Using mixed methods to investigate school improvement and the role of leadership

Abstract

A note on versions:The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the repository url above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. AbstractPurpose -The purpose of this paper is to discuss the use of mixed methods research in a major three year project and focuses on the contribution of quantitative and qualitative approaches to study school improvement. It discusses the procedures and multiple data sources used in studying improvement using the example of a recent study of the role of leadership in promoting improvement in primary and secondary schools' academic results in England. Although the definition of improvement used was based on robust analyses of data on students' academic outcomes, the mixed methods design enabled a broader perspective to be achieved.Design/methodology/approach -The study illustrates how the multilevel analysis of students' national assessment and examination results based on national data sets for primary and secondary schools in England were used to investigate the concept of academic effectiveness based on value-added methodology. Using three successive years of national results a purposive sample of schools were identified that could be classified as both effective and improving over the period [2003][2004][2005]. In addition, surveys and interviews were used to gather evidence of the role of stakeholder perceptions in investigating school improvement strategies and processes.Findings -National student attainment data sets were used for the identification of improving and effective schools and revealed the importance of considering their different starting points in their classification of three distinctive improvement groups. The combination of quantitative survey data from headteachers and key staff with qualitative case study data enabled a range of analysis strategies and the development of statistical models and deeper understanding of the role of leadership.Research limitations/implications -The limitations of a focus on only academic outcomes and "value-added" measures of student progress are discussed. The challenges and opportunities faced in analysis and integration of the different sources of evidence are briefly explored. Practical implications -The study contributes to the knowledge base on the identification of school improvement and use of performance data. The findings on strategies and processes that support improvement are of relevance to policy makers and practitioners, especially school leaders.Originality/value -The mixed methods design adopted in the study enabled the research to combine rigorous quantitative and in-depth qualitative data in new ways to extend and make new claims to knowledge about the role of school leadership in promoting school improvement based on the study of effective and improved schools' experiences.

Assessing Instructional Leadership with the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale

“…For example, when studying change in the school over time, reciprocal effects conceptual models and longitudinal research designs become highly relevant Heck 1998, 2011a, b;Hallinger 2011, 2014). Yet, we did not locate any studies in the PIMRS corpus that had employed these particular approaches , and no more than a handful in the entire educational leadership literature (e.g., Bowers and White 2014;Goff et al 2014;Hallinger and Heck 2011a, b;Hallinger 2011, 2014;Rowan and Denk 1984;Sammons et al 2014;Sleegers et al 2014;. Employing the PIMRS instrument within studies that employ these multivariate conceptualizations of leadership and learning remains an important goal for future PIMRS research.…”

“…This problem is particularly relevant in educational organizations, where studying leadership effects on school improvement requires the use of multilevel modeling Heck 1996a, b, 2011b;Hallinger 2005, 2014;Hill and Rowe 1996). Despite these challenges, however, we cannot overstate the important role of longitudinal research designs in leadership research where progress has both theoretical implications and practical utility (Bowers and White 2014;Goff et al 2014;Griffin 1997;Heck 2010, 2011a, b;Heck and Hallinger 2005Ogawa and Bossert, 1995;Sammons et al 2014;Sleegers et al 2014;.…”

“…There is, in our opinion, no theoretical basis to suggest that the behaviors or actions of principals directly influence the school-wide achievement of students. Most theories of leadership and learning propose that leadership operates through the organization of the school and the practices of teachers (e.g., Heck 1996a, b, 1998;Hallinger 2011, 2014;Leithwood et al 2010a, b;Rigby 2014;Sammons et al 2014;. Empirically, direct effects studies are poorly equipped to test for this type of indirect relationship and have yielded a consistent long-term pattern of weak or no effects of leadership on learning Hallinger and Heck 1996a, b;Leithwood et al , 2010a.…”

El modelo español de dirección escolar y sus implicaciones en el desarrollo del liderazgo pedagógico en Andalucía. Un estudio cualitativo

“…Para ello, se integran prácticas que buscan distribuir el liderazgo y, en consecuencia, dinamizar la institución educativa. Se trata de procesos organizacionales que empoderan modos de trabajo conjunto que marcan una diferencia en la calidad educativa (Sammons et. al, 2014).…”

‘Are we there yet?’: A multimethod study of the Oxford University Press Pathways to school improvement

“…One of the key findings identified by Sammons et al. (, p. 580) in a study about the role of leadership in school improvement indicated that schools that began their improvement trajectory from a lower starting point:

made greater improvements in changing school culture, climate and addressing teaching and learning and use of performance data during the last 3 years.

…”