Adult developmentally oriented instructional leadership

With ample evidence suggesting that the quality of instruction is paramount to student achievement (Reeves, 2004,2006,2011; Schmoker, 2006; Marzano, 2006) and principals in turn seeking to promote instructional improvement in their schools (Glickman, 2002; Marzano et al., 2011), the purpose of my study was to understand the thinking and practice of two principals who self-identify both as leading with "developmental intention" (LDI), through formal study and application of Kegan's (1982, 1994) constructive-developmental theory, and for instructional improvement (LII), by closely attending to Elmore's (2000) instructional core. Through a series of interviews and observations of the formal observation cycle (pre-observation conference, observation, post-observation conference), I sought to gain insight into how these principals differentiated their instructional leadership by devising and implementing different supports and challenges for teachers with "socializing" and "self-authoring" developmental orientations. Additionally, by selecting principals with different developmental orientations themselves, I aspired to understand how a principal's own meaning-making system influenced her approach to and beliefs about instructional leadership.

I found that in exercising LDI, both principals actively created conditions, through implementing Drago-Severson's (2004, 2009, 2012) "learning-oriented leadership model" and differentiating their modes of feedback, which attended to differences in teachers' ways of knowing. While these conditions alone were not sufficient to guarantee instructional improvement, they did support teachers from a range of developmental orientations to achieve instructional success. Still, each principal felt most comfortable supporting teachers who shared her particular meaning-making system. For reasons associated with their own knowledge, skill, developmental orientations, and unique school contexts, both principals struggled, albeit for different reasons, to lead optimally at the nexus of LDI and LII. With participation in this study serving as a holding environment, however, each was able to identify and implement concrete strategies, specifically when treating the formal observation cycle as collegial inquiry, to employ Developmentally Oriented Instructional Leadership (DOIL), an approach to leadership that marries developmental intentionality with clear vision and framework for instructional improvement. This study also uncovered the transformative possibilities when school leaders, and indeed leaders across disciplines, invest time in the process of their own development in service of supporting others.