BASES TEÓRICAS FACTOR NUTRICIONAL

Terms within different research contexts

The concept of instructional leadership has evolved over time and the American literature refers to instructional leadership (Hallinger and Murphy, 1985; Heck et al., 1990; Krug, 1992; Hallinger and Heck, 1996; Leithwood et al., 1999; Elmore, 2000; Blase and Blase, 1998, 1999a,b, 2002, 2004; Hallinger, 2003; Marks and Printy, 2003; Hallinger, 2005; Coldren and Spillane, 2007), and instructionally focused leadership or leadership for school improvement (Murphy et al., 2007). Moreover, the term ‘instructional leadership’ has been replaced by the term learning-focused leadership in Knapp et al.’s (2006) research conducted in the US context. Within the English literature, the term instructional leadership (Southworth, 2002; Hopkins, undated) was superseded by Leadership for/of Learning (Bush et al., 2006; Murphy et al., 2007; Dempster and Macbeath, 2009; Rhodes and Brundrett, 2010). The term learning-centred leadership is also used within the English (Southworth, 2003) and the New Zealand (Timperley, 2006) contexts.

As Hallinger (2009:1) notes, ‘instructional leadership has recently reincarnated as a global phenomenon in the form of “leadership for learning” ’, which is

conceived as a more distributed and/or shared school leadership paradigm for 21st century school contexts. As a consequence, in his most recent works (Hallinger, 2009; 2011a; Hallinger & Heck, 2010b), the term Leadership for Learning is used, as being the model of leadership for 21st century schools. Scholars (Bush et al., 2008, 2010; Bush and Glover, 2009; Hoadley, 2009), exploring the empirical knowledge base underlying the concept of instructional leadership, use the term Managing Teaching and Learning within the South African context; and curriculum leadership and management within Asian (Lee and Dimmock, 1999) and Australian (Dimmock and Wildy, 1995) contexts.

Definitions

There is still no agreed definition on instructional leadership, one of the ten leadership models discussed by Bush (2011: 36). However, the lack of consensus on definitions on instructional leadership did not deter various researchers from having agreed on a list of practices encompassed in this model, as discussed in the next section of this chapter. North American literature, the birthplace of this leadership model, uses the term ‘instruction’ as the synonym of ‘pedagogy’6. However, MacNeill et al.(2003: 16) have argued that:

the principles and practices of instructional leadership are potentially dysfunctional in terms of genuine and sustainable improvement of student learning [whereas] […] pedagogic leadership concerns leading improvement of student learning and this requires facilitating the professional learning of teachers.

6  _{‘Pedagogy’ which is rooted from the ancient Greek verb paidagogeo, literally means to lead the child. For}

the Ancient Greeks and Romans a ‘pedagogos’ was an educated servant responsible of taking care of children from rich families and the one who guided the children from home to school. Later, the term was given the meaning of ‘bring up, educate, guide’. (Krivas, 1999: 40)  

Instructional leadership has been identified as one of the most significant leadership conceptions in English speaking countries (UK, North America, Australia, New Zealand). Several empirical studies (e.g. Edmonds, 1979; Hallinger and Murphy, 1985;  Hallinger and Heck, 1997;  Blase and Blase, 2002; Southworth, 2002; Motshana, 2004; Ali and Botha, 2006; Timperley, 2006; Day et al., 2007b; Pansiri, 2008; Bush and Glover, 2009; Bush et al., 2010) reinforce that instructional leadership is highly concerned with the ‘technical core of education’, teaching and learning, where the focus is leading teachers’ professional learning to improve student outcomes. For example, Southworth (2002: 79) states that ‘instructional leadership is strongly concerned with teaching and learning, including the professional learning of teachers as well as student growth’, incorporating a number of practices that explore the relationship between principal leadership and pupil achievements. This is in line with Elmore’s (2000) definition which takes teaching improvement as a focus with a view to improve learner outcomes.

The lack of explicit descriptions and definitions of this term led Leithwood et al. (1999: 8) to correctly argue that ‘instructional leadership […] typically assumes that the critical focus for attention by leaders is the behaviour of teachers as they engage in activities directly affecting the growth of students.’ For Bush and Glover (2002: 10), while the focus is clearly on teachers’ behaviours in improving learning, the emphasis remains on the conceptual definition of the centrality of teaching and learning and they contend that ‘leaders’ influence is targeted at student learning via teachers.’ This definition parallels Hallinger and Heck’s (1997) classification of principal effects, Leithwood et al.’s (1999)

emphasis on teachers’ behaviours directly affecting students’ growth, and Southworth’s (2002) development of strategies to improve the quality of teaching and learning. They all highlight an indirect effect of principal leadership on student achievement through professional collaboration and learning, as discussed throughout the chapter.

Alternative concepts to instructional leadership

The terms ‘instructional leadership’, ‘learning-centred leadership’ and ‘Leadership for Learning’ typically serve as alternative concepts. Instructional leadership has been characterised by some scholars (Barth, 1990; Day et al., 2001) as a ‘top-down approach with an emphasis on controlling others to move towards goals that may have been set at the top of the organization for the pursuit of the goal of school improvement.’ (Hallinger, 2003: 343) While earlier accounts emphasized a solo model of instructional leadership, more recent models have recognized the need for multiple layers of leadership and the need for shared instructional leadership practices (e.g. Marks and Printy, 2003). The trend towards a more shared sense of instructional leadership supersedes the top- down (principal) instructional leadership model of the 1980s, while a ‘shared’ (Marks and Printy, 2003) form of instructional leadership describes the creation of an environment for building staff instructional and leadership capabilities to improve student learning.

Learning-centred leadership

Dimmock (2012: 78) states that ‘[he] fashioned the term ‘learning-centred leadership’7 to capture the shift from a narrower to a broader set of leadership concerns’. MacBeath (2006: 39) agrees with Southworth (2003: 9) that:

[a] change [in] the title for this particular form of leadership [is needed], because instruction is no longer our guiding star; rather it is learning. If learning is our primary goal, then we should think of leadership being “learning centred” rather than instructional […].

Conceptualising the preferred 21st century term of learning-centred leadership, with the goal of finding common ground with instructional leadership, a number of common threads can be discerned (See Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1: Instructional leadership vs learning-centred leadership chain

Whereas the centrality of the relationship between instructional leadership and outcomes, as shown in the IL chain on the left of Figure 2.1, has been established through controlling the pedagogical quality of instructors, within learning centred leadership ‘leaders encourage teachers to examine their teaching through the lens of learning.’ (Southworth, 2004b: 111) However, the

7 _{Dimmock, C. (2000) Designing the learning-centred school: a cross-cultural perspective, London: The}

Falmer Press. Improvement  of   student  outcomes   Controlling   curriculum-­‐ pedagogy     Heroic  and   shared   instructional   leadership   Learning   Building   teachers   Learning-­‐ centred   leadership   school  

main foci of the two concepts - instructional leadership and learning-centred leadership – are teaching and learning, respectively.

Leadership for Learning

Hallinger (2009) states that a new paradigm for 21st century school leadership is the reincarnation of instructional leadership in the form of leadership for learning (LfL). MacBeath and Dempster (2009) argue that there is no firm definition of ‘leadership for learning’ as its usage is influenced by the educational organization context, at a national and international level. However, a developing understanding of leadership for learning has been highlighted by Swaffield and MacBeath (2009a), based on the outcomes of the ‘Leadership for Learning Project’ (2002-2005), to be discussed later in this chapter. Figure 2.2 shows how they remodeled the ‘wedding cake’, based on ‘Knapp et al.’s8 representation of layers of learning (2003) […] as an attempt to capture the complexity and dynamism of the principles in a way that is accessible to a wide range of potential users.’ (Swaffield and MacBeath, 2009a: 16)

8  _{Knapp, M., Copland, M. and Talbert, J. (2003) Leading for Learning: Reflective Tools for School and}

District Leaders, Washington: Centre for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.   (www.crpweb.org)  

Figure 2.2: Leadership for Learning – an integrative model

(Source:http://www.leadershipforlearning.org.uk/images/LFL/lfl_diagram_and_principles.pdf)

Accordingly, this set of principles provides a framework of capacity building for the interconnection of leadership and learning, as described below:

• A focus on learning as an activity in which everyone is a learner

learning […].

• Conditions for learning as an activity in which culture nurtures the

learning of everyone, physical and social spaces stimulate and celebrate learning […].

• Explicit dialogue about leadership for learning in which there is

active collegial inquiry focusing on the sharing of values, understandings and practices.

• Sharing leadership in which structures support participation in

developing the schools as a learning community […] is symbolized in the day-to-day flow of activities in the school [.]

• A shared sense of accountability in which a systematic approach to

self-evaluation is embedded at classroom, school and community levels […]. (Swaffield and MacBeath, 2009b: 14-15)

Various researchers (Hallinger, 2003; Mulford and Silins, 2003; Leithwood et al., 2006b, 2010; Robinson et al., 2008) show that leadership for learning describes practices that school leaders employ with the purpose of enhancing learning, while Hallinger’s (2011a) conceptualization of the LfL model (Figure 2.3) subsumes features of instructional, transformational and shared leadership (e.g. Marks and Printy, 2003; MacBeath et al., 2005; Hallinger and Heck, 2010b).

Figure 2.3: A synthesized model of leadership for learning (Hallinger 2011a:

127)

The synthesized model identifies the indirect means which affect the leadership contribution to school improvement through which leadership is linked to learning. Two important studies (Robinson et al., 2008; Hallinger and Heck,

2010b) show a ‘mediated-effects model’ of principal or/and collective leadership and learning, as seen in the empirical section of this chapter.