Emphasis on improving student learning has brought increased attention to the execution of schoolwide instructional reforms in general and the use of data by teacher teams in particular as an expected element of a school's instructional reform strategy. With this in mind, the purpose of this article is to focus important attention on the work of school leaders as key developers of collaborative data practices by teacher teams—an area that has received insufficient scholarly attention. Informed by various scholars who have examined organizational change processes and the leadership that underlies organizational changes and drawing from empirical and theoretical data use literature, this article advances a phase-based model of school leadership supports for those tasked with the introduction and cultivation of collaborative data practices in their schools. In so doing, this article provides a testable model for researchers who seek to better understand the work of school leaders in collaborative data contexts. This model should also prove instructive for practicing school leaders as well as those who prepare and develop school leaders.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbyyankarP., O'ConnorD., & LawtonR. (2008). The role of message framing in promoting MMR vaccination: Evidence of a loss-frame advantage. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 13(1), 1–16.
2.
AndersonS., LeithwoodK., & StraussT. (2010). Leading data use in schools: Organizational conditions and practices at the school and district levels. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(3), 292–327.
3.
BassB. M. (1985). Leadership and performance.New York: Free Press.
BenfordR., & SnowD. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 11–39.
6.
BennisW. (2003). On becoming a leader.Boston: Perseus.
7.
BlancS., ChristmanJ., LiuR., MitchellC., TraversE., & BulkleyK. (2010). Learning to learn from data: Benchmarks and instructional communities. Pea-body Journal of Education, 85(2), 205–225.
8.
BoudettK., CityE., & MurnaneR. (2005). Data wise: A step-by-step guide to using assessment results to improve teaching and learning.Boston: Harvard Education Press.
9.
BrykA., & SchneiderB. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
10.
BurkeW. (2008). Organization change: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
CoburnC. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170.
12.
CoburnC. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509.
13.
CoburnC. (2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 343–379.
14.
CoburnC., & TalbertJ. (2006). Conceptions of evidence use in school districts: Mapping the terrain. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 469–495.
15.
CohenD., & BarnesC. (1993). Pedagogy and policy. In CohenD., McLaughlinM., & TalbertJ. (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 207–239). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
16.
CosnerS. (2009). Building organizational capacity through trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 248–291.
17.
CosnerS. (2010). Drawing on a knowledge-based trust perspective to examine and conceptualize within-school trust development by principals. Journal of School Leadership, 20(2), 117–144.
18.
CosnerS. (2011a). Supporting the initiation and early development of evidence-based grade-level collaboration in urban elementary schools: Key roles and strategies of principals and literacy coordinators. Urban Education, 46(4), 786–827.
19.
CosnerS. (2011b). Teacher learning, instructional considerations, and principal communication: Lessons from a longitudinal study of collaborative date use by teachers. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 39(5), 568–589.
20.
CosnerS. (2012). Leading the on-going development of collaborative data practices: Advancing a schema for diagnosis and intervention. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11(1), 26–65.
21.
CummingsT., & WorleyC. (2009). Organization development and change (9th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
22.
DalyA. (2009). Rigid response in an age of accountability: The potential of leadership and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 168–216.
23.
DatnowA. (2011). Collaboration and contrived collegiality: Revisiting Hargreaves in the age of accountability. Journal of Educational Change, 12(2), 147–158.
24.
DatnowA., & CastellanoE. (2001). Managing and guiding school reform: Leadership in Success for All schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(2), 219–249.
25.
DatnowA., ParkV., & KennedyB. (2008). Acting on data: How urban high schools use data to improve instruction.Los Angeles: Center on Educational Governance.
26.
DatnowA., ParkV., & WohlstetterP. (2007). Achieving with data: How high performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students.Los Angeles: Center on Educational Governance.
27.
DealT., & PetersonK. (2009). Shaping school culture: Pitfalls, paradoxes, and promises (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
28.
DibbonsD. (2000). Diagnosing the extent of organizational learning capacity in schools. In LeithwoodK. (Ed.), Understanding schools as intelligent systems (pp. 211–236). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
29.
DiPaolaM., & Tschannen-MoranM. (2005). Bridging or buffering: The impact of schools’ adaptive strategies on student achievement. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(1), 60–71.
