Defining Learning in Educational Leadership: Reframing the Narrative

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to reframe our field’s narrative around the science of learning. We seek to (1) describe the patterns within educational leadership and administration that are conceptually tethered to scientific management and highlight the absence of clearly defined conceptions of learning, (2) provide a synthesis of the science of learning, and (3) offer a “progressive problem shift” that promotes such a reframing. Methods: An integration of theory building methods with problem posing/identification strategies is designed to deconstruct the field of educational leadership through a science of learning lens and build toward theory that is more adaptive to our goals of leading for learning. Findings: Our findings stem from the central observation that educational leadership and administration has to date produced no conceptual or explicit operational definition of learning. Lacking such a definition, the field has been vulnerable to outlooks about learning that default to assumptions notably shaped by scientific management. This is in contrast to our review of the learning sciences literature, which emphasizes that learning is dependent on the active and deliberate agency of the learner and a host of introspective outlooks and behaviors and that these individual learning characteristics are situated within complex and dynamic social contexts that serve to mediate and shape learning. Implications and Conclusions: We argue that the future of our field rests, in large measure, on our ability to address the incongruences between our field’s foundations in scientific management and the science of learning.

Designing an Employee Experience Approach to Teacher Retention in Hard-to-Staff Schools

“…Theory building is a method that allows for the refinement or development of theory, based on an integration of prior theories, the literature and occasionally, cutting edge practices. The approach, popularized in HRM literature (Gioia & Pitre, 1990), has been increasingly prevalent in other fields, such as education leadership (Myran & Sutherland, 2019). The purpose of this article is to offer a model for capacity building that counters the neoliberal and managerial emphasis in education HRM and progress toward a more developmental and human-centered approach of Talent Centered Education Leadership (Tran, in press).…”

“We Have All the Data in One Place”: Examining Principals’ Use of a Data Warehouse During an Academic School Year

“…Yet evaluating principals' use of data systems is arguably more complex than it is for teachers, as principals do not often engage in actions that directly influence student performance outcomes (e.g., Grissom et al, 2021;Leithwood et al, 2004). Though it is clear that high-stakes accountability pressure, state and national standards, and evaluation tools and rubrics have created the conditions under which principals are required to use data in order to inform their instructional and human capital decision making (Marzano et al, 2005;National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015;Odden, 2011), it is less clear how they use data in practice. Research suggests that principals are more often found in the role of supporting teachers in using data than in using it themselves, though there are examples of principals using both student and teacher data to inform their decision making.…”

“…To explore this paradox, a wide array of studies suggest that individuals’ intentions to use information systems are often moderated by age, gender, individuals’ expectations regarding the systems’ performance, and its perceived ease of use (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh et al, 2003). Yet many of these studies come from industries that emphasize principles of scientific management and efficiency—that is, functionalist and deterministic approaches that do not easily apply to the field of education (e.g., Gunter, 2001; Myran & Sutherland, 2018). Thus, a straightforward evaluation of how productive data systems are in terms of their return on investment is more difficult to determine in educational settings than in organizations focused on a bottom-line of revenue and sales.…”

Exploring Positive School Attributes: Evidence From School Leader and Teacher Perspectives

“…In this regard, it is pivotal for educationists to understand the positive school attributes. Therefore, the current study aims to identify the positive school attributes as the main research agenda and at the same time refraining from being in the “managerialist project” (Wright, 2003, p.139) which emphasizes on efficiency, uniformity, predictability, and universality in the attempt to flourish students’ well-being (Myran & Sutherland, 2019). Further investigation into the positive education literature reveals that positive school attributes are well-reflected by Seligman’s (2011) multidimensional PERMA model of flourishing.…”