This study examines principals’ experiences implementing Skillful Observation and Coaching Laboratory (SOCL), a program designed to help principals become effective instructional leaders. Guided by Karl Weick’s notion of sensemaking, this study sought to identify the components of SOCL that were implemented with fidelity and discover the factors that facilitated or impeded implementation of SOCL. Data for this multiple case study were drawn from interviews with principals, observations of principals coaching teachers, and internal documents. The results showed that content knowledge, preexisting knowledge, structural conditions, social interactions, meaningfulness, identity as an instructional leader, and positive feelings influenced principals’ implementation of SOCL.
BlaseJ.BlaseJ. (2004). Handbook of instructional leadership: How successful principals promote teaching and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
4.
BlomeA.JamesM. (1985). The principal as instructional leader: An evolving role. NASSP Bulletin, 69, 48-54. doi:10.1177/019263658506948107
5.
BogdanR. C.BiklenS. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
6.
BottomsG.Schmidt-DavisJ. (2010). The three essentials: Improving schools requires district vision, district and state support, and principal leadership. Southern Regional Education Board. Retrieved from www.sreb.org .
CalmesC. (2006). Principals as instructional leaders (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3242295)
9.
CarrawayJennifer H. (2012). Principals’ Sensemaking of the Implementation of Skillful Observation and Coaching Laboratory. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
10.
CoburnC. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 145-170.
11.
CoburnC. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77, 211-244.
12.
CoburnC. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19, 476-509.
13.
ColdenF. A.SpillaneP. J. (2007). Making connections to teaching practice: The role of boundary practices in instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 21, 369-396. doi:10.1177/0895904805284121
14.
CreswellJ. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
15.
CubanL. (1996). Myths about changing schools and the case of special education. Remedial and Special Education, 17(2), 75-82.
16.
CummingsC. (1992). Teaching makes a difference. Edmonds, WA: Teaching.
17.
EdmondsR. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37, 15-27.
18.
EvansA. (2007). School leaders and their sensemaking about race and demographic change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 159-188.
FixsenD.BlaseK.NaoomS.WallaceF. (2009). Core implementation components. Research on Social Work Practice, 19, 531-540.
21.
FullanM. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. London, England: Falmer Press.
22.
FusarelliL. D. (2008). Flying (partially) blind: School leaders’ use of research in decision making. In HessF. M. (Ed.), When research matters: How scholarship influences education policy (pp. 177-196). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
23.
GuthrieJ. W. (1990). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis [entire issue], 12(1), 233-353.
24.
HallingerP. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 221-239.
25.
HallingerP.MurphyJ. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals. The Educational School Journal, 86, 217-247.
26.
HeckR. (1992). Principals’ instructional leadership and school performance: Implications for policy development. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 21-34.
27.
HillH. C. (2001). Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state standards. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 289-318.
28.
HollandH. (2007). Out of the office and into the classroom: An initiative to help principals focus on instruction.Seattle, Washington: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
29.
HunterM. (1994). Enhancing teaching. New York, NY: Macmillan.
30.
IkemotoG. S. (2007). Supports for principals’ sensemaking: Lessons from the institute for learning’s instructional leadership program in Baltimore, Maryland (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertation and Theses database. umi-umd-4951
31.
IngleK.RutledgeS.BishopJ. (2011). Context matters: Principals’ sensemaking of teacher hiring and on-the-job performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(5), 1-55.
32.
KeefeJ. W.JenkinsJ. M. (Eds.). (1991). Instructional leadership handbook. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
33.
KleinK.SorraJ. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. The Academy of Management Review, 21, 1055-1080.
34.
LinA. C. (2000). Reform in the making: The implementation of social policy in prison. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
35.
MarzanoR.PickeringD.PollockJ. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
