple studies have found the professional learning events attended by campus administrators do not prepare leaders to act as instructional leaders and do not result in the implementation of intended behaviors (Aguilera, 2016; Anderson, 2017; Hallinger, 2005; Kibble, 2004). Anderson’s (2017) study found that leadership preparation programs had a minimal impact on an individual’s readiness for a principal position due to the programs’ lack of alignment to principal demands. Engaging in authentic activities that extended learning and encouraging collaboration with peers were found to be important positive influences on readiness (Anderson, 2017). To ensure effective schools with leadership that strongly influences student learning, continuous improvement must be embedded into leadership roles, and learning experiences must be guided by specific leadership principles (Hall et al., 2016). Through active engagement, learners construct meaning and identify authentic applications, which creates motivation to implement the new learning (Guskey, 2000; Learning Forward, 2011). Active learning processes that promote the understanding and application of new learning include reflection, dialogue, modeling, and practice with coaching and feedback (Guskey, 2000; Knight, 2009; Learning Forward, 2011). Professional learning provokes change in practice when time is given to process the learning through reflection and collaboration to internalized insights (Learning Forward, 2011; Spillane et al., 2003). Purpose of the Study With a desire to support the growth of campus administrators as instructional leaders, one North Texas district redesigned its leadership development program, Leadership Cohort, to equip its campus administrators with the knowledge and skills necessary to act as instructional leaders. The Leadership Cohort redesign intended to provide clarity on the four criteria of instructional leadership included in the PLDF: (a) implementing professional learning communities; (b) providing coaching and feedback; (c) ensuring alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment; and (d) monitoring data to improve instruction, through engaging and meaningful learning experiences. The purpose of the current mixed methods study was to examine perceptions of instructional leadership of the Leadership Cohort participants before and after participating in the cohort. Data collected was divided into two phases and involved the 16 assistant principals who were part of the Leadership Cohort for two consecutive years to explore two research questions. A self-assessment guide was completed by all 16 participants before and after participating in year two of the Leadership Cohort. A paired sample t -test was utilized to measure differences in the means of the pre and post self-assessment results to determine if perceptions of instructional leadership of the four criteria outlined in the PLDF changed as a result of participating in the Leadership Cohort. Qualitative data was collected in the form of one-on- one interviews with seven cohort participants who accepted the invitation to participate after the completion of the two-year program. A qualitative analysis of responses was completed using NVivo 11 to identify emerging themes to further explain the quantitative data and perceived changes in behavior as a result of participating in the Leadership Cohort. Program Description Shawna Miller, Ed.D.