You are on page 1of 4

Session F3F

John Heywood'
Abstract:- During the last thirty years, the period o f the Frontiers in Education conferences, there has been a research movement that has studied school effectiveness and thus the factors that lead to school improvement. While this f considerable interest to politicians movement has been o f such research has made little and policy makers the idea o impact on higher education where ideas derived from industry such as total quality management seem to have had greater effect. Associated with the school effectiveness movement is the concept of educational leadership and an f instructional leadership neither idea o f ancillary concept o which has infiltrated higher education. In parallel with f qualitative and quantitative these developments the study o methods o f educational research has made considerable f this paper i s to argue the case for progress. The purpose o instructional leadership in higher education and to indicate the qualities and knowledge required by those who might be asked to carry out such a task in engineering education. The f the research on school paper begins with a summary o effectiveness.
1. Professional Leadership 2. Shared Vision and goals 3. A learning environment 4. Concentration on teaching and learning 5 . Purposeful teaching 6. High expectations 7. Positive reinforcement 8. Monitoring progress 9. Pupils rights and responsibilities 10. Home-school partnership 1 1. School based staff development (8) Since universities are large and amorphous institutions, studies of their overall effectiveness are inherently difficult. However, this is not the case at the department or organization level where the subject matter is relatively coherent, as for example, in engineering and all its branches. In the forgoing it has been assumed that the d :finition of effectiveness is given. However, it needs to be understood that definitions of effectiveness are dependent 011 a number of factors including the sample of schools evaluated, the choice of outcome measures, and control for the differences between institutions, methodology, and timescale (i.e. longitudinal versus snapshots) (9). For the purpose of this argument Mortimore's definition will suffice (10). He defined an effective school as one in which students progress further than might be expected from consideration of its intake of students. An effective school thus adds value to its students' outcomes in comrarison with other schools serving similar intakes. In respect of engineering education Carter has developed i t statistical model that indicates the effects of the process 011the output performance of the intake defined by Ievel of entry qualification (1 1). Referring to this model Heywood has poini.ed out that the value-added by Blite universities in the UK ar d US might be less than for other universities since the intakes have the highest scores for academic achievement as measured by A level GCE (General Certificate of Educ;ttion), and SAT/ACT (12). The relative study of effectiveness of engineering departments is thus of considerable interest.

Beginning some thirty years ago (1) the school effectiveness movement spawned numerous research studies in the UK (e.g. Rutter et a1 (2)), and the US (e.g. Goodlad (3)), as well as a journal.. These studies sought to establish the influence of schools, teachers and the education they provide on student achievement. They arose in response to studies in the United States that suggested that schools had a relatively small effect on performance (1) (4). The majority of studies in the UK and the US, although sometimes with different goals, have been on inner city schools (5). It is only recently that studies have been undertaken that control (statistically) for the intake of students (6). This is important when, as in the UK, performance tables of schools are published in the national press. A critical review of school effectiveness research that pointed out problems in relation to definition, the type of evidence collected, methodology of analysis, and the transferability of data concluded that there is a core of consistency to be found across a variety of studies conducted in different settings in different countries (7). The same authors concluded that there were eleven key characteristics which contributed to an effective school. These were:

Inspection of the key characteristics (above) that lead to school effectiveness, shows that, unsurprisingly , several of them are to do with teaching and learning. The :.ast of these,

' University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland

0-7803-6424-4/00/%10.0002000 IEEE October 18 - 21,2000 Kansas City, MO 30'' ASEEAEEE Frontiers in Education Conference


therefore. feedback from parents.teaching and learning. 5. He/she might encourage the display of projects and provide a public area for this. judgement and encouragement to their work and the efforts of children. the fifth and sixth relate to teaching.Session F3F school based staff development. The instructional leader uses reports. He/she might check classroom workbooks or essays on classroom visits.g. There is much confusion about the meanings of these two terms and often in the literature they overlap. subject areas. Is that person necessarily the Principal of a school or can the function be delegated? Does the function involve personal staff-development as opposed to the provision of in-service training during school time. teaching. problems. support groups. Within school systems there is a debate about who should be the instructional leader. 0 The instructional leader supports teachers in their efforts in classrooms by being available to offer advice. 3. Such questions would have to be answered at the departmental level in universities. preparation and planning processes that prepares the ground by pooling resources. studies. Perceptions such as this prevent constructive debate. The instructional leader provides resources from a variety of sources to support. management. recognises that schools like other organisations are learning systems (13).2000 Kansas City. The instructional leader speaks to and questions teachers about children. October 18 . It will be seen that an instructional leader requires a substantive knowledge base that is grounded in the educational sciences if helshe is to be the resource envisaged by the role. concerns and difficulties in their teaching and classrooms.what and how can we improve? He/she must also lead and train others in this process of reflection so that it becomes school-wide and automatic. 2. articles. For the purpose of this discussion educational leadership is taken to be an overarching concept that corresponds to professional leadership which is at the beginning of list of characteristics affecting effectiveness. teacher-centres. praise. As has been pointed out the elements of such a knowledge base exist within engineering education but need to be developed (16). Other reports show how a more detailed understanding of the psychological characteristics of the 4. opinion. (The same question is asked of school principals). This is used as the bottom line reference whenever there is controversy or indecision. that in a period when much was written on the qualities of leadership that there should be a debate about both educational and instructional leadership (14). when these models are applied to the curriculum that substantial changes may have to be made if the curriculum is to be given greater coherence. fellow professionals. The instructional leader is a reflective practitioner who continually seeks to improve the teaching/learning process in hislher class and throughout the school by constantly asking . Confusion is also created by the term 'instructional' which although broadly interpreted in the literature is often narrowly perceived and related to 'training'. 0 0 0 The instructional leader leads others in a process of change through school planning which involves: identification of instructional or curriculum areas that need change/improvement/innovation. selection through consensus and designing a plan. The particular question this paper seeks to pose is . The third characteristic relates to the architectural and social environment for learning. departmental chains) can be effective educational leaders as well as efficient administrators. maintain or initiate change. Can this be done by the schools instructional leader without the assistance of an outside facilitator.00 02000 IEEE 30thASEEIIEEE Frontiers in Education Conference F3F-11 . the implementation of the change in the classroom review and assessment The instructional leader energises and encourages others to focus on the two main concerns of schools . This can be done both formally and informally. MO 0-7803-6424-4/00/$10. A key question in the higher education context is whether persons elected for posts to a short period of time (e. This may include reports. inspectors and pupils to identify areas for instructional improvement. improvement and reflection. The idea of whole school development is receiving some interest. Evaluations of assessment and examining techniques have shown that what is assessed is not necessarily that which is wanted to be assessed. It is not surprising. inservice courses and new technology. THE CASE FOR INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP IN ENGINEEIUNG DEPARTMENTS During the last thirty years a small number of papers have been published in engineering education journals which show that when the educational theories and methods they describe are implemented in engineering programmes improvements in student learning take place. would have to keep at the fore front of their profession and continually evaluate their practice (17). test results. Fitzmaurice (15) provided an operational definition of an instructional leader based on the literature thus: 1. projects. like medics.Is there a role for an Educational/Instructional Leader in Engineering departments? It has also been argued that if teachers were trained properly there would be no need for instructional leaders since teachers. Other papers show how.21. advice.

Yet for all that this body of knowledge seems to have had relatively little impact on the majority of engineering educators. There are a iiumber of publications in the engineering literature that i h t r a t e these points (24). There are various ways of showing teachers how to accomplish this objective. Cowan. Within the last eighteen months. then a philosophy might be derived from the view of Cross (18) that if teaching is to be taken seriously then college teachers will have to learn to treat their class rooms as laboratories for research. This might be regarded as a level one activity and it is at this level that most FIE workshops aim. To achieve this goal it will be necessary to provide mechanisms through which those who aspire to i:istructional leadership can acquire the knowledge and skills required for the task.0002000 IEEE October 18 21. Level two is that of classroom research. There is no systematic attempt to provide training in educational research methods. has demonstrated this point (25). For example. The innovations and improvements to courses reported have mainly been concerned with subject specific techniques. An analysis of the design process ind:. In either case this will embiace other theories knowledge and learning since faculty mcst be in a position to choose. depend on the knowledge base that a practitioner has. Heywood (21) has used a more traditional approach to classroom research that might find some empathy with engineering courses and their evaluation then the level of reflection that can be obtained. Engineering education journals also reflect this state of affairs. TOWARD REEZEC~VE PRACTICE If it is assumed that reflective practice is that which is something beyond what is usually associated w . It is evident that an instructional leader would have to have a fluent knowledge of that literature. the instructional leader is required t o assist a department to develop a programme he/she will have to have a defensible epistemology. If it is correct that these educational theories and methods when applied to engineering do enhance learning then it matters that engineering educators at large should be conversant with them and be in an intellectual position to choose (or reject) from among them in their own practice. It also indicates the necd to relate the objectives of assessment to the entering characteristics of the students so that the instructional process and the methods of assessment can be related to the cognitive an. Evidence of this is to be found in the 29 issues of the Frontiers in Education Conferences. From the arguments presented above it follows first. This knowledge is equally important in the design of the curriculum as well as the practices that follow from it 0-7803-6424-4/00/%10. It is important that those who do should receive recognition for their achievements.Sessicln F3F student population can lead to improvements in the learning milieu. (assessment and instruction) as has been shown in the health professions (22). as with evaluation. This sketch of the knowledge base required for instructional leaders suggests that at this stage in the development of engineering education there is a substantial role for such persons if engineering curricular arc: to respond to the criticisms that have been made of them as well as to maintain and develop those curricular that have imaginatively responded to such criticisms. In this respect there is a valuablc literature in medical education (23). implementation and cvaluation (assessment) of programmes as well as the assessment of student learning. Cross and Steadman (20) have given examples of how this may be done and argue that a new paradigm for research in classroom settings is required. If. and more recently with George in respect of formative evaluiition (26). MO 30thASEEAEEE Frontiers in Education Conference - F3F-12 . an engineer. This relies on a "trickle down" from those who write and talk about it at such conferences and give the occasional workshop. One way of achieving this goal in the absence of a general system of training is for the profession to encourage some of its members to acquire the knowledge required of instructional leaders so that it becomes more generally available throughout the profession. that instructional leaders will function at a high level of reflective awareness. Few are accompanied by evaluations that would be regarded by lawyers as "safe".l personal development of the students. and second that if a new culture of engineering education is to be developed that all practitioners should aspire to become instructione 1 leaders. Equally hetshe will have a theory of learning. if the role is to do with the improvement of instruction. It follows that an instructional leader would have to be schooled in the methods of quantatitive and qualitative research. then. and in turn the 'philosophy' that the instructional leader brings to that role.cates the importance of relating the techniques of instruction to the objectives of assessment. The instructional leader would necessarily have to have a theory of knowledge since the paradigms of research derive from the investigator's perception of the nature of knowledge acquisition.2000 Kansas City. An instructional leader would have had experience in the design. will. It is contended here that in order to reflect on educational practices the knowledge base has to be drawn from the art and science of i:ducational pedagogy. A KNOWLEDGE BASEFOR A N INSTRUCTIONAL L E A D E F t Clearly the knowledge base required by an instructional leader depends on the exact description of the role. Angelo and Cross (19) provide illustrations of fifty different classroom techniques for assessment.

Pavelich. A Handbook of Techniques for Formative Evaluation. M. A Place called School: Prospects for the Future. Dietz. REFERENCES Colman.Session F3F ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper was inspired by conversations I had with Barbara Olds. J. For Example . J. 4-15 Heywood. Sergiovanni. McGraw Hill.. Basic Books. L. P. J. J. et al. New York. London. The Fifth Discipline.R. et a1 (1997) Developing Problem Solving Skills: The MacMaster problem solvingprogram. Buckingham. London. Open University Press. New York Fitzmaurice. 15-2 1.St. Oxford. School Assessment in Education: Principles. Mortimore.P. (1995) Toward the Improvement of Quality in Engineering Education. For Example Kean.. Ouston (1979) Fifteen Thousand Hours: Secondary Schools and their Effects on Children. Knowledge in Clinical Reasoning in J. Washington. B. Heywood (1992) The value added performance of electrical engineering students in a British University. 1. J. J.Felder. G. J.. (1989) Research in General Practice T d Edition. Cross (1993) Classroom Assessment Techniques. University of Dublin. (1992) Student Teachers as Researchers of Instruction in J. D. New York. 75-92. Journal of Engineering Education. and A. Jossey Bass. K. London. (1997) M. Jones (Ed) Clinical Reasoning in the Health Professions. and W.. Jossey Bass. Journal of Engineering Education . M. e. MO 0-7803-6424-4/00/$10. Baltimore.. Burridge (eds) Improving Education: the issue of quality: Cassell.g. Some applications for improving the quality of schools in P.P. AAHE Bulletin. P. and S. J. San Francisco. 5. 2. Findings from school effectiveness research. 2 (I).H. D. Joumalof Engineering Education. Chapman and Hall. Hillman. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation. Moore. I Success and failure in the introductory course. Ribbins and E. (2000). ButterworthIHeinemann.J. London. Doubleday. and P. (1996) Measuring the effect of experiential education using the Perry model. Jencks.J. London. (1972). Equality of Education Opportunity.E. Woods. 85.. (4).S. Mortimore.2000 Kansas City. Jessica Kingsley. and M. Cross. (1992). (1984). teaching. P. and J. and P. Mohr (1993). and subsequent papers. Thomas (1995). Sammons. Steadman (1996) ClassroomResearch.R.. 287-292. September 9-15 Angelo. Titchen (1995) Propositional. ibid Carter. Rutter. International Journal of Technology and Design Education . (2). ATEE. Proceedings FIE 2a3.J. R. London. Professional and Personal. San Francisco Heywood. Forrest. Mortimore (1995) Key characteristics of Effective Schools.S. Goodlad. von Helden New October 18 21. (1966). A Proposal to Improve Teaching. (I). 22-40. et a1 (1998) . Cowan. Amsterdam. (1990) . George. P (1994). Cowan (1999). Sammons. J.G. Policy and Practice. Inequality: A reassessment of the effects of family and schooling in America. (1998) On Becoming an Innovative University Teacher.2a3. P and J. E. J. P. (1986) Taking Teaching Seriously. International Journal of Technology and Design Education.D. A Six Step Approach. K. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 5. Institute of Education.J. Higgs and M. A Longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. Vonk and H. Equality of Educational Opportunity.13 Howie. programmes and institutions. Kogan Page. et al.Curriculum Development: for medical Education. Prospects for Teