Problem Processing and the Principalship: Theoretical Foundations and the Expertise Issue.

0
331

Well-conducted, theory-guided empirical research into school administration is important, but will never by itself provide ultimate answers to questions of human action, choice, and value. This paper describes the theoretical framework studies conducted by the Cognitive Approaches to School Leadership (CASL) Project. The paper explains central constructs in cognitive-science theory, such as problem space, problem structure, expertise, schema, and implications for the study and practice of school administration. Two CASL studies, which compared how practicing and novice principals viewed and talked about their work and problems, are described. Finally, the paper considers two areas of continuing concern: the use of think-aloud protocols (in which subjects think aloud as they work on a presented problem), and the difficult problem of selecting appropriate expert and novice subjects. (Contains 91 references.)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OP EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization Originatong it O Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction Quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. Problem processing and the principalship: Theoretical foundations and the expertise issue. Derek J. Allison The University of Western Ontario PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY ap_zez2,61-7-1/ TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) Revised version of a paper presented as part of the symposium Clinical assessments of practical performance in school leadership: Findings from novice-expert studies of the elementary principalship. Session #41.22 at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association New York City, April 1996 This research reported in this paper was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada under grant #410 -92 -0329. CASL Project Paper #AERA96 1.2, revised July 1996. BEST COPY AVAILABLE 2 Theoretical foundations & the expertise issue. p. 1 Problem processing and the Principalship: Theoretical foundations and the expertise issue. Derek J. Allison More than three decades ago, Hemphill, Griffiths and Frederikson (1962) published their landmark account of Administrative Performance and Personality in elementary school administration. Then and now their detailed inquiry into how 232 principals responded to a rich set of simulated administrative problems stands as the most ambitious, detailed, and intensive study of its kind available. But in addition to the sheer magnitude of the data collected and analyzed, their study qualifies for landmark status as an exemplar of the kind of research which was promoted by the New or Theory Movement in educational administration. Research of this kind could be described as disciplined inquiry into theory derived claims about the nature and processes characteristic of organizations such as schools, and the behaviours and other states of individuals and groups who interact within such organizations, inquiry which makes use of and may rely extensively on attempts at measuring and analyzing variation within and between sets of defined variables. Critics of the Theory Movement, notably Thom Greenfield, questioned the relevance of such research to the human realities of life and work within schools. In more extreme criticisms, disciplined inquiry into the mysteries and mechanisms of administration through attempts at measuring theoretically grounded or derived variables is deemed to be not just inappropriate but also epistemologically invalid. As such there are some who wish to proscribe empirical orto replace an adjective with an epithetempiricist research in favour of interpretive explorations of the socially constructed worlds we know as schools, and the constantly contested exercise of and resistance to power which we call administration. A complex set of interacting motives lie behind my decision to begin this paper with the preceding paragraph. The purpose of the paper is to clear the conceptual ground for those that follow by sketching the relevant theory base for the unabashedly empirical research activities which are to be reported and to discuss several central but worrisome concepts. But before jumping into the morass of detail that is needed to achieve these aims I thought it important to frame our research within the broader historical and epistemological context staked out by the first paragraph. One reason for doing so is simply to demonstrate that we are aware of that context and the deep and difficult questions embedded within it. Yet once we begin to immerse ourselves in the technical CASL Project Paper #AERA96 1.2, revised July 1996. 3 Problem processing & the principalship p. 2 details of the research to be presented the waters of empirical inquiry will threaten to close over our heads making it difficult or impossible to subsequently acknowledge alternate ways of interpreting or explaining the world. In one sense, then, the opening paragraph may serve as a set of metaphorical water-wings which will hopefully keep both us and you from drowning in the empirical waters in which we must bathe. If, in addition to this, these water-wings help remind us all of the characteristic limitations of empirical research, they will have served us well. Chief among those limitations is the narrow, tightly focused, implicitly monochromatic view of the few elements selected for study which inevitably results. Such a view cannot hope to reflect much less fully represent the colourful complexities of administrative action as lived by participants or interpreted by observersand it does not (or should not) pretend to. What it can do is identify regularities and contrasts within and between otherwise inaccessible states and processes which our best theories portray as underlying and constraining social action in general and administrative practice in particular. When empirical inquiry succeeds in this endeavourand itmay fail as often as notthen we are rewarded with potentially important nuggets of information which may help us better understand the limited area of inquiry addressed by the research responsible, and which may therefore contribute to building or modifying broader accounts of phenomena and processes of interest. In either case the findings which result and, more importantly, the manner(s) in which they come to be interpreted and understood, will help us or others find what appropriately placed arbitrators will eventually decide are better ways of doing important things. That is all that may reasonably be expected of empirical research. One of the unfortunate faults associated with the advent of the Theory Movement was a misplaced belief that properly conducted empirical research would produce something akin to a universal technology for the effective and efficient practice of administration. Such an idea grossly misrepresents the nature of the social world, the task of social science in inquiring into that world, the role of theory in building tentative explanations of aspects of that world, and the powers of empirical research in gathering potentially relevant information. This is not to say or suggest that we should abandon theory guided research into educational organizations and their administration in favour of the many flavours of interpretive inquiry now in vogue. Quite the contrary. In our view well conducted, theory guided empirical research into schools and their administration is more important than ever, provided that we recognize and accept that it will never, by itself, provide ultimate answers to the enduring questions of human action, choice and value. Nor, of course, will any of the trendy interpretive approaches. All that we may reasonably expect is a Theoretical foundations & the expertise issue. P. 3 steady and hopefully not-too-slow accumulation of reasonably reliable empirically grounded information augmented by insights and appreciations from interpretive inquiry which we will try to interweave into incrementally better accountstheories if you likeof phenomena andprocesses of interest and importance. This is the broad end to which we sought to contribute in the research to be reported. Hemphill, Griffiths and Frederikson (1962) justified their area of inquiry as follows: The administrative performance of the elementary school principal was chosen because of the high degree of interest in the problems associated with the principalship. Boards of Education, superintendents of schools, and the general public are demanding improved methods of educating and selecting school principals and of improving the administration of schools. (p.1) And so it goes. Our reasons, along with those given by many others who have studied school principals in recent decades, were much the same, heightened by the steadily increasing importance of the principalship as the broad trend toward devolving increased responsibility to schools proceeds apace. That we and others should choose to focus for our work on a common topic is as it should be. The elementary principalshipis the most numerous post in the profession of educational administration and is clearly a crucial one, being recognized by both theory and conventional wisdom as pivotally important in creating and sustaining good schools, and thus helping make or break the life chances of children and the future of their societies.