This research explored the organizational nature of cohorts with particular focus on the relation between structural factors, including conventions, culture, power, and unintended learning. An in-depth case study of a cohort project team of educational leadership students led to identification of four major themes. Students employed a product-centered orientation that blurred distinctions between learning and performance. This orientation was a consequence of recipes for action appropriated by students from other institutions, conditions of action (including deadlines imposed by instructors), and structural rules the team constructed to guide its work. Implications for instructional practice are identified.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarnettB. G., BasomM. R., YerkesD. M., & NorrisC. J. (2000). Cohorts in educational leadership preparation programs: Benefits, difficulties, and the potential for developing school leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 255–282.
2.
BasomM., YerkesD., NorrisC., & BarnettB. (1996). Using cohorts as a means for developing transformational leaders. Journal of School Leadership, 6(1), 99–112.
3.
BrimO. G., & WheelerS. (1966). Socialization after childhood.New York: John Wiley & Sons.
4.
DruskatV. U., & KayesD. C. (2000). Learning versus performance in short-term project teams. Small Group Research, 31(3), 328–353.
5.
ErautM. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence.London: Falmer.
6.
GiddensA. (1984). The constitution of society.Berkeley: University of California Press.
7.
HackmanJ. R. (Ed.) (1990). Groups that work (and those that don't): Creating conditions for effective teamwork.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.
NorrisC., & BarnttB. (1994, October). Cultivating a new leadership paradigm: From cohorts to communities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Philadelphia, PA.
9.
PooleM. (1999). Group communication theory. In FreyL. R. (Ed.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 37–70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
PooleM., SeiboldD., & McPheeR. (1985). Group decision-making as a structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71(1), 74–102.
11.
PooleM., SeiboldD., & McPheeR. (1986). A structurational approach to theory-building in group decision-making research. In HirokawaM., & PooleM. (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (pp. 237–264). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
12.
ReynoldsK. C., & HebertF. T. (1995). Cohort formats and intensive schedules: Added involvement and interaction for continuing higher education. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 43(3), 34–41.
13.
ReynoldsK. C., & HebertF. T. (1998). Learning achievements of students in cohort groups. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 46(3), 34–42.
14.
ScottC., QuinnL., TimmermanE., & GarrettD. (1998). Ironic uses of group communication technology: Evidence from meeting transcripts and interviews with group decision support users. Communication Quarterly, 46(3), 353–374.
15.
ScribnerJ. P., & DonaldsonJ. F. (2001). The dynamics of group learning in a cohort: From nonlearning to transformative learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 605–636.
16.
StraussA., & CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17.
TwaleD., & KochanF. (2000). Assessment of an alternative cohort model for part-time students in an educational leadership program. Journal of School Leadership, 10(2), 188–208.
18.
YerkesD. M., BasomM. R., NorrisC., & BarnettB. (1995, August). Using cohorts in the development of educational leaders. Paper presented at the annual International Conference of the Association of Management, Vancouver, Canada.
19.
YinR. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
YoungM. D., & PetersenG. J. (2002). Enabling substantive reform in the preparation of school leaders. Educational Leadership Review, 3(1), 1–15.
