Purpose:The authors adapted distributed cognition theory to provide a detailed account of how schoolleaders use knowledge of the new programs, existing initiatives, andschool contexts to guide policy implementation.
Research Design:The study used distributed cognition theory to show how policy implementation studies provide an occasion to understand the influence of context on practice. The article focuses on a case study of (a) a suburban district design of a teacher evaluation policy and (b) a principal’s effort to use the evaluation program with the teachers in her middleschool.The authors adaptedthe distributedcognitiontheory to provide ananalytic framework to better address the issues of school leadership.
Findings:The authors found that the design of the policy required teacher evaluators to address the tensions between summative and formative evaluation implicit in the program design. In this case, the principal relied heavily on her discretion to determine which features of the teacher evaluationpolicywouldbe emphasizedwith different teachers. The case also providedinsightinto how the principalreconciledthe demandsof evaluation with ongoing instructional and personnel demands.
Conclusions:The distributed cognition framework provided a valuable tool for organizing close studies of the cognitive and contextual dimensions of leadership practice and can provide valuable information about how policies can be designed and used to shape real changes in everyday practice.
Aristotle. (1941). On the soul. In R. McKeon (Ed.), The basic works of Aristotle (pp. 535-606). New York: Random House.
2.
Ashforth, B. E., & Fried, Y. (1988). The mindlessness of organizational behaviors. Human Relations, 41, 305-329.
3.
Bereiter, C., & M. Scardamalia. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court.
4.
Brown, A. L.,& Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychologicaltheoryandthe designofinnovative learning environments: On procedures, principles and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289-325). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
6.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
7.
Cole, M., Engeström, Y., & Vasquez, O. (1997). Mind, culture, and activity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Cyert, R. M.,& March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. New York: Prentice Hall.
9.
Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
10.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A. E., & Klein, S. P. (1999). A license to teach: Raising standards for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11.
Dornbusch, S. M., & Scott, W. R. (1975). Evaluation and the exercise of authority. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12.
Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365-395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13.
Goodwin, C. (1995). Seeing in depth. Social Studies of Science, 25, 237-274.
14.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
15.
Halverson, C. A. (1995). Inside the cognitive workplace: New technology and air traffic control. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
16.
Halverson, R. (2002). Representing phronesis: Supporting instructional leadership practice in schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.
17.
Halverson, R. (2003). Systems of practice: How leaders use artifacts to create professional community in schools. Educational Policy and Analysis Archives, 11, 37-37. Retrieved March 23, 2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n37/
18.
Halverson, R. (2004). Accessing, documenting and communicating practical wisdom: The phronesis of school leadership practice. American Journal of Education111, 90-121.
19.
Halverson, R., & Clifford, M. (2004). How the situation of practice shapes the implementationof new policies in schools. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, San Diego, CA.
20.
Halverson, R., Kelley, C., & Kimball, S. (2004). Implementing teacher evaluation systems: How principals make sense of complex artifacts to shape local instructional practice. In C. Miskel & W. Hoy (Eds.), Theory and research in educational administration (Vol. 3, pp. 66-90). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Press.
21.
Halverson, R., & Zoltners, J. (2001). Distribution across artifacts: How designed artifacts illustrate school leadership practice. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA.
22.
Hambrick, D. C., & Finkelstein, S. (1987). Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior 9 (pp. 369-406). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
23.
Haney, W., Madaus, G., & Kreitzer, A. (1987). Charms talismanic: Testing teachers for the improvement of American education. In E. Z. Rothkopf (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 169-238). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
24.
Hazi, H. M. (1994). The teacher evaluation-supervision dilemma: A case of entanglements and irreconcilable differences. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 9, 195-216.
25.
Hollan, J., Hutchins, E.,& Kirsch, D. (2000). Distributed cognition: Toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7, 174-196. Retrieved August 26, 2004, from http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/hollan00distributed.html
26.
Hutchins, E. (1995a). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27.
Hutchins, E. (1995b). How a cockpit remembers its speed. Cognitive Science, 19, 265-288.
28.
Kimball, S. M. (2003). Analysis of feedback, enabling conditions and fairness perceptions of teachers in three school districts with new standards-based evaluation systems. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 16, 241-269.
29.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press.
30.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Leithwood, K., Begley, P. T., & Cousins, J. B. (1994). Developing expert leadership for future schools. London: Falmer Press.
32.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1975). Activity, consciousness and personality (M. J. Hall, Trans.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
33.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress.
34.
Lindblom, C. E. (1995). The science of muddling through. In S. Theodoulou & M. Cahn (Eds.), Public policy: The essential readings (p.113-127). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
35.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services.New York: Russell Sage Foundation
36.
Loup, K. S., Garland, J. S., Ellett, C. D., & Rugutt, J. K. (1996). Ten years later: Findings from a replication of a study of teacher evaluation practices in our 100 largest school districts. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 10, 203-226.
37.
Mangin, M. (2004). Distributed leadership and the culture of schools: Teacher leaders’ strategies for gaining access to classrooms. Paper presented at the 2004 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
38.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
39.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171-178.
40.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
41.
Milanowski, A. T., & Heneman, H. G., III. (2001). Assessment of teacher reactions to a standards-based teacher evaluation system: A pilot study. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 15, 193-212.
42.
Natriello, G., Pallas, A., & McDill, E. L. (1990). Schooling disadvantaged children: Racing against catastrophe. New York: Teachers College Press.
43.
Nelson, B. S., & Sassi, A. (2000). Shifting approaches to supervision: The case of mathematics supervision. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 553-584
44.
Neressian, N. J., Kurz-Milcke, E., Newstetter, W. C., & Davies, J. (2003). Research laboratories as evolving distributed cognitive systems. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 857-862.
45.
Norman, D. A. (1991). Cognitive artifacts. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer interface (pp. 17-38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
46.
Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47-87). New York: Cambridge University Press.
47.
Pentland, B. T., & Reuter, H. H. (1994). Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 484-510.
48.
Perkins, D. N. (1993). Person-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 88-110). New York: Cambridge University Press.
49.
Perrow, C. (1984). Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. New York: Basic Books.
50.
Peterson, K. D. (1995). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
51.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context.New York: Oxford University Press.
52.
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. (1993). Distributed cognitions. New York: Cambridge University Press.
53.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
54.
Seifert, C. M., & Hutchins, E. L. (1992). Error as opportunity: Learning in a cooperative task. Human Computer Interaction, 7, 409-435.
55.
Sergiovanni, T., & Starratt, R. (1993). Supervision: A redefinition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
56.
Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
57.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-28.
58.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3-34.
59.
Spillane, J., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387-431.
60.
Spillane, J. P., & Thompson, C. L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency’s capacity for ambitions instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 185-203.
61.
Starbuck, W., & Milliken, F. (1988). Executives’ perceptual filters: What they notice and how they make sense. In D. Hambrick (Ed.), The executive effect: Concepts and methods for studying top managers (pp. 35-65). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
62.
Talbert, J., & McLaughlin, M. (1993). Understanding teaching in context. In D. Cohen, M. McLaughlin, & J. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 167-206). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
63.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of the higher psychological processes (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
64.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
65.
Zhang, J., & Norman, D. A. (1994). Representationsin distributedcognitive tasks. Cognitive Science, 18, 87-122.
