How Secondary School Principals Interact with Implementation of Science Instructional Reform by their Science Teachers

• In Event: 56.059 - Examining How Principals Engage With Discipline-Specific Instructional Reforms

Abstract

Objective
Despite lists articulating categorical roles of principals (e.g., Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood, 2012), research lacks in providing details on the interactions between principals and teachers around instructional reform enactment. For lists of practices to be actionable they must be “infused with educational content” (Robinson, 2006) and more deeply explain characteristics of school cultures they advocate. This paper examines interactions of principals with science instructional reform work at nine secondary schools in a large urban school district in which teachers engaged ambitious and equitable science teaching practices at various levels of depth and proficiency. I compare how teachers and principals at different schools make sense of their interactions around instruction and examine the nature and frequency of opportunities principals provide for science teachers to make sense of and prepare to implement new instructional practices.

Theoretical Framework & Research Questions
Consistent with research on the nature of principals' work (e.g., Spillane & Thompson, 1997; Spillane, Reiser & Reimer, 2002), my framework includes both socio-cognitive aspects of individual sense-making and socio-cultural aspects of interactions and enactment. This research considers how teachers and principals talk about instructional practices and how they interact directly and indirectly (e.g., through setting goals, allocating/structuring time, providing resources). I evaluated these questions:
• How do principals and assistant principals make sense of, and interact with secondary science teachers around, issues of instruction/instructional change?
• How do the priorities and structures principals and assistant principals establish/promote interact with science specific instructional reform work?

Methods
In the context of an ongoing five-year study of science instructional reform in a large urban school district, I examined how principals made sense of instructional practice and how that impacted their own practices. I conducted eight learning walks with principals and coaches; walks included intensive preparatory and reflective discussions and at least two classroom visits. I interviewed eleven principals and assistant principals and thirty science teachers. I examined professional development time allocations and goals/priorities for each school. I employed an iterative, open and emergent coding process with transcripts and artifacts. I further corroborated findings based on contextual data including extensive videos of embedded professional learning, class observations, student work, and discussions with nvolved coaches and researchers.

Results
I identified three areas in which the degree of principal and teacher alignment varied across schools and appeared to inform varying levels of teacher engagement with reform practices..
• Principals set very different amounts of time and expectations for science teacher collaboration.
• Principals and teachers lacked a common language about instruction and prioritized different aspects of practice; interactions about specific reform practices was limited.
• Principals held varied expectations of and dependence on science instructional coaches, and varied widely in their degree of coordination and shared instructional language and priorities with coaches.

Significance
Identifying specific areas in which principals can intentionally increase alignment between their work and teacher’s reform enactments can increase the effectiveness of reform implementation. Considering the inclusive, student-centric bent of reform instructional practices, such impacts should translate to improved learning experiences for all students.

Author

• Christine Chew, University of Washington