Principal theories of practice : mapping the cognitive structure and effects of instructional leadership

Abstract

PRINCIPAL THEORIES OF PRACTICE: MAPPING THE COGNITIVE STRUCTURE & EFFECTS OF INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP Gary W. Houchens May 12, 2008 This dissertation builds on the work of Argyris and Schon (1974), who explained patterns of organizational learning using a concept called theories of practice, cognitive formulas for professional problem solving. Theories of practice consist of deeply held assumptions that logically imply certain action strategies. Argyris and Schon hypothesized that by engaging in deep reflection on assumptions and action strategies, professionals could develop more effective theories of practice based on alternate assumptions and action strategies. This dissertation explores the instructional leadership theories of practice of four successful school principals using a naturalistic, qualitative, multi-case design. Data gathering methods included interviews, observations, and a written reflective exercise completed by principals. The researcher used constant comparative analysis to categorize data until the theories of practice for each principal emerged. Three research questions framed the study. The first question identified the principals’ instructional leadership theories of practice. Findings revealed that these principals used three to six theories of practice based on strong moral and utilitarian assumptions regarding the inherent dignity and worth of both teachers and students, and the positive academic effects of recognizing and affirming that worth. Action strategies included building positive relationships, inviting teacher input, fostering collaboration, unifying staff around a common mission, and encouraging continuous teacher professional growth. The second research question investigated the effect of principal theories of practice on teachers. Teachers from the case study schools reported that principal theories of practice affected them in a variety of positive ways, including higher levels of job satisfaction and motivation, strong affiliation with the school, and a sense of personal responsibility for student outcomes. The third research question explored the extent to which principals engaged reflection on their practice. Findings were limited to only two examples: (a) principals engaged in double-loop learning by developing “special case” theories of practice for correcting underperforming teachers who failed to respond to the principals’ preferred methods of leadership, and (b) by learning from feedback to place more emphasis on inviting teacher input. The final chapter discusses the study’s implications for principal preparation programs, school districts, policy makers, and principal professional development.