Introduction
This document describes the model of leadership knowledge and the approach to leadership development employed in the University of Maine's graduate program in Educational Leadership. The model provides the underpinning for coursework and a curriculum sequence designed to help experienced educators explore leadership work and foster the growth of knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary for them to lead schools toward richer and deeper student learning.
The model and learning framework described here emerged from the Educational Leadership Area Faculty's developmental work over the past fifteen years with a broad array of educators in Maine and beyond. The evolution is documented in several books (see Donaldson and Marnik, 1995; Donaldson and Marnik, Eds, 1996; Donaldson, 2008) and articles (see Resources section).
This document contains:
- A summary description of the model of leadership knowledge that
serves as foundation for graduate study.
- The curricular framework of goals and objectives for the graduate
experiences leading to the Master's degree and to selected
Certificates of Advanced Studies in Educational Leadership.
- An illustration of the framework in a specific case
- The rubric used by faculty and students to assess to development
of leadership knowledge, skills, and dispositions.
- Matrix of Program Objectives, NCATE Proficiencies, and ISLLC
Performance Standards
- Resources we have drawn from
I. The I-C-I Model of Leadership Knowledge
University of Maine faculty in the Educational Leadership Area have, since 1990, sought to generate a theoretical framework for leadership knowledge that met two criteria: 1. it applied clearly to the contexts of Maine schools, readily making sense to aspiring and
practicing educational leaders; and 2. it translated fluidly into a system of learning, readily applying to the developmental experience of school leaders seeking to grow in competence and performance. The model grew from experimentation in courses and professional development experiences and from reading and discussing the increasingly diverse and rich leadership literature (see p. for resources we drew heavily on). The model has been through many refinements as faculty have used it to shape learning experiences and their own andragogical roles in the service of leadership development.
The model postulates three basic dimensions of leadership knowledge. We choose the word "dimension" advisedly; like the three dimensions of space, these dimensions of knowledge coexist, interact, and together constitute a whole. When leadership is in evidence, people are drawing from their knowledge in each dimension; the result is the capacity to act knowledgeably so that people are mobilized to action. We refer to the model as the "I-C-I" model, after the three dimensions:
The Interpersonal: the leader's knowledge of how she/he understands others, communicates with others, and forms working relationships with others
The Cognitive: the leader's knowledge about effective learning and teaching, the organizational dynamics of schools and systems, and theories of leadership and organizational growth
The Intrapersonal: the leader's knowledge of herself/himself and how this knowledge operates to shape her/his behaviors, beliefs and attitudes, and feelings about work and people
A strength of this model is that it translates fluidly into a framework for learning; that is, it is amenable to planning leadership action by thinking through the knowledge required of the leader in each dimension, to carrying out that action, and then to reflecting on the experience through the lenses of the three dimensions. As a person, for example, deepens her understanding of effective teaching, that understanding will not become an active component of her leadership until appropriate interpersonal skills can be blended with it. The process of this "blending" is further dependent on the leader's understanding of herself and the "deployment of self in the service of her school's goals. As educators engage in leadership, they draw from their well of cognitive information about the educational practices they seek to improve and their enactment of successful mobilization of others hinges on their interpersonal skills and sensitivities. Their capacity to adjust their strategies and monitor their relationships with others revolves around their self-awareness and self-management skills - their intrapersonal knowledge base.
II. The Curricular Frame
On the grandest scale, the goal of our practitioner degree programs is for students to develop performance competency as school leaders so that they can mobilize others to affect growth in Maine's schools and school children. That is, the University of Maine's graduate program in Educational Leadership seeks to cultivate educators who
demonstrate leadership in their work in their schools, not simply "know leadership" models, theories, research, and skills.
To this end, the faculty has reframed I-C-1 dimensions of leadership knowledge as curricular goals and objectives. The curriculum seeks to deepen and broaden each student's grasp of those cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal aspects of his or her current leadership knowledge that can most enhance his or her performance as a school leader. The three dimensions give rise to six program objectives, two in each of the I, C, and I dimensions:
Insert "Dimensions of Leadership Knowledge..." Diagram Here
Coursework, the principles of instruction and learning followed by faculty and students, and the documentation and assessment of learning all revolve around these six objectives. These are described in more detail in the Med/CAS Cohort Program Packet, in course materials, and faculty publications (see, for example, Donaldson, 2004). Two overriding principles of this work deserve mention here, however. First, successful learning required the enactment of leadership in both simulated and "real school" settings, where interpersonal, intrapersonal, and cognitive knowledge are authentically engaged. Second, faculty need to be skilled in the knowledge of all three dimensions and in the unique manner that learning occurs interpersonally and intrapersonally as well as cognitively (the dimension we are most familiar and comfortable with). We have drawn substantially from the growing body of work on adult learning (andragogy) in our effort to shape our own teaching for these challenges, (see Resources)
Course syllabi in the M.Ed./CAS Cohort program specify the appropriate learning dimensions and objectives for each experience and employ learning-in-action methods throughout the experience (see Leadership Platform, Organizational Profile, Journal requirements, Leadership Development Plans, Cohort Norms, and Learning Portfolios. A basic rubric (see below) is employed by faculty and students for regular assessment of learning in the appropriate objective areas.
III. An Illustration of I-C-I Learning Objectives
The U Maine program situates students' learning in "arenas of leadership practice" that Maine school leaders encounter. We assist students to examine the specific arena and to ask, "How can leaders engage others so that student learning is enhanced in this school, in this arena?" For example, school leaders in Maine are expected to move their schools toward greater success in the development of students "global citizenship" skills (stipulated by legislatively mandated Maine Learning Results). Parsing out the leadership challenges inherent in this arena, our model frames the following specific learning objectives:
Cognitive, Objective 1
Learning about children's moral development; about adult intervention in this
development; about child and adult skill levels and extant community and family values in the school and its community; identifying goals for growth
Cognitive, Objective 2
General knowledge about how schools function and change; specific diagnosis of structural, cultural, and social systems in the school and community and how they impact the improvements needed (identified in Cl); strategic planning around the school's and ( the community's influence in the learning and practice of global citizenship skills.
Interpersonal, Objective 3
Leader's assessment of the condition of adult working relationships within the school, the system, the community with regard to the goals and changes identified in Cognitive 1 and 2; examination of her/his own interpersonal skills in this context; development of skills that will enhance the development of working relationships among others necessary to support the goal of mobilization.
Interpersonal, Objective 4
Leader's diagnosis of the group and individual needs for "moving to action"; development of skills and strategies necessary for engaging, mobilizing, and sustaining others in changing their daily practices so that global citizenship skill learning among children is enhanced.
Intrapersonal, Objective 5
Leader examines her/his own beliefs and values with regard to "global citizenship": what is it? What goes into the "skill set" and the value orientation that constitutes global citizenship for the future? Why is it important? Leader creates a well-articulated platform to guide her/his thought and action that can be easily and effectively shared with adults and children.
Intrapersonal, Objective 6
Leader's ability to discern accurately her/his own performance in action: the ways her/his actions, emotions, personal style, and decision process shape how he/she is working with others in any given situation. Development of more acute reflective and analytic skills to enable her/him to adjust her/his practice in situ (this practice revolving around generating relationships to support mobilization for the improvement of adult practice with children so that those children learn global citizenship skills well).
Our programs require students to create Leadership Development Plans (LDPs) drawing on extensive diagnostic and assessment activities in their schools and in class. LDPs have "leader action goals" and "leader learning goals and steps", constituting a personalized learning plan for each student to pursue in her/his graduate program. Learning activities involve leadership in their schools, extensive journaling, reading about school improvement and leadership, role plays, and feedback on leader and learner performance. We draw extensively on small learning teams (the Colleague Critic Team) to assist each learner, (link to LDP formats)
IV. Assessment of Leader Learning
The attached rubric is the summative rubric for the Master's Degree and CAS programs in Educational Leadership. The faculty have for some time used rubrics similar to this at the course level as self-assessment tools and as feedback to students on what, where, and how we have seen their learning. The program rubric represents the next step in our attempt to develop consistency throughout the program in assessing our Master's and CAS students.
Leader Knowledge Domains Rubric, pdf
Throughout the learning experiences in our program, students are asked to observe, analyze, and evaluate leadership practices in their schools, leadership and organizational theories propounded in readings and by other students, and their own interpersonal and intrapersonal engagement in leadership activities and issues. These are documented in a variety of ways as are purposeful attempts to put leadership knowledge to work in their schools. Drawing from the literatures on adult learning and reflective practice, we ask students to periodically reflect on these "data" on their learning and to assess evidence of their own growth (see Learning Portfolio). This iterative process provides a stream of evidence to which both faculty and students can apply the program rubric.
We use the rubric as well as a means of collecting feedback on the course experience. We ask: Did you get what you needed to grow in the areas of the six learning domains? What would have been more productive for your learning? What specific resources were most beneficial? Which were less so?
Eventually, we plan to use the program rubric as a guide for all of our courses as we continue to refine its content and define the processes we will employ to use the rubric effectively in assessing our students' overall leadership development.
V. The Curriculum and External Standards
The matrix on the following pages cross-references the model of leadership knowledge used in the UM program with two sets of standards pertinent to our work: NCATE Proficiencies and the Interstate School Leader Licensure Consortium performance standards.
The philosophical and empirical model underlying the UM Master's Degree Program in Educational Leadership appears congruent with that underlying the six Standards for School Leaders espoused by ISLLC. Created by the Council of Chief State School Officers in 1996, the standards emerge from the following "understanding of effective leadership" which parallels our own model of leadership knowledge:
"Effective school leaders are strong educators, anchoring their work on central issues of learning and teaching and school improvement. They are moral agents and social advocates for the children and the communities they serve. Finally, they make strong connections with other people, valuing and caring for others as individuals and as members of the educational community." (p. 5)
The Consortium frames school leaders' work to require three sorts of qualities: "knowledge", "dispositions", and "performances". These can be understood in the context of our leader learning model, in a general sense, to correspond respectively to the Cognitive", the Intrapersonal, and the Interpersonal dimensions (ISLLC documents do not explore the epistemology of leadership learning and seem not to have an explicit foundation in this regard). U Maine's Master's Degree program centers on the acquisition development, and integration of these qualities in every course and throughout the ' graduate experience.
EDL faculty find that the intellectual and empirical roots of lists of standards, such as those espoused by ISLLC and by NCATE proficiencies, are often not apparent and, sometimes, not rigorously defended (a conclusion recently supported by Levine, 2005). Despite this shortcoming, we see sufficient substantive overlap to conclude that the six leadership knowledge areas that underpin our curriculum are indicative of the knowledge, skills<-and dispositions represented by both frameworks. The following matrix demonstrates the substantive overlaps among the UM knowledge areas, the ISLLC performance standards, and the NCATE proficiencies.
Matrix of Program Objectives, NCATE Proficiencies and ISLLC Performance standards, pdf
VI. Resources
(see also MSLN resource list on website)
Interpersonal dimensions of leading and learning
Barth ( ) Learning by heart
Donaldson and Sanderson ( Working together in schools
Evans, R. The human side of school change.
Johnson and Johnson ( '
Lambert et al
McDonald, J. The power of protocols
National School Reform Faculty cfg's
Cognitive dimensions of leading and learning
Darling-Hammond The right to learn
Elmore
Fullan
Garmston and Wellman The adaptive school
Heifetz, R. Leadership without easy answers Senge et al Schools that learn
Intrapersonal dimensions of leading and learning
Argyris and Schon The reflective practitioner
Ackerman, Donaldson, and van der Bogert Making sense as a school leader
Ackerman and Maslin, The wounded leader
Barth, A vision of a good school
Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee ( ) Primal leadership
Goleman ( ) Emotional intelligence
Osterman and Kottkarnp
Schon
General resources on leadership and learning
Barth, Improving schools from within
Brookfield, S.
Fullan
Donaldson (2001) Cultivating leadership in schools
Donaldson and Marnik (1995) Becoming better leaders
Donaldson and Marnik, Eds. (1996) As leaders learn
Horvath and Sternberg, Eds.
Lambert, L. et al The constructivist leader
Lave and Wenger Situated learning
Murphy, G. Notes from the swamp ^
Moeller and Katzenmayer ( ) Awakening the sleeping giant.
Norris, C., B Barnett, M. Basom, and D. Yerkes (2002). Developing educational leaders:
A working model: The learning community in action. New York: Teachers College Press
Conceptual Framework
The vision of the college is to promote life-long learning for all future and current educators participating in its programs and thereby to enhance learning opportunities for all PK-12 students that these educators serve. In order to accomplish this vision, it is essential that all faculty in the college are lifelong learners. In sum, the college’s vision is: Educators and students learning together.
Reflective Practice serves as the overarching theme for the college’s education programs. Education is a reflective process that requires a thoughtful and evaluative analysis of the many forces and factors that affect teaching, learning, and schooling. Reflective Practice involves recursive self-evaluation and systematic assessment of students and programs; draws upon shared, ambitious standards and expectations for teaching, research and service; promotes the personal and professional understanding of one’s own actions and potentials, and contributes to continually improving performance. The core principles provide the substance, lenses, and processes for reflective practice. They are dedication to teaching and learning, a synthesis of theory and practice, and collaboration and mentoring.