30.
DixonS., MeyerK., & DayM. (2010). Stages of organizational transformation in transition economies: A dynamic capabilities approach. Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 416–436.
31.
DukeD., & SalmonowiczM. (2010). Key decisions of a first-year “turnaround” principal. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 38(1), 33–58.
32.
DukeD., TuckerP., SalmonowiczM., & LevyM. (2007). How comparable are the perceived challenges facing principals of low-performing schools?International Studies in Educational Administration, 35, 3–21.
33.
EarlL. (2009). Leadership for evidence-informed conversations. In. EarlL., & TimperleyH. (Eds.), Professional learning conversations: Challenges in using evidence for improvement (pp. 43–52). New York: Springer Science.
34.
EarlL., & TimperleyH. (2009). Understanding how evidence and learning conversations work. In EarlL., & TimperleyH. (Eds.), Professional learning conversations: Challenges in using evidence for improvement (pp. 1–12). New York: Spring Science.
35.
EdmondsonA. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
36.
ErmelingB. (2010). Tracing the effects of teacher inquiry on classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 377–388.
37.
FalkB. (2001). Professional learning through assessment. In LiebermanA., & MillerL. (Eds.), Teachers caught in the action: Professional development that matters (pp. 118–141). New York: Teachers College Press.
38.
FalkB., & OrtS. (1998). Sitting down to score: Teacher learning through assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(1), 59–64.
39.
FinniganK., & StewartT. (2009). Leading change under pressure: An examination of principal leadership in low-performing schools. Journal of School Leadership, 19(5), 586–618.
40.
FirestoneW., & GonzalezR. (2007). Culture and processes affecting data use in school districts. In MossP. (Ed.), Evidence and decision making: The 106th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education—Part1(pp. 132–154). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
41.
FoldyE., GoldmanL., & OspinaS. (2008). Sensegiving and the role of cognitive shifts in the work of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 514–529.
42.
FosterD., & NoyceP. (2004). The mathematics assessment collaborative: Performance testing to improve instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(5), 367–374.
GallimoreR., ErmelingB., SaundersW., & GoldenbergC. (2009). Moving the learning of teaching closer to practice: Teacher education implications of school-based inquiry teams. Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 537–553.
45.
GamoranA., & AndersonC. (2003). A dynamic model of organizational support. In GamoranA., AndersonC., QuirozP., SecadaW., WilliamsT., & AshmannS., Transforming teaching in math and science: How schools and districts can support change (pp. 22–37). New York: Teachers College Press.
46.
GamoranA., SecadaW., & MarrettC. (2000). The organizational context of teaching and learning: Changing theoretical perspectives. In HallinanM. (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 37–64). New York: Springer.
47.
GarvinD., EdmondsonA., & GinoF. (2008, March). Is yours a learning organization?Harvard Business Review, pp. 109–116.
48.
GoertzM., OlahL., & RigganM. (2009). From testing to teaching: The use of interim assessments in classroom instruction.Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
49.
HackmanJ. (1987). The design of work teams. In LorschJ. W. (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
50.
HackmanJ. (1990). Groups that work (and those that don't): Creating conditions for effective teamwork.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
51.
HackmanJ., & OldhamG. (1980). Work redesign.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
52.
HamiltonL., HalversonR., JacksonS., MandinachE., SupovitzJ., & WaymanJ. (2009). Using student achievement data to support instructional decision-making: IES practice guide.Washington, DC: WhatWorks Clearinghouse.
53.
HarrisA., & ChirspeelsJ. (2006). Introduction. In HarrisA., & ChirspeelsJ. (Eds.), Improving schools and educational systems (pp. 3–22). New York: Routledge.
54.
HeckR., & HallingerP. (2010). Testing a longitudinal model or distributed leadership effects on school improvement. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 867–885.
55.
HigginsM., IshimaruA., HolcombeR., & FowlerA. (2012). Examining organizational learning in schools: The role of psychological safety, experimentation, and leadership that reinforces learning. Journal of Educational Change, 13, 67–94.
56.
HippK., & HuffmanJ. B. (2007). Using assessment tools as frames for dialogue to create and sustain professional learning communities. In StollL., & Seashore LouisK. (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas (pp. 119–131). Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
57.
HornI. (2010). Teaching replays, teaching rehearsals, and re-visions of practice: Learning from colleagues in a mathematics teacher community. Teachers College Record, 112(1), 225–259.
58.
HoyW., & Tschannen-MoranM. (1999). Five facets of trust: An empirical confirmation in urban elementary schools. Journal of School Leadership, 9, 184–208.
59.
HubbardL., MehanH., & SteinM. (2006). Reform as learning: School reform, organizational culture, and community politics in San Diego.New York: Routledge.
60.
IkemotoG., & MarshJ. (2007). Cutting through the “data-driven” mantra: Different conceptions of data-driven decision making. In MossP. (Ed.) Evidence and decision making: The 106th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education—Part1 (pp. 105–131). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
61.
KazemiE., & FrankeM. L. (2003, April). Using student work to support professional development in elementary mathematics (Document No. W-03-1). Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
62.
KerrK., MarshJ., IkemotoG., DarilekH., & BarneyH. (2006). Strategies to promote data use for instructional improvement: Actions, outcomes, and lessons from three urban districts. American Journal of Education, 112, 496–520.
63.
KimW., & MauborgneR. (1993). Procedural justice, attitudes, and subsidiary top management compliance with multinationals’ corporate strategic decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 502–526.
KnappM., CoplandM., HonigM., PleckiM., & PortinB. (2010). Learning-focused leadership and leadership support: Meaning and practice in urban systems.Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
66.
KnappM., CoplandM., & SwinnertonJ. (2007). Understanding the promise and dynamics of data-informed leadership. In MossP. (Ed.) Evidence and decision making: The 106th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education—Part1(pp. 74–104). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
67.
KochanekJ. (2005). Building trust for better schools: Research-based practices.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
68.
KorsgaardM., BrodtS., & WhitenerE. (2002). Trust in the face of conflict: The role of managerial trustworthy behavior and organizational context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 312–319.
69.
KotterJ. (1995). Leading change: Why transformational efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59–67.
70.
KotterJ. (1996). Leading change.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
71.
KruseS., Seashore LouisK., & BrykA. (1995). An emerging framework for analyzing school-based professional community. In LouisK., KruseS., & Associates (Eds.), Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools (pp. 23–42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
72.
LachatM., & SmithS. (2005). Practices that support data use in urban high schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10, 333–349.
73.
LaiM., & McNaughtonS. (2009). Raising student achievement in poor communities through evidence-based conversations. In EarlL., & TimperleyH. (Eds.), Professional learning conversations: Challenges in using evidence for improvement (pp. 13–27). New York: Springer.
LeiferR. (1989). Understanding organizational transformation using a dissipative model. Human Relations, 42(10), 899–916.
76.
LeithwoodK., MascallB., StraussT., SacksN., MemonN., & YashkinaA. (2007). Distributing leadership to make schools smarter: Taking the ego out of the system. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 37–67.
77.
LevineD., & LeibertR. (1987). Improving school improvement plans. Elementary School Journal, 87(4), 397–412.
78.
LevineT., & MarcusA. (2010). How the structure and focus of teachers’ collaborative activities facilitate and constrain teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 389–398.
79.
LewinK. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2, 34–46.
80.
LindenmeierJ. (2008). Promoting volunteerism: Effects of self-efficacy, advertisement-induced emotional arousal, perceived costs of volunteering, and message framing. Voluntas, 19, 43–65.
81.
LippittR., WatsonJ., & WestleyB. (1958). The dynamics of planned change.New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
82.
LittleJ. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: Opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 917–946.
83.
LittleJ. W. (2009). “Looking at student work” in the United States: A case of competing impulses in professional development. In DayC., & SachsJ. (Eds.), International handbook on the continuing professional development of teachers (pp. 94–118). Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
84.
LittleJ. W., & CurryM. (2009). Structuring talk about teaching and learning: The use of evidence in protocol-based conversation. In EarlL., & TimperleyH. (Eds.), Professional learning conversation: Challenges in using evidence for improvement (pp. 29–42). New York: Springer.
MabryL. (2003). In living color: Qualitative methods in educational evaluation. In KelleghanT., & StufflebeamD. (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 167–188). New York: Springer.
87.
MaitlisS., & LawrenceT. (2007). Triggers and enablers of sensegiving in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 57–84.
88.
MarshJ. (2012). Interventions promoting educators’ use of data: Research insights and gaps. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–48.
89.
MarshJ., PaneJ., & HamiltonL. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in education: Evidence from recent RAND research (No. OP-170-EDU). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
90.
McDonaldJ., MorhN., DichterA., & McDonaldE. (2007). The power of protocols: An educator's guide to better practice (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
91.
McDougallD., SaundersW., & GoldenbergC. (2007). Inside the black box of school reform: Explaining the how and why of change at Getting Results schools. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 54(1), 51–89.
92.
McLaughlinM. (2001). Teachers engaged in evidenced-based reform: Trajectories of teachers’ inquiry, analysis, and action. In LiebermanA., & MillerL. (Eds.), Teachers caught in the action: Professional development that matters (pp. 79–101). New York: Teachers College Press.
93.
McLaughlinM., & TalbertJ. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
94.
McLaughlinM., & TalbertJ. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student learning.New York: Teachers College Press.
95.
MilesR. (2010, January–February). Accelerating corporate transformations (Don't lose your nerve!): Six mistakes that can derail your attempts to change. Harvard Business Review, pp. 69–75.
96.
MintropH., & MacLellanA. M. (2002). School improvement plans in elementary and middle schools on probation. Elementary School Journal, 102(4), 275–300.
97.
MintropH., MacLellanA. M., & QuinteroM. (2001). School improvement plans in schools on probation: A comparative content analysis across three accountability systems. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(2), 197–218.
98.
MorgesonF., DeRueD., & KaramE. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36(1), 5–39.
99.
MurphyJ., SmylieM., MayrowetzD., & Seashore LouisK. (2009). The role of the principal in fostering the development of distributed leadership. School Leadership and Management, 29(2), 181–214.
100.
Nabors OlahL., LawrenceN., & RigganM. (2010). Learning to learn from benchmark assessment data: How teachers analyze results. Peabody Journal of Education, 85, 226–245.
101.
NelsonT. (2008). Teachers’ collaborative inquiry and growth. Should we be optimistic?Science Teacher Education, 93(3), 548–580.
102.
NewmannF., SmithB., AllensworthE., & BrykA. (2001). Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297–321.
103.
O'DayJ., BitterC., & GomezL. (2011). Education reform in New York City: Ambitious change in the nation's most complex school system.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
104.
OgawaR., & BossertS. (1995). Leadership as an organizational quality. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(2), 224–243.
105.
ParkV., DalyA., & GuerraA. (2012). Strategic framing: How leaders craft the meaning of data use. Educational Policy. Advance online publication.
106.
ParrJ., & TimperleyH. (2008). Teachers, schools and using evidence: Considerations of preparedness. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 15(1), 57–71.
107.
RigganM., & SupovitzJ. (2008). Interpreting, supporting, and resisting change: The geography of leadership in reform settings. In SupovitzJ., & WeinbaumE. (Eds.), The implementation gap: Understanding reform in high schools (pp. 103–125). New York: Teachers College Press.
108.
SaundersW., GoldenbergC., & GallimoreR. (2009). Increasing achievement by focusing grade-level teams on improving classroom learning: A prospective, quasi-experimental study of Title I schools. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 1006–1033.
109.
SchildkampK., & KuiperW. (2010). Data-informed curriculum reform: Which data, what purposes, and promoting and hindering factors. Teaching and Teacher Education26(3), 482–496.
110.
Seashore LouisK. (2006). Changing the culture of schools: Professional community, organizational learning, and trust. Journal of School Leadership, 16(5), 477–489.
111.
Seashore LouisK. (2007). Trust and improvement in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 8(1), 1–24.
112.
SharkeyN., & MurnaneR. (2003). Learning from assessment results: How can schools use assessment data to improve student achievement. Educational Leadership, 61(3), 77–81.
113.
ShepardL. (2010). What the marketplace has brought us: Item-by-tem teaching with little instructional insight. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), 246–257.
114.
ShiffmanC., RigganM., MassellD., GoldwasserM., & AndersonJ. (2008). Channeling adaptation: The role of design in enactment patterns. In SupovitzJ., & WeinbaumE. (Eds.), The implementation gap: Understanding reform in high schools (pp. 46–67). New York: Teachers College Press.
115.
SmithP., HoyW., & SweetlandS. (2001). The organizational health of high schools and dimensions of faculty trust. Journal of School Leadership, 11, 135–151.
116.
SmylieM. (2010). Continuous school improvement.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
117.
SmylieM., & Brownlee-ConyersJ. (1992). Teacher leaders and their principals: Exploring the development of new working relationships. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(2), 150–184.
118.
SpillaneJ., DiamondJ., BurchP., HallettT., JitaL., & ZoltnersJ. (2002). Managing in the middle: School leaders and the enactment of accountability policy. Educational Policy, 16(5), 731–762.
119.
SpillaneJ., ReiserB., & ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.
120.
SpillaneJ., & ThompsonC. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency's capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185–203.
121.
StakeR. (1975). Evaluating the arts in education: A responsive approach.Columbus, OH: Merrill.
StollL. (2009). Capacity building for school improvement or creating capacity for learning? A changing landscape. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 115–127.
124.
SupovitzJ. (2008). Implementation as iterative refraction. In SupovitzJ., & WeinbaumE. (Eds.), The implementation gap: Understanding reform in high schools (pp. 151–172). New York: Teachers College Press.
125.
SupovitzJ., & KleinV. (November, 2003). Mapping a course for improved student learning: How innovative schools systematically use student performance data to guide improvement.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
126.
SupovitzJ., & WeinbaumE. (2008). Reform implementation revisited. In SupovitzJ., & WeinbaumE. (Eds.), The implementation gap: Understanding reform in high schools (pp. 1–20). New York: Teachers College Press.
127.
Tschannen-MoranM. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(4), 308–331.
128.
Tschannen-MoranM. (2004). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
129.
TeddlieC., & StringfieldS. (2006). A brief history of school improvement research in the USA. In HarrisA., & ChrispeelsJ. (Eds.), Improving schools and educational systems (pp. 23–38). New York: Routledge.
130.
TimperleyH. (2009). Evidence-informed conversations: Making a difference to student achievement. In EarlL., & TimperleyH. (Eds.), Professional learning conversations: Challenges in using evidence for improvement (pp. 69–79). New York: Springer Science.
131.
TimperleyH., AnnanB., & RobinsonV. (2009). Successful approaches to innovation that have impacted on student learning in New Zealand. In NgC., & RenshawP. (Ed.), Reforming learning: Concepts, issues, and practices in the Asia-pacific region (pp. 345–364). New York: Springer.
132.
TimperleyH., & EarlL. (2009). Using conversations to make sense of evidence: Possibilities and pitfalls. In EarlL., & TimperleyH. (Eds.), Professional learning conversations: Challenges in using evidence for improvement (pp. 121–126). New York: Springer Science.
133.
TimperleyH., & ParrJ. (2004). Using evidence in teaching practice.Auckland, New Zealand: Hodder Moa Beckett Press.
134.
TimperleyH., ParrJ., & BertaneesC. (2009). Promoting professional inquiry for improved outcomes for students in New Zealand. Professional Development in Education, 35(2), 227–245.
135.
TuckmanB. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups, Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–389.
136.
TylerT., & DegoeyP. (1996). Trust in organizational authorities: The influence of motivation attributions on willingness to accept decisions. In KramerR., & TylerT. (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 331–356). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
137.
WaymanJ. C. (2005). Involving teachers in data-driven decision making: Using computer data systems to support teacher inquiry and reflection. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3), 295–308.
138.
WaymanJ. C., & StringfieldS. (2006). Technology-supported involvement of entire faculties in examination of student data for instructional improvement. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 549–571.
139.
WeinbaumE. (2009). Learning about assessment. An evaluation of a ten-state effort to build assessment capacity in high schools.Philadelphia: Consortium of Policy Research in Education.
140.
YoungV. (2006). Teachers’ use of data: Loose coupling, agenda setting, and team norms. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 521–548.
141.
YoungV., & KimD. (2010). Using assessments for instructional improvement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(19), 1–40.
142.
YuklG. (2006). Leadership in organizations.Paramus, NJ: Prentice Hall.
