analyzing principal professional development practices through the lens of adult learning theory

This article was downloaded by: [139.57.125.60]On: 27 September 2014, At: 05:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Professional Development in EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjie20

Analyzing principal professionaldevelopment practices through the lensof adult learning theorySally J. Zepedaa, Oksana Parylob & Ed Bengtsonc

a Department of Lifelong Administration and Policy, University ofGeorgia, Athens, GA, USA.b Methodology of Educational Sciences, Katholieke UniversiteitLeuven, Leuven, Belgium.c Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University ofArkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA.Published online: 08 Aug 2013.

To cite this article: Sally J. Zepeda, Oksana Parylo & Ed Bengtson (2014) Analyzing principalprofessional development practices through the lens of adult learning theory, ProfessionalDevelopment in Education, 40:2, 295-315, DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2013.821667

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2013.821667

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjie20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/19415257.2013.821667

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2013.821667

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

05:

16 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Analyzing principal professional development practices throughthe lens of adult learning theory

Sally J. Zepedaa, Oksana Parylob* and Ed Bengtsonc

aDepartment of Lifelong Administration and Policy, University of Georgia, Athens, GA,USA; bMethodology of Educational Sciences, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven,Belgium; cDepartment of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville,AR, USA

(Received 5 November 2012; final version received 18 June 2013)

This qualitative study sought to identify current principal professionaldevelopment practices in four school systems in Georgia and to examine themby applying the principles of adult learning theory. The cross-case analysis ofprincipal professional development initiatives in four school districts revealednine common practices: connecting professional development to career develop-ment; individualizing professional development; engaging multiple sources ofprofessional development; adapting, not adopting, externally provided profes-sional development; aligning and focusing professional development; ensuringongoing scheduled professional development; encouraging mentoring relations;providing data-informed and job-embedded professional development; and stra-tegic planning of principal professional development. Although these practicespossessed certain characteristics of adult learning – they were problem centered,relevancy oriented, and goal oriented – they were, however, rarely self-directed.By examining current principal professional development practices through thelens of adult learning theory, these findings contribute new knowledge aboutcurrent principal professional development and offer implications for the use ofadult learning theory in planning and providing principal professional learning.

Keywords: professional development; adult learning; principals; cross-caseanalysis

Introduction

In their overview of current topics surrounding the principalship, Matthews andCrow (2010) stated that the principalship literature, ‘has emphasized an instructionalleadership role, in which principals are expected to focus on teaching and learningand facilitate the learning community of the school. However, few writers haveemphasized the principal as a learner’ (p. 65). Connecting teachers’ professionaldevelopment to adult learning, Fogarty and Pete (2004, p. 63) asserted that, ‘As thefield of professional development matures, the literature is filled with findings aboutwhat is and what is not effective in working with the adult learner.’ Although itwas acknowledged that professional development should be built on the principlesof adult learning theory (Fogarty and Pete 2004, Matthews and Crow 2010, Zepeda2011), no studies were found that examined existing principal professional

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Professional Development in Education, 2014Vol. 40, No. 2, 295–315, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2013.821667

� 2013 International Professional Development Association (IPDA)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

05:

16 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

development through the lens of adult learning theory. This study responds to theneed to examine principals as learners and focuses on principal professional devel-opment as a form of adult learning. The purpose of this study was to identify cur-rent principal professional development practices in four school systems in Georgiaand to examine them by applying the principles of adult learning theory. The guid-ing research questions were as follows:

(1) What are the current practices in professional development for principals?(2) In what way (if any) do the principles of adult learning manifest

themselves in current principal professional development?

To expand the knowledge base about principal professional development, this studyextracted existing principal professional development practices from the cross-caseanalysis of four school systems and analyzed these practices by applying adultlearning theory principles (Knowles 1980, 1992, Conlan et al. 2003). For the pur-poses of this study, professional development practices are defined as activities thatfocus on supporting principals as they acquire or refine practices related to the fullspectrum of instructional leadership duties and expectations held for principals,refine key skills such as capacity-building and lead the principal into personalrenewal (Houle 2006, Drago-Severson 2009). In many instances, principal profes-sional learning is positioned on a deficit model in which principals engage in learn-ing that is aimed at closing a gap in their performance.

With heightened accountability measures in schools and the linkage of theschool’s overall success to the principal, professional development is offered as ameans to fill a gap in the leader’s knowledge or skill base. Whereas professionallearning that is developmental is more concerned with building the principal’s per-sonal and professional practices through more developmental means, such as learn-ing opportunities related directly to the developmental needs of the principal basedon their career stage, for example (Drago-Severson 2009, Zepeda 2011).Professional development practices are defined as any approach taken to impartknowledge, refine skills or enhance the overall effectiveness of the principal.Professional development practices would include, for example, mentoring, trainingsessions and demonstrations centered on a particular area identified as a need.

Review of relevant literature

Over the last two decades, the principalship has increased in complexity anddemands (Ramsey 2006, Sorenson 2006), has shifted from a teaching focus to alearning focus (Ellison and Hayes 2006) and has become more stressful and diffi-cult to maintain (Crow 2006). Notably, ‘Never in the history of our educationalenterprise has the school leader been faced with such complex responsibilitiesand so many change forces, both internal and external’ (Creighton 2005, p. 77).Green (2010) stated that ‘The new definition for leaders of twenty-first-centuryschools centers on purpose, and outcome’ (p. x). Role ambiguity coupled withstandards and accountability requirements have made the principalship lessappealing to prospective leaders (Davis 1998, Cooley and Shen 2003). As aresult, ‘Few would dispute the fact that twenty-first-century school leaders arefinding it difficult to keep up with the pressures brought to bear on their profes-sion’ (Leonard 2010, p. 1).

296 S.J. Zepeda et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

05:

16 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Bellamy et al. (2007, p. 1) believed that major challenges facing principals arecaused by the high expectation and difficult work conditions: ‘the challenges nowfacing school leaders are so significant and have such high stakes that they threatenthe survival of the principalship as we know it.’ Ellison and Hayes (2006) noted thechanging nature of principalship in the United States and believed that the,‘successful future of public schools demands that we develop a new generation ofleaders and help our current leaders face the changing horizons before us’ (pp. 7–8).Given these findings and implications, school leader preparation and workplaceprofessional development need further examination and improvement.

These trends contribute to the growing disquietude that exists as schools workto improve student achievement. Principals are in the center of this work impactingstudent achievement through their influence on school conditions and instructionalquality (Hallinger and Heck 1998, Smylie and Hart 1999, Robinson et al. 2008).The principal, as ‘a key factor in the success of school change and improvementefforts’ (Haar 2004, p. 20), needs effective professional development ‘to improve[his or her] skills’ (Thody 1998, p. 232). Focusing on principal professional devel-opment, this study was framed by the literature on principal effectiveness, profes-sional development and adult learning.

Principal effectiveness

The numerous characteristics of an effective principal mirror the numerous responsi-bilities of a school leader. The discussion about principal effectiveness is not newto educational leadership. Over time, ‘experts such as Michael Fullan, DougReeves, and Mike Schmoker have been very clear about what school leaders needto do in order to increase student achievement. But very little has changed in schoolimprovement practices across the country’ (McCabe 2011, p. 1). Research empha-sizes multiple roles of a school leader that denote principal effectiveness, pointingto the complexity of school leadership positions. Matthews and Crow (2010)asserted that a principal has eight major roles – a learner, a culture builder, an advo-cate, a leader, a mentor, a supervisor, a manager and a politician. The principal as alearner was introduced because, ‘Emphasizing the primacy of learning leads tounderstanding schools as learning organizations and communities’ (2010, p. 59).Green (2010) believed that, ‘One of the most important aspects contributing to theeffectiveness of twenty-first-century school leaders is their ability to identify andarticulate the purpose, process, and desired outcome for all school programs, pro-jects, and activities’ (p. x). Lindstrom and Speck (2004) asserted that effective prin-cipals were professional development leaders who ‘share leadership and build theschool culture collaboratively to effect change’ (p. 27).

Principal effectiveness is tied to leadership preparation (Walker and Qian 2006,Cowie and Crawford 2007). However, traditional principal university preparationwas described as ineffective (Farkas et al. 2001), too theoretical (Hale andMoorman 2003) and too managerially focused (Hess and Kelly 2007). Uponassuming the principalship, school leaders are expected to be effective from dayone, but they are typically not provided with sufficient support (Crow 2006,Sackney and Walker 2006). Among the most challenging areas for novice principalsare instructional leadership and bureaucracy (Walker and Qian 2006) and dealingwith place, people and self (Wildy and Clarke 2008). Furthermore, the complexityof the principal’s role frequently leads to principal burnout and increased leader

Professional Development in Education 297

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

05:

16 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

attrition (Friedman 1995). As a result, professional development has been regardedas a remedy to the shortcomings of principal preparation and as a system of supportfor sitting leaders.

Professional development

Recognizing the importance of principal professional development, multiple studieswere conducted to explore this complex phenomenon. Thus, researchers examinedprofessional development goals (Marshall et al. 2001, Assor and Oplatka 2003,Cardno and Fitzgerald 2005), professional development models (Hopkins-Thompson2000, Fenwick and Pierce 2002, Daresh 2004, Browne-Ferrigno and Muth 2004,Petzko 2004, Hoffmann and Johnston 2005) and the continuous nature of effectiveprofessional development (Fenwick and Pierce 2002, Cardno and Fitzgerald 2005).Furthermore, leadership aspects of adult learning for teachers, principals and super-intendents with an emphasis on constructive developmental theory were exploredby Drago-Severson (2009).

To support and retain principals, system leaders should provide meaningful andtimely professional development that, ‘needs to be based on a sound grasp of theo-ries associated with leadership, management and change as well as repertoire ofskills acquired from school-based experiences’ (Stewart 1998, p. 129). Effective lea-der professional growth is characterized by the principals’ ability to develop andimplement vision and use knowledge and skills (Assor and Oplatka 2003). Effectiveprofessional development enhances career development (Dempster and Berry 2003)and focuses on instructional leadership, capacity-building and personal renewal(Houle 2006).

One of the most common forms of principal professional development is men-toring (Lashway 2003). Mentoring is valuable for all principals, but is especiallyuseful for novices (Young et al. 2005). Mentoring is frequently coupled with theportfolio as an alternative growth and assessment tool (Lashway 2003, Mestry andSchmidt 2010). Dietz (2001, p. 1) emphasized the effectiveness of portfolios – orthe ‘compilation of recorded goals and action plans, artifacts and evidence, andreflections on leadership’ – in improving the school leader’s performance.

Peer sharing and peer support (Browne-Ferrigno and Muth 2004, Hoffmann andJohnston 2005, Drago-Severson 2009) and professional learning communities (Hippand Weber 2008) were described as effective practices in principal professionaldevelopment. Researchers promoted holistic approaches to principal professionaldevelopment with a focus on appraisal of performance, effective leadership and stra-tegic management (Cardno 2005); and promoted reflective inquiry and craft modelsof principal professional development (Fenwick and Pierce 2002, Drago-Severson2009). The processes supporting principal professional development include job-embedded learning (Marshall et al. 2001, Haar 2004, Hoffmann and Johnston 2005,Ross 2011), career-stage considerations (Peterson 2002) and coaching (Hopkins-Thompson 2000, Kostin and Haeger 2006).

In the era of technology and ever-expanding use of the Internet, online principalprofessional development has emerged as a viable alternative to traditional forms oflearning. Ross (2011) promoted online professional development as a form of effec-tive learning that involves defining the mission and vision, conducting gap analysis,creating content, reviewing technology options, developing or obtaining systemcomponents and evaluating effectiveness. Ng (2005) described the promises of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

05:

16 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

interactive learning for developing educational leaders and proposed combining anintelligent tutoring system and computer simulations to provide principals withinteractive learning. Overall, demands for increased accountability and the growinguse of the Internet in education (Creighton 2005) have greatly impacted principalprofessional learning and should be considered viable in planning and providingprofessional development.

Predominantly, current professional development models are grounded in cogni-tive psychology (Dall’Alba and Sandberg 2006). The effectiveness of professionaldevelopment increases when it combines theory, practical application, feedback andcognitive peer coaching with follow-up (Joyce and Showers 2002). Research sug-gests the need to account for the aspiring principals’ individual cognitive frame-works of school leadership and management in providing professional development(Reeves et al. 2005). Furthermore, when planning continuing professional develop-ment for principals, it is necessary to consider social and cognitive processessurrounding the principalship (Reeves and Forde 2004) and it is also necessary toconsider the needs of the system while simultaneously considering the individualand developmental needs of the principal. Given the structures of school systems,professional development for principals often falls into the one-sized approach asso-ciated with teacher professional development, ameliorating the individual – bothcognitive and developmental – needs of principals (Zepeda 2011).

Effective professional development was also described as a type of ongoingadult learning. The continuous nature of principal professional development wasemphasized as a necessary extension of school leader preparation and induction(Cardno and Fitzgerald 2005). This continuous process frequently included compo-nents of adult learning theory – action learning, experiential learning and self-directed and project-based learning (Conlan et al. 2003). However, no study wasfound that explicitly analyzed principal professional development practices as a typeof adult learning. To enrich the body of knowledge about principal learning, thisstudy analyzed existing principal professional development practices in four schoolsystems by applying adult learning principles.

Professional development as adult learning

Theoretical foundation of this study drew from the field of adult learning theorybecause professional development is a form of adult learning that supports adminis-trator, teacher and student learning (Zepeda 2011). Pioneered by Knowles (1973),the theory of adult learning continues to develop. In his seminal work, Knowles(1973) reported that adult learners have nine major characteristics: control of theirlearning; immediate utility; focus on issues that concern them; test their learning asthey go; anticipate how they will use their learning; expect performance improve-ment; maximize available resources; require collaborative, respectful, mutual andinformal climate; and rely on information that is appropriate and developmentallyplaced. Other classical works on adult learning included Knupp’s (1981) phases ofadult learners and an overview by Zemke and Zemke (1995) that emphasized threeareas key to adult learning – motivation to learn, curriculum design and classroominstructional design.

Adult learning theory integrates action learning, experiential learning, self-directed learning and project-based learning (Conlan et al. 2003). To be effective,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

05:

16 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

adult learning should be built on ownership, appropriateness, structure, collaboration,internalization, reflection and motivation (Langer and Applebee 1986). Knowles(1980, 1992) asserted that adults are autonomous learners that are goal oriented andrelevancy oriented and are practical people who have gained knowledge throughtheir past experiences. Success, volition, value and enjoyment are major motivatingfactors for adults (Knowles et al. 2005). Illeris (2004) believed that adult learning isselective and self-directed and differs considerably from child learning becauseadults are more willing to engage in learning that they selected themselves. Illeris(2004) summarized that, ‘adults best learn what they find subjectively meaningful,either because it is something they want to learn or because it is something theyexperience as important or necessary for them to learn’ (p. 227).

Merriam (2001) asserted that no single adult learning theory explained howadults learn and emphasized andragogy and self-directed learning as two pillars ofadult learning theory. Pioneered by Knowles, andragogy (a theory of adult learning)asserts that an adult:

(1) has an independent self-concept and can direct his or her own learning,(2) has accumulated a reservoir of life experiences that is a rich resource for

learning,(3) has learning needs closely related to changing social roles,(4) is problem-centered and interested in immediate application of knowledge,

and(5) is motivated to learn by internal rather than external factors. (Merriam 2001, p. 5)

Five major assumptions of andragogy include: adults’ increasing self-directedness;using previous experience as a rich resource for learning; assuming developmentaltasks and social roles; attempting to immediately apply what was learned; and beingproblem centered (Isenberg 2007).

Educators’ professional development is a type of adult learning that occurseither on the job or during professional learning initiatives, seminars or trainings.Fogarty and Pete (2004, p. 63) suggested five critical qualities of rigorous profes-sional development:

(1) Sustained: training is implemented over time.(2) Job-embedded: training occurs and/or continues at the work site.(3) Interactive: training invites, involves and engages participants.(4) Collegial: training builds and supports a community of learners.(5) Integrated: training that is eclectic (web-based, online, text, face to face).

Based on the examination of how principals learn, Donaldson (2008) assertedthat effective principal professional development begins with a question that isimportant for the learner and is self-directed and reflective. Donaldson alsoemphasized the importance of incorporating adult learning theory in planningprincipal professional development to, ‘help them both understand how to makesense of their own past experience and to structure better their future reflection’(2008, p. 115).

Although these theories of adult learning have distinct characteristics that setthem apart, they also have some common qualities. Based on the overview of thesetheories, five major characteristics of adult learning emerged. Adult learning is self-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

05:

16 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

directed, motivational for the learner, problem centered, relevancy oriented and goaloriented. Regarding principal professional development as a type of adult learning,this study analyzed current principal professional development practices to examinewhether they possess these characteristics of adult learning.

Methodology

Research design

This interpretive study was framed within the qualitative research paradigm. As atheoretical perspective, interpretivism guided the exploration of the participants’ per-ceptions and interpretations of their professional development and the analysis ofthe participants’ descriptions of their experiences. This study represents an intrinsiccase study (Stake 2005), focused on examining existing principal professionaldevelopment practices in four Georgia school districts. The research design for thisstudy was an exploratory, embedded, multiple case study (Yin 2003). Four cases inthis analysis were school systems; principal professional development was regardedas a unit of analysis (Merriam 1998). There were thus four single cases followed bythe cross-case analysis; the single cases shared the same setting and had the sameparticipants who were interviewed using the same interview protocols.

Data sources

Four school districts in the state of Georgia were selected as research sites usingintensity sampling to select, ‘information-rich cases that manifest the phenomenonof interest intensely (but not extremely)’ (Patton 2002, p. 234). The four systemswere assigned pseudonyms: Indian Hills County Public Schools, Norris CountyPublic Schools, Kettle County Schools and Richland County School System. Thesystems were screened for variations in size, socio-economic status, location andAdequate Yearly Progress status. The systems differed greatly in size (see Table 1),per-capita income, the racial make-up of the student population (see Table 2) andthe district personnel breakdown (see Table 3). The mean student enrollment wasslightly over 40,000.

Within each district, the superintendent, assistant or deputy superintendent,director of human resources and select principals were interviewed. Seven partici-pants represented three smaller districts, while the large district had 11 participants.In the smallest district in the study, all four principals were interviewed. In the

Table 1. District demographics.

School district

Number ofelementaryschools

Number ofmiddleschools

Number ofhigh

schools

Number ofmagnetschools

Totalenrollment

Indian HillsCounty PublicSchools

68 20 19 0 154,901

Norris CountySchools

2 2 1 0 3716

Kettle CountySchools

2 1 1 0 3312

Richland CountySchool System

6 2 1 1 5934


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

05:

16 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

larger districts, the superintendents recommended those principals and central officeleaders who, they believed, could provide the richest data.

The data, collected in September–December 2008, included individual inter-views and artifacts. Interviews provided the main source of data; additional datacame from relevant documents. Data were triangulated through the comparison ofmultiple information sources and the involvement of several researchers in inter-viewing, coding, analyzing and interpreting the findings.

Methods

The analysis occurred in three stages. First, during the single-case stage, the tran-scripts from different districts were coded to identify recurring ideas and to developthemes (Auerbach and Silverstein 2003). Themes were constructed based on theanalysis and categorization of ideas. The constructs of professional developmentpractices combined themes into the overarching groups used in the single-case anal-ysis. Second, the cross-case analysis of principal professional development in differ-ent districts was conducted and the findings were grouped by themes – thepractices that manifested themselves across the districts. Third, the themes from thecross-case analysis were examined by applying the characteristics of adult learningtheory distilled in the literature review process to explore how the principles ofadult learning manifested themselves in the principal professional developmentpractices used in these school systems.

Findings

As a multiple case study, initial findings focused on each school system as aseparate case, offering a description of each system’s professional developmentpractices for principals. Next, the themes that emerged across the cases weredeveloped. Finally, we examined the relationships between these themes and adult

Table 2. Student population.

Asian(%)

Black(%)

Hispanic(%)

White(%)

Multiracial(%)

Indian Hills CountySchools

10 27 22 36 4

Norris County Schools 1 34 2 64 2Kettle County Schools 0 10 1 87 1Richland County Schools 1 37 3 57 2

Table 3. Certified personnel’s years of experience.

Administrators(as % of staff)

Support personnel(as % of staff)

PK–12 teachers(as % of staff)

Indian Hills County Schools 18.98 (5.1%) 14.06 (5.9%) 11.58 (89.0%)Norris County Schools 20.91 (6.9%) 15.15 (8.4%) 15.46 (84.7%)Kettle County Schools 17.65 (5.6%) 13.06 (6.5%) 10.94 (86.9%)Richland County Schools 22.93 (7.3%) 15.72 (8.4%) 14.55 (84.3%)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

05:

16 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

learning theory constructs. The findings are presented in three parts reflecting thesethree stages of analysis.

Part one: principal professional development in four school districts – findingsfrom the individual case studies

All districts agreed that accountability demands of recent years have changed theirperspectives about an approach to leader professional development because ‘it ismore important than ever to get everybody focused on professional learning.’ Effec-tive professional development was described as job embedded and more compre-hensive than a single workshop or a learning session. Notably, professionaldevelopment has changed in its scope, purposes and nature. In response to thesechanges, school systems placed increased emphasis on the continuous andjob-embedded learning. School systems were moving from ‘flash in the pan’ initia-tives to creating rich experiences that have an instant and continual impact, focusing‘on getting the results you really need to get.’ The findings of the individual casestudies follow.

Case 1: Indian Hills County Public Schools

Indian Hills County Public Schools embraced formal and informal professionaldevelopment initiatives for current and aspiring leaders. Participating principalsbelieved it was their responsibility to develop teachers as future candidates for lead-ership positions. Extensive professional development provided for assistant princi-pals culminated in a Leadership Academy that the superintendent described as aninitiative with two purposes: ‘one was to address succession planning in the schooldistrict, [and the] second purpose was to develop existing leaders.’ The principalsbelieved that the academy was important in preparing future leaders in the district,describing it as ‘the best preparation’ for the principalship. One principal stated:‘Although it was grueling … what we received at the Leadership Academy was byfar the best [preparation].’ Assistant principals also benefitted from regular meetingswith the superintendent and other central office leaders, and had an opportunity toparticipate in the Summer Leadership Conference and multiple system-wide andschool-based leadership development initiatives.

The principals in this district were provided with a multitude of professionaldevelopment opportunities that included a leader mentor program, just-in-time train-ing, a Summer Leadership Conference and regular meetings with the system lead-ers. Mentoring was an important initiative, especially beneficial for the newprincipals that described it as the most powerful professional development theyhave received as novice leaders. A first-year principal shared the following:

[The best professional learning opportunities] are the interactions I have with my men-tor, because they are custom, they are current, and when I say current I mean timely.They are ongoing … she [the mentor] knows what is going on [and] she knows theright questions to ask.

The leader mentor program was described as a continuous professional developmentinitiative benefitting the new and experienced school leaders.

Another form of continuous professional development was just-in-time trainingdelivered through focus groups to deal with issues and tasks as they emerged.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

05:

16 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Although primarily targeting the first-year and second-year principals, these sessionswere also open to veteran principals and were planned to minimize the principals’absence from their schools. Another attempt at making leader professional develop-ment ongoing was evident in the newest initiative called ‘continuous qualityimprovement.’ This training targeted a specific skill and was offered three times peryear, with a goal of having every school leader ‘quality trained’ to meet the needsof the schools and the system.

Overall, the Indian Hills County Public Schools promoted a culture of ongoingand highly contextualized professional development that was predominantly plannedand provided internally by the system leaders. The coherent and ongoing nature ofprofessional development was emphasized. One principal explained: ‘lifelong learn-ing is very real and so thoroughly embedded that it’s just not even questioned any-more.’ A veteran central office administrator described professional development as‘aligned’ and asserted: ‘I think that we have become laser-focused on making surethat the staff development that we do is aligned with the mission, vision, and goalsof the organization.’ This alignment emphasized the strategic aspect of planningprofessional development for the system leaders, reflected in the establishedlearning culture.

Case 2: Norris County Schools

Norris County Schools combined internal and external professional developmentinitiatives and worked to ensure their continuity. The assistant superintendentdescribed the system’s leaders’ professional development that included formal andinformal options:

We do have three tiers of preparation. We send leaders off to training, DevelopingHigh-performing Leaders At All Levels, for instance. We also do things in smallgroups and one-on-one. I think the tiered system helps us to connect the dots forpeople.

These initiatives targeted teacher leaders, assistant principals and novice andexperienced principals.

Following the identified need to grow future leaders inside the system, NorrisCounty developed an Aspiring Leaders program to train teacher leaders and assis-tant principals. A central office participant explained:

Aspiring leaders are self-selected. If we do not see that they have a place in the sys-tem, we don’t exclude them, but we don’t necessarily target them. If we see somebodythat is in the classroom or an instructional coach that is really someone we could use,then we make sure we put them on committees.

At the time of the study, the program was undergoing development and improve-ment to address the identified shortcomings. Still, the program was described asvaluable and important by both principals and central office leaders.

The Georgia Leadership Institute for School Improvement (GLISI) and the localRegional Educational Service Agency (RESA) provided additional professionaldevelopment. The most valued initiative was the Rising Stars Collaboratives pro-gram provided by the GLISI for assistant principals to prepare them for the princi-palship. Training and resources from the GLISI were appreciated and constantly


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

05:

16 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

referred to by the participants. The RESA provided quarterly sessions that weredescribed as helpful in ‘giving extra information and support,’ as one central officeleader shared.

In addition to these initiatives, principals benefited from book studies, monthlymeetings, just-in-time training and the end-of-the-year leadership summit. Themonthly meetings were somewhat similar to those in the Indian Hills County PublicSchools, as was the concept of just-in-time training. While book studies providedtheoretical knowledge, just-in-time-training tackled issues related to everydaypractices and concerns. A central office leader commented: ‘It’s all good and wellto teach people theory, but they really don’t get it until they need to use it.’ Thejust-in-time training focused on dealing with ‘what we’re seeing, not what we’renot seeing,’ explained the assistant superintendent.

The RESA provided mentors for the new principals. A principal explainedthat he appreciated the external nature of this initiative, mentor’s support andnon-evaluative nature of their relationship: ‘I can talk to her and I don’t haveto worry that my boss is thinking, “he should know this stuff” and I don’t feelstupid.’ The support from a former principal was also beneficial and soughtafter.

In summary, Norris County Schools successfully combined internally andexternally provided professional development opportunities for their current andaspiring leaders. Although professional development was predominantly planned bythe central office leaders, principals appreciated the opportunity to have some inputin their learning. Overall, the importance of continuity in professional learning wasacknowledged by the participants, but it appears that this school system had yet tomake their leader professional development ongoing as there was little evidence ofcontinuity in professional learning opportunities.

Case 3: Kettle County School System

Kettle County School System offered professional development that fostered teacherleader growth, assistant principal growth and principal growth. Teacher leaders ben-efited from mentoring, Better Seeking Teams and the Kettle County LeadershipAcademy. In their schools, sitting principals mentored teachers who expressed inter-est in leadership. Better Seeking Teams originated from the GLISI training andfocused on the analysis of the school data and on making policy decisions. Likewith mentoring, the principal would choose the teachers with ‘leadership potential.’One principal explained: ‘I may be the identified leader of the Kettle [school], buteach of [the teachers] plays a leadership role because they are leading a class of stu-dents.’ To develop leadership abilities in teachers, the Kettle County LeadershipAcademy was created to develop teacher leaders. To be accepted into the Academy,teachers went through the interview process with the committee selecting future par-ticipants; the superintendent made a final decision ‘if there was a close call’ on theapplication. The sessions provided by the Academy focused on the knowledge andskills important for an effective leader (i.e. time management, change, leadership,distributed leadership, etc.). The major assignment was a project where participantshad to deal with reluctant staff or tackle difficult issues in their schools. The pro-gram has been in the system for several years and was perceived as effective andvaluable.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

05:

16 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

A similar initiative for assistant principals was the externally provided RisingStars Collaboratives that heavily focused on ‘looking at data analysis andinterpreting the data.’ All principals in the study spoke highly of this GLISI-provided program that equipped participants with skills and knowledge needed tobe an effective leader. Other forms of professional development offered for assistantprincipals included the Aspiring Leaders and the Institute of New Leaders thatprovided participants with networking and mentoring opportunities and strengthenedtheir interview skills.

Professional learning opportunities for principals in Kettle County included lead-ership meetings, a new developmental evaluation, external professional developmentinitiatives and internal mentoring. Guided by the superintendent, weekly leadershipmeetings addressed ‘what was happening academically inside the school and … theclassrooms.’ The principal evaluation tool was changed to reflect individual growthand school improvement. Principals were encouraged to participate in state-wideconferences, RESA sessions and GLISI initiatives that focused on team buildingand vision setting and were described as ‘relevant,’ ‘important’ and ‘data-informed.’Finally, the deputy superintendent served as a principal mentor and the principalsdescribed this mentoring as ‘the most powerful professional development.’

Overall, Kettle County School System believed that effective professional devel-opment supported the data-driven approach to standards-based classrooms promotedin the district. Being a small system, Kettle County embraced externally providedprofessional development but strove to embed it in their educational framework andtie it to the school system’s goals and directions. While internal professional develop-ment was provided and valued, Kettle County welcomed local RESA and GLISIengagement in preparing their future leaders and supporting their sitting leaders.

Case 4: Richland County School System

Central office leaders of the Richland County School System acknowledged theneed to prepare future administrators and teacher leaders and provided their aspiringprincipals with different professional development opportunities to further theirunderstanding of school leadership. Principals believed that it was their responsibil-ity to identify and to develop their teacher leaders. Therefore, they provided anopportunity of ‘leader for a day,’ so teacher leaders experienced being in a leader-ship position. One principal stated: ‘I think you just see certain skills in people andyou start moving those people forward with their education and with things theyneed to do to be successful at the next level.’ However, even though the need forteacher development was acknowledged, no formal professional development wasoffered for them and informal professional learning opportunities were sporadic anddisconnected.

Described by the superintendent as ‘the best training ground’ of future adminis-trators, assistant principals received some professional development, but it wasadmitted by a central office leader that ‘We haven’t got it [professional develop-ment] in a formal fashion.’ Internally provided professional development for assis-tant principals was informal in nature and included leadership meetings andprincipals’ assignment of the leadership roles for assistant principals. The assistantsuperintendent stated:


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

05:

16 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

They [assistant principals] receive the information right along with their principal andwe encourage our principals to involve them in their work and in the true leadership,instructional leadership work they are doing at the building level rather than delegatingthose tasks to them that they don’t want to be involved in themselves. So, we are pre-paring assistant principals to step into that role of a principal and to be equipped tohandle it once they make that final move.

Externally provided initiatives came predominantly from the GLISI; the Rising StarsCollaboratives Program was the most popular and valued.

Professional development for principals included central office initiatives andthose provided by the GLISI and the RESA. The superintendent shared thatinternally developed professional learning ‘was chosen to train principals in theissues that were of the greatest priority.’ Among such issues were standards-based teaching that the assistant superintendent described as, ‘a process approachto move from the traditional classroom with the traditional instructional method-ology to the standards-based classroom where we are teaching them to evaluatetheir work against the standards.’ Other internal initiatives included the superin-tendent’s monthly leadership development meetings and trainings on variousaspects of leadership (i.e. differentiated instruction, distributed leadership, assess-ment, etc.).

Externally provided professional development was sought after and welcomed.The GLISI offered the majority of such initiatives that were meant to provide,‘intensive training in the work school and district leaders must do to lead facultyand staff in team-based improvement to raise student achievement,’ to increase thegraduation rate and to reduce dropouts. Those principals in the study whoparticipated in the Rising Stars Collaboratives Program described the experience asvery helpful in preparing them to assume a principalship and to be effective in thatposition.

Overall, principal professional development in Richland County School Systemwas informal in nature and relied heavily on the assistance from the externalorganizations. System leaders expressed the need for formalization of professionaldevelopment, while principals wanted more ‘on-the-job training.’

Part two: principal professional development practices – findings from thecross-case analysis

The school systems in the study had different professional development priorities.The three smaller districts primarily focused on professional learning that addressedthe principal as an instructional leader in a standards-based environment. The largersystem focused on the continuing development and growth of leaders within thesystem; professional development was tailored to the needs of this school systemand designed to develop new leaders and to help the transition of veteran principalsinto the new accountability climate.

To differing degrees, these four districts showed evidence of a comprehensivelearning plan that addressed the development needs of a variety of stakeholders –including principals, assistant principals and teacher leaders. School systems’ devel-opmental activities specifically addressed the effectiveness of school leaders andtheir preparation to be effective leaders from the day the leader assumed this typeof position. All four systems acknowledged the importance of developing teacher


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

05:

16 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

leaders within their buildings, both formally and informally. Furthermore, twoschool systems established partnerships with higher education institutions thatfocused on school-based leadership development. The common theme in profes-sional development across the four districts was developing job-embedded trainingfor principals, making it relevant and action based, as opposed to the traditional ‘sitand get’ method. However, there was evidence of a strand of activities pitched asprofessional learning offered across the four systems that was situated in ensuringcompliance to system-wide, state and federal mandates and legislation. Althoughlabeled professional learning or staff development, these activities were akin to ‘sitand get’ so the system had official records of these types of sessions. In a sense,these activities were procedural, not professional, development.

Monthly or weekly meetings of building and central office leaders were estab-lished in the four school systems to provide an opportunity for a dialogue about thedevelopmental needs of their current and aspiring leaders. Armed with individual-ized needs assessments, the central office would then internally develop or out-source the creation of a professional development program designed to address theneeds of the school. Indian Hills County Public Schools identified this approach asjust-in-time training. As one principal explained: ‘The kind of professional develop-ment I am referring to is the continuous ongoing professional development. Asthings come up, I’m able to get … Just-in-Time training to deal with those things.’Most just-in-time training sessions in the large system in the study and smallersystems’ equivalents of this initiative targeted new principals and their needs, butwere also open to veteran principals. Overall, all districts used external and internalprograms for professional development.

All school systems noted the importance of developing a leadership pipeline,but differed in the degree of formal professional development offered for teacherleaders and assistant principals. Externally and internally provided professionaldevelopment for aspiring and sitting leaders were synthesized and grouped. Thisanalysis of professional development provided by four school systems for their

Table 4. Principal professional development practices.

Practice Description

Connecting professional andcareer development

Grounding professional development in leadercompetencies tied to career development

Individualizing learning Offering the choice of professional developmentEngaging multiple sources oflearning

Providing multiple options of learning through formaland informal structures

Adapting, not adopting, externalinitiatives

Adapting external programs to context, not completelyaccepting them

Aligning professionaldevelopment

Aligning professional development with the systemmission, vision and goals, and the principal needs

Ensuring ongoing professionaldevelopment

Providing continuous, well-planned and scheduledprofessional learning

Encouraging mentoring Offering non-threatening, non-evaluative, formal orinformal mentoring

Providing data-informed and job-embedded learning

Ensuring planned, data-informed, standards-oriented andpractice-oriented learning

Strategically planningprofessional development

Planning professional development with the future inmind


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

05:

16 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

current and aspiring leaders revealed nine prominent practices in principal profes-sional development (see Table 4).

Although professional development was planned by the central office staff, sit-ting and aspiring principals appreciated the individualized approach to professionaldevelopment they received. A common trait among the districts was combining for-mal and informal types of professional learning coming from sources that wereinternal and external to the school system. Uncommon with other systems in thestudy, the largest district opted for adapting not adopting externally provided profes-sional development. The systems also attempted to align their leader professionaldevelopment to reflect the mission, vision and goals of the system. Among the mostvalued forms of professional development was mentoring, formally or informally,provided by the school system or through external entities. Finally, systems stroveto make professional development ongoing, data informed, job embedded andstrategic, asserting that only professional development possessing all these charac-teristics was effective and valuable.

Part three: analysis of principal professional development practices through thelens of adult learning theory

Nine principal professional development practices that emerged from the cross-caseanalysis were further analyzed to examine whether they manifested the characteris-tics of adult learning that were detailed in the literature review. The analysis showedthat existing principal professional development practices possessed certaincharacteristics of adult learning – they were problem centered, relevancy oriented,goal oriented and motivated (see Table 5).

Of the five characteristics of adult learning (self-directed, motivated, problemcentered, relevancy oriented and goal oriented), current principal professional devel-opment practices exhibited all these characteristics, but to different degrees. Themost evident characteristics of these practices were their relevancy-oriented andproblem-centered nature, showing that principals valued professional learning thatwas relevant to the realities of their daily work and the barriers they were facing.

Table 5. Professional development as adult learning.

Practice Relevant adult learning characteristics

Connecting professional and careerdevelopment

Relevancy oriented; goal oriented; motivated

Individualizing learning Motivated; problem centered; self-directedEngaging multiple sources of learning Problem centered; relevancy oriented; goal

orientedAdapting, not adopting, externalinitiatives

Problem centered; relevancy oriented; goaloriented

Aligning professional development Motivated; problem centered; relevancy orientedEnsuring ongoing professionaldevelopment

Relevancy oriented; goal oriented

Encouraging mentoring Motivated; problem centered; relevancy orientedProviding data-informed and job-embedded learning

Motivated; problem centered; relevancy oriented;goal oriented

Strategically planning professionaldevelopment

Problem centered; relevancy oriented; goaloriented


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

05:

16 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Similarly, motivation and goal-centeredness were highly relevant to principalprofessional development, emphasizing that motivation and focus were importantfor principals’ learning (Knowles et al. 2005).

One notable finding was the fact that principal professional practices were rarelyself-directed, but rather were planned and administered by the school systemleaders. Thus, one of the important characteristics of adult learning, its self-directednature, did not characterize the existing principal professional developmentpractices. A possible explanation for this finding may be the fact that, in these sys-tems, principal professional development was mainly planned and provided by thecentral office leaders, and principals had little choice as to the types of professionallearning they would receive. In summary, the examination of principal professionaldevelopment as a form of adult learning showed that current practices in principalprofessional learning possessed, perhaps in a happenstance manner, most character-istics of adult learning theory, except for the limited options for leaders to directtheir own professional learning. Further implications for research, policy andpractice are provided in the following section.

Discussion

Recent literature on the principalship is replete with reports about the changingrole of a school leader (Crow 2006, Sorenson 2006, Green 2010). This studyalso supports such reports because all participating districts agreed that the prin-cipalship has undergone significant changes over the last decades, and the posi-tion has increased in complexity and demands. The findings of this study arealigned with the reports on the changes in leadership roles (Ellison and Hayes2006, Bellamy et al. 2007), the pressures of the position (Creighton 2005, Crow2006, Sorenson 2006, Leonard 2010) and the new skills that principals need tobe effective (Ramsey 2006, Green 2010). The principals in this study believedthat their major role was instructional leadership, supporting the reports aboutthe principals’ influence on student achievement (Robinson et al. 2008, McCabe2011).

The participants of this study recognized that accountability demands of recentyears have dramatically changed their perspectives about and approach to leaderprofessional development. As a result, professional development has changed in itsscope, purposes and nature and has become more aligned with the mission, visionand goals of the organization. These findings mirror earlier studies on the impact ofaccountability on the principalship (Creighton 2005, Green 2010, Leonard 2010,McCabe 2011).

In response to the accountability-related changes, the school systems in thisstudy have placed increased emphasis on continuous and job-embedded learning forprincipals. The move toward ongoing and contextualized professional developmentreported by the participating systems followed the results of other studies on thistopic that concluded that effective principal professional learning is ongoing andjob embedded (Fenwick and Pierce 2002, Cardno and Fitzgerald 2005, Ross 2011).The common theme in professional development across the four districts was devel-oping job-embedded training for principals, making it relevant and action based, asopposed to the traditional ‘sit and get’ method.

Although this study did not examine the participants’ beliefs about principalpreparation programs that are frequently criticized as ineffective (Walker and Qian


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

05:

16 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

2006, Cowie and Crawford 2007, Hess and Kelly 2007), the participating districtsfavored innovative leadership development academies. Two districts in this studydeveloped their own academies and described those as the best preparation, supportand development for their sitting and aspiring leaders. Also, three districts wereinvolved in the external Rising Stars Collaboratives that focused on data analysisand interpretation and equipped participants with skills and knowledge needed to bean effective leader. These findings imply the need for redesign and improvement oftraditional principal preparation programs and call for further research of these sys-tem-based principal development and preparation initiatives.

The notion of principal effectiveness has also surfaced in this study as the par-ticipants engaged in discussing principal professional development. The continuousnature of ensuring leader continuity and professional growth was reflected in thesystems’ attempts to grow the leadership pipeline by providing targeted professionaldevelopment for teacher leaders, assistant principals and sitting principals. Thisstudy also alluded to the multiple roles of an effective principal that were previ-ously reported (Lindstrom and Speck 2004, Matthews and Crow 2010).

Overall, this study emphasized the importance of professional development forprincipals as suggested by previous studies on this topic (Dempster and Berry 2003,Green 2010, Zepeda 2011).

Nine practices in principal professional development that resulted from thecross-case analysis exhibited major characteristics of effective professional develop-ment suggested by Ross (2011); specifically, the focus on ongoing, job-embedded,active learning, collaboration and student achievement. Furthermore, these practiceswere relevancy oriented, goal oriented, motivated, problem centered and, to a lesserdegree, self-directed. The findings bring forward the tension between professionaldevelopment options selected and provided by the school districts and the limitedability for principals to direct their own professional learning needs. While thisanalysis showed that the principal professional development experienced by the par-ticipants possesses most of the characteristics of adult learning, it does not revealwhether the intention of the creators of principal professional development purpose-fully designed experiences that were tied to the principles of adult learning. There-fore, those who create professional development opportunities for principals shouldrelate those experiences with the intention of covering the principles of adult learn-ing theory – particularly in the area of self-directed learning. This conclusion leadsto the implications for policy, practice and research that are discussed in detail inthe following section.

Implications

The findings of this study hold implications for policy, practice and futureresearch. Related to policy, the findings of this study suggest that school systemsneed to think through what types of professional development are most important.From such a self-study, systems could, theoretically, design professional develop-ment that is more responsive to the needs of both the system and the adult learner.Admittedly, this would be a challenge because when adult learning through profes-sional development initiatives is more self-directed, there could be a disconnectbetween what the system perceived needs are and what the individual’s perceivedneeds are.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

05:

16 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

When planning professional learning for principals and aspiring leaders, schooldistricts should consider providing leaders with more autonomy to direct their pro-fessional development. It is conventional wisdom that any organization, includingschool systems, is only as strong as their leaders. If this conventional wisdom istrue and based on the perspectives offered by the participants, we believe there isenough space for school systems to balance more evenly the needs of the systemalong with the needs of its leaders. As systems and their people grow and learnfrom each other, there can come a convergence where personal and professionalneeds will intersect, and from this intersection can emerge professional learningopportunities that are responsive to the collective.

Given that all four systems in this study situated professional learning on theneeds of their systems and the personnel that engaged in these learningopportunities, further examination of the linkages to professional development andadult learning could be made, studying the commonalities and differences. Fromwithin these commonalities and differences, policy-makers – as in professional stan-dards commissions charged with re-certifying school leaders – could promote poli-cies that support professional learning situated on a platform of adult learning andthe principles that guide learning for adults.

For practice, this study shed light on several ideas. First, adult learningprinciples must provide the foundation for learning for sitting and aspiring leaders.Second, professional development needs to be more fully aligned to the needs ofthe participants who engage in professional learning. Third, professional develop-ment for leaders must take into account the needs of the system, the site in whichparticipants lead and the outcomes that are articulated. The alignment of profes-sional learning, the needs of participants and the needs of the system ought to besituated on a platform of learning that supports adults and the principles of adultlearning. Fourth, the principles of adult learning and engagement need to be widelymanifested and job embedded within the very activities and learning opportunitiesfor leaders across their career stage in leadership positions. Finally, principalsshould be given more autonomy in directing their professional learning. Specifically,principals may direct the choice of the curriculum options, learning approaches,delivery type, content, pace and desired outcomes.

This study held many implications for further and future research related to pro-fessional learning for principals and aspiring leaders. From the findings of thisstudy, it was not clear about the types of follow-up learning that the participantsengaged in after sessions ended; moreover, it was not clear about how coachingenhanced or extended professional learning opportunities. More research is neededto focus on how informal learning opportunities enhance formal professional learn-ing opportunities. The findings of this study also point to a need to examine moreintensively the impact of job-embedded learning as a form of professional learningfor principals.

Conclusion

This study helps to inform the theory of adult learning as applied to principalprofessional development and enriches the knowledge base about existing principalprofessional development practices. Prior to this study, principal professionaldevelopment was recognized as a form of adult learning (Fogarty and Pete 2004,Matthews and Crow 2010, Zepeda 2011), but professional development practices


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

05:

16 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

were not analyzed for characteristics of adult learning. Thus, the methodologicalsignificance of this study lay in examining existing professional development prac-tices by applying the characteristics of adult learning. The empirical significance ofthe study was that the findings contributed new knowledge about current principalprofessional development.

The findings of this study revealed specific principal professional developmentpractices from four school systems and may inform school and district leaders aboutprincipal professional development practices in Georgia. In addition, the findingsopened avenues for future research related to principal professional development asadult learning and integration of self-directed options in professional developmentof school leaders. The study concludes that more research is needed to analyze thecomplex phenomenon of principal professional development as a type of adultlearning.

ReferencesAssor, A. and Oplatka, I., 2003. Towards a comprehensive conceptual framework for

understanding principals’ personal-professional growth. Journal of educationaladministration, 41 (5), 471–497.

Auerbach, C.F. and Silverstein, L.B., 2003. Qualitative data: an introduction to coding andanalysis. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Bellamy, C.T., et al., 2007. Principal accomplishments: how school leaders succeed. NewYork, NY: Teachers College Press.

Browne-Ferrigno, T. and Muth, R., 2004. Leadership mentoring in clinical practice: rolesocialization, professional development, and capacity building. Educational administra-tion quarterly, 40 (4), 468–494.

Cardno, C., 2005. Leadership and professional development: the quiet revolution.International journal of educational management, 19 (4), 292–306.

Cardno, C. and Fitzgerald, T., 2005. Leadership learning: a development initiative forexperienced New Zealand principals. Journal of educational administration, 43 (3),316–329.

Conlan, J., Grabowski, S., and Smith, K., 2003. Adult learning. In: M. Orey, ed. Emerg-ing perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology [online]. Available from:http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/ [Accessed 10 July 2009].

Cooley, V.E. and Shen, J., 2003. School accountability and professional job responsibilities:a perspective from secondary principals. NASSP bulletin, 87 (634), 10–25.

Cowie, M. and Crawford, M., 2007. Principal preparation – still an act of faith? School lead-ership & management, 27 (2), 129–146.

Creighton, T., 2005. Leading from below the surface: a non-traditional approach to schoolleadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Crow, G.M., 2006. Complexity and the beginning principal in the United States: perspectiveson socialization. Journal of educational administration, 44 (4), 310–325.

Dall’Alba, G. and Sandberg, J., 2006. Unveiling professional development: a critical reviewof stage models. Review of educational research, 76 (3), 383–412.

Daresh, J., 2004. Mentoring school leaders: professional promise or predictable problems?Educational administration quarterly, 40 (4), 495–517.

Davis, S., 1998. Superintendents’ perspectives on the involuntary departure of public schoolprincipals: the most frequent reasons why principals lose their jobs. Educationaladministration quarterly, 34 (1), 58–90.

Dempster, N. and Berry, V., 2003. Blindfolded in a minefield: principals’ ethical decision-making. Cambridge journal of education, 33 (3), 457–477.

Dietz, M.E., 2001. Designing the school leader’s portfolio. Arlington Heights, IL: SkyLightProfessional Development.

Donaldson, G.A., 2008. How leaders learn: cultivating capacities for school improvement.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

05:

16 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

Drago-Severson, E., 2009. Leading adult learning: supporting adult development in ourschools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Ellison, J. and Hayes, C., 2006. Effective school leadership: developing principals throughcognitive coaching. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Farkas, S., et al., 2001. Trying to stay ahead of the game: superintendents and principalstalk about school leadership. New York: Public Agenda.

Fenwick, L.T. and Pierce, M.C., 2002. Professional development of principals. Washington,DC: ERIC Clearing House on Teaching and Teacher Education.

Fogarty, R.J. and Pete, B.M., 2004. The adult learner: some things we know. ThousandOaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Friedman, I.A., 1995. School principal burnout: the concept and its components. Journal oforganizational behavior, 16 (2), 191–198.

Green, R.L., 2010. The four dimensions of principal leadership: a framework for leading21st-century schools. New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.

Haar, J., 2004. The role of professional development in the principalship. Catalyst forchange, 33 (2), 20–24.

Hale, E.L. and Moorman, H.N., 2003. Preparing school principals: a national perspectiveon policy and program innovations. Washington, DC: Institute for EducationalLeadership.

Hallinger, P. and Heck, R.H., 1998. Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effec-tiveness: 1989–1995. School effectiveness and school improvement, 9 (2), 157–191.

Hess, F.M. and Kelly, A.P., 2007. Learning to lead: what gets taught in principal preparationprograms. Teachers college record, 109 (1), 244–274.

Hipp, K. and Weber, P., 2008. Developing a professional learning community among urbanschool principals. Journal of urban learning, teaching, and research, 4, 46–56.

Hoffmann, F.J. and Johnston, J.H., 2005. Professional development for principals, by princi-pals. Leadership, 34 (5), 16–19.

Hopkins-Thompson, P.A., 2000. Colleagues helping colleagues: mentoring and coaching.NASSP bulletin, 84 (617), 29–36.

Houle, J.C., 2006. Professional development for urban principals in underperformingschools. Education and urban society, 38 (2), 142–159.

Illeris, K., 2004. Adult education and adult learning. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing.Isenberg, S., 2007. Applying andragogical principles to internet learning. Youngstown, NY:

Cambria Press.Joyce, B. and Showers, B., 2002. Student achievement through staff development. 3rd ed.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Knowles, M., 1973. The adult learner: a neglected species. Houston, TX: Gulf Professional.Knowles, M., 1980. The modern practice of adult education. 3rd ed. New York: Cambridge

University Press.Knowles, M., 1992. The adult learner: a neglected species. 4th ed. Houston, TX: Gulf.Knowles, M., Holton, E.F., and Swanson, R., 2005. The adult learner: the definitive classic

in adult education and human resource development. 6th ed. New York: Elsevier.Knupp, J., 1981. Adult development: implications for staff development. Manchester, CT:

Author.Kostin, M. and Haeger, J., 2006. Coaching schools to sustain improvement. Education

digest, 71 (9), 29–33.Langer, J.A. and Applebee, A., 1986. Reading and writing instruction: toward a theory of

teaching and learning. Review of research in education, 13, 171–194.Lashway, L., 2003. Transforming principal preparation. ERIC digest (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED473360).Leonard, J.C., 2010. Finding the time for instructional leadership: management strategies

for strengthening the academic program. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Lindstrom, P.H. and Speck, M., 2004. The principal as professional development leader.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Marshall, J.C., Pritchard, R.J., and Gunderson, B.H., 2001. Professional development: what

works and what doesn’t. Principal leadership, 1 (6), 64–68.Matthews, L.J. and Crow, G.M., 2010. The principalship: new roles in a professional learn-

ing community. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

05:

16 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

McCabe, C., 2011. The fearless school leader: making the right decisions. Larchmont, NY:Eye on Education.

Merriam, S.B., 1998. Qualitative research and case study applications in education. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S., 2001. Andragogy and self-directed learning: pillars of adult learning theory. In:S. Merriam, ed. The new update on adult learning theory: new directions for adult andcontinuing education 89. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 3–14.

Mestry, R. and Schmidt, M., 2010. Portfolio assessment as a tool for promoting professionaldevelopment of school principals: a South African perspective. Education and urbansociety, 42 (3), 352–373.

Ng, D.F.S., 2005. Interactive learning for school leaders. Times Centre, Singapore: MarshallCavendish Academic.

Patton, M.Q., 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Peterson, K., 2002. The professional development of principals: innovations and opportuni-ties. Educational administration quarterly, 38 (2), 213–232.

Petzko, V.N., 2004. Tailoring professional development for a better fit. Principal leadership,5 (3), 16–21.

Ramsey, R.D., 2006. Lead, follow, or get out of the way: how to be a more effective leaderin today’s schools. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Reeves, J. and Forde, C., 2004. The social dynamics of changing practice. Cambridge jour-nal of education, 34 (1), 85–102.

Reeves, J., et al., 2005. Culture and concepts of school leadership and management: explor-ing the impact of CPD on aspiring headteachers. School leadership & management, 23(1), 5–24.

Robinson, V.M.J., Lloyd, C.A., and Rowe, K.J., 2008. The impact of leadership on studentoutcomes: an analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational admin-istration quarterly, 44 (5), 635–674.

Ross, J.D., 2011. Online professional development: design, deliver, succeed! Thousand Oaks,CA: Corwin Press.

Sackney, L. and Walker, K., 2006. Canadian perspectives on beginning principals: their rolein building capacity for learning communities. Journal of educational management, 44(4), 341–358.

Smylie, M.A. and Hart, A.W., 1999. School leadership for teacher learning and change: ahuman and social capital perspective. In: J. Murphy and K.S. Louis, eds. Handbook ofresearch on educational administration. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,421–440.

Sorenson, R., 2006. Helping new principals succeed. American school board journal, 192(4), 61–63.

Stake, R., 2005. Multiple case study analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.Stewart, D., 1998. Legalisation of education: implications for principals’ professional knowl-

edge. Journal of educational administration, 36 (2), 129–145.Thody, A., 1998. Training school principals, educating school governors. International jour-

nal of educational management, 12 (5), 232–239.Walker, A. and Qian, H., 2006. Beginning principals: balancing at the top of the greasy pole.

Journal of educational administration, 44 (4), 297–309.Wildy, H. and Clarke, S., 2008. Charting an arid landscape: the preparation of novice pri-

mary principals in Western Australia. School leadership & management, 28 (5), 469–487.

Yin, R.K., 2003. Case study research: design and methods. 3rd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Young, P., Sheets, J., and Knight, D., 2005. Mentoring principals: frameworks, agendas,

tips, and case stories for mentors and mentees. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Zemke, R. and Zemke, S., 1995. Adult learning: what do we know for sure? Training maga-

zine, 32 (6), 31–40.Zepeda, S.J., 2011. Professional development: what works. 2nd ed. Larchmont, NY: Eye on

Education.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

] at

05:

16 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2014

analyzing principal professional development practices through the lens of adult learning theory

Documents