Exploring Leadership Identity Through Collaborative Learning in a Preparation Program

Educational leadership preparation and development has become a key educational reform strategy to provide more and better-prepared educational leaders (Hale & Moorman, 2003). This research answers the question, “What is the nature of the shift, if any, in individual perspectives as a result of purposefully designed, learning experiences delivered through a cohort model? ” The researchers have developed a qualitative research template to locate individual respondents along a leadership identity (leader-centric to participative-centric) and problem framing (first order to second order change) continua. This paper describes the results of applying the research template to analyze writing samples submitted by five graduate students in a principalship program before participants began coursework and compares these results to a second writing sample collected after participants experienced an authentic problem-based course delivered through a cohort model. Results gathered at the end of the first summer’s coursework indicate shifts along the continuum of leader-centric identity and reveal an emphasis on second order change problem framing. To determine program impact, future research will analyze pre-program, end of course, and end of program writing samples to describe changes, if any, in leadership identity and problem framing perspectives. Exploring Leadership 3 The centrality of leadership to school improvement has been documented (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). Although a leader’s influence on school outcomes is largely indirect, leaders influence school conditions and teachers’ work, which then affect school outcomes. After reviewing results from both qualitative and quantitative studies, Leithwood, Harris, and Hopkins (2008), came to the conclusion that “school leadership is second only to classroom teaching as an influence on pupil learning” (p. 27). In recent years, how leaders are prepared has come under increased scrutiny. Policy makers, funders and educational experts strive to identify, and attempt to replicate, programs that effectively prepare future leaders who are able to lead school improvement resulting in enhanced student achievement (Levine, 2005; USDoE, 2005). Increasingly, national attention on effective schools focuses on the issue of the quality of leadership preparation programs (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005). In response many educational leadership preparation programs have redesigned their content and delivery to be more influential in graduates’ leadership development and subsequent leadership practice focused on school improvement (Young, 2009). State requirements, national accreditation recognition, and other factors, such as increased emphasis on school-university partnerships, have influenced program improvement and redesign work as well (Hale & Moorman, 2003). In order to engage in continuous improvement, it is essential for university preparation programs to critically examine the impact of the curriculum, learning experiences, and instructional delivery on the aspiring leaders enrolled in their programs (Murphy & Vriesenga, 2006) Such research contributes to the national debate surrounding leadership preparation effectiveness (Davis et al.; Orr & Pounder, 2007). Exploring Leadership 4 Purpose In her research exploring the effects of structured learning experiences on the beliefs of pre-service educational leaders, Kathleen M. Brown states, “because beliefs can change as a result of experience, it is critical for preparation programs to examine the impact of their signature pedagogy of the cohort model, methods, the results of an analysis on a sample of participants as well as discussion and implications for further research, strategies on educational leaders’ attitudes, perceptions, and practices ” (Brown, 2004a). The purpose of this study is to determine the nature of the impact, if any, of the first summer learning experiences of a leadership preparation program on pre-service leaders. This paper represents the second phase of a broader research project. The first phase produced the research template that this study employs to determine the impact the university program has on the leadership identity and problem framing of program participants. Included in this paper are a brief explanation of the process used to develop the research template, description of key components of the discoveries reported in this paper will inform a larger, longitudinal study addressing the impact of the full program on successive pre-service students and will eventually offer comparison data between individuals and cohort groups served in four separate geographic areas. Anticipated expansion of this work will research the adopted leadership practices of graduates of the principalship program. Leaders and Acts of Leadership Arthur Levine’s (2005) critical report of the nation’s education leadership preparation programs generated a ripple of research examining the concepts central to educational leadership preparation. Indeed, scholars concerned with educational leadership preparation programs have Exploring Leadership 5 critically engaged these criticisms and given rise to theory and research that serves to undergird the work of this exploratory study. The body of leadership research examining the context of educational leadership preparation programs indicates that the role of the principal has changed and evolved remarkably in the last two decades (Elmore & Fuhrman, 2001; Goldring & Schuermann, 2009; Murphy, 2002; Murphy, Hawley, & Young, 2006). The onset of standards-based learning and accountability has produced remarkable changes (Elmore & Fuhrman, 2001; Goldring & Schuermann, 2009; Murphy, 2002; Murphy, et al., 2006). Additionally, the failure of schools to address the alarming achievement gap has propelled an emphasis on campus leadership and a search for principals with the necessary skills and knowledge to meet accountability demands, (Banks, 1997; Brown, 2004b; Darling-Hammond & Friedlaender, 2008; Gooden, 2002; Jencks & Phillips, 1998). Effective principals must be able to lead campuses through data driven decision making processes, develop professional learning communities, facilitate community integration, articulate a common vision, and foster collaborative cultures of excellence (Copland, 2003; Knapp, Swinnerton, Copland, & Monpas, 2006; Wayman & Stringfield, 2006). Clearly, today’s principals are faced with mounting pressures that present a challenge for those charged with effectively preparing future leaders (Brown, 2004b; Darling-Hammond & Friedlaender, 2008; Murphy, et al., 2006). For the purposes of this study, two primary streams of research are considered: 1) studies that examine the leadership styles, sensibilities, and identities, and, 2) research that examines leadership behaviors and practices designed to improve a school’s effectiveness. First, an overarching picture of what is considered to be effective leadership and effective leadership development in the evolving landscape of public education is presented as a backdrop. Exploring Leadership 6 Analyzing literature which focuses on the school leader’s attributes, and self perception as agents of change and with a locus of control in relation to these mounting demands is the first stream of literature reviewed here and illuminates our study of instructional experiences that are geared to foster a more sophisticated leadership identity. While early leadership theory examined the notion of heroic leaders or “great men” who possessed personality traits and attributes that made them born to lead (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002, p. 765) more current leadership theory accounts for the notion that effective leaders can be developed (Brown, 2004; Cowie & Crawford, 2007; Hall, 2006; Orr, 2007). The situational and relational aspects of leadership have been extensively examined in leadership theory (Engels, Hotton, Devos, Bouckenooghe, & Aelterman, 2008; Friedman, 2004; Goldring & Schuermann, 2009). Contemporary educational research accounts these elements through the contextual lens presented above. The literature further explores the impact of a campus leaders’ attitudes and beliefs on school improvement efforts (Brown, 2004; Engels, et al., 2008; Theoharis, 2008). The work of these researchers has served to provide evolving empirical models that operationalize the attitudes and beliefs of highly effective leaders while delineating specific leadership behaviors in a situational, relational, and political context. Contemporary research casts a panoramic lens on effective leadership by encompassing issues relative to these attitudes and behaviors, while considering the situational and relational context (Brown, 2004a; Friedman, 2004; Theoharis, 2008). Understood as beliefs, values, and judgments, a leader’s disposition influences behavior and are thus of concern for scholars examining the challenges of leadership preparation (Brown, 2004b; Browne-Ferrigno & Johnson Fusarelli, 2005). Building on the work of researchers in the field of teacher preparation as well as the theoretical and methodological framework of critical political science (Bandura, 2001; Banks, Exploring Leadership 7 1997; Shields, 2004) leadership scholars have engaged a critical paradigm to examine the impact of leadership preparation (Brown, 2004b). The literature suggests that effective leaders are individuals who are deeply committed to notions of social justice and cultural awareness (Brown, 2004b; Theoharis, 2008). Preparations programs are grappling with the pedagogical challenge of fostering the expansion of aspiring leaders’ values, attitudes, beliefs, and dispositions (Brown, 2004a; Browne-Ferrigno & Johnson Fusarelli, 2005; Grogan, 2000). As the study of school leadership develops, the influence of leadership dispositions and attitudes emerges as a key element in leadership preparation programs (Jacobson, Broo