Role of the Instructor in an Improvement Science Course

• In Event: Improvement Science in University-Based Education Courses: Where Are We and What Research Is Needed?

Abstract

Current initiatives have called into question the quality of typical university-based leadership preparation programs. Citing issues of relevance and a lack of proximity to local district-based problems, the field has once again turned its attention to the role of university-district partnerships in supporting the redesign and innovation of leadership preparation (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, & Orr, 2007; Wang et al., 2018). In response to calls for closer alignment between leadership preparation and local problems of practice, improvement science (Bryk, Gomez, Grunow, & LeMahieu, 2015) has emerged as a promising andragogical strategy to support leadership development and learning. The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of faculty in structuring and facilitating instructional tasks in leadership preparation programs. The paper presents an analysis of the tasks and necessary instructional shifts in an introductory hybrid instructional leadership and assessment course.

Recent literature focused on the capacity of educational leadership programs to successfully prepare school leaders points to the importance of inquiry and course-embedded field experiences (Baron & Haller, 2014; Cosner, Tozer, Zavitkovsky, & Whalen, 2015). In this context, 20 leadership candidates completed a focused improvement project in the first semester of their program. The project, organized by concrete learning tasks, prepared candidates to work to disrupt systemic educational inequities in their local contexts. Candidates engaged in targeted learning activities that required them to work with a small group of cohort members while simultaneously working with members of their local site-based community (eg., school and/or district-level). Through these activities candidates learned how to use improvement science tools to define high-leverage problems of practice, identify and select potential levers for change, and test change ideas to meet the aims of the project. While each cohort-based group’s learning centered broadly on a shared educational issue, subsequent learning tasks were designed to help candidates learn to work together to slowly converge on a problem of practice and take action.

Findings suggest that the provision and facilitation of experiential learning tasks was integral to supporting candidates’ learning over the course of their first semester. Equally important was the use of concrete tools to interrogate complex, systemic educational problems as this was essential in supporting candidates’ leadership development and learning. Developing a comprehensive understanding of the broad educational landscape and recognizing the manifestations of educational inequities in local practice are important. Nonetheless, having these understandings alone are insufficient. The preparation of equity-driven leaders requires the knowledge to disrupt systemic inequities and bring about educational change. Leadership preparation program candidates require concrete methods and tools that they can draw on to investigate the local manifestation of systemic educational inequities. One the one hand, bringing about systems change requires the ability to clearly see the system that gives rise to such educational inequities. On the other, candidates need tools to help figure out just where and when to press on the system to bring about educational change. The role of the instructor is critical in facilitating context-embedded learning and leadership development.

Author

• Maritza Lozano, California State University - Fullerton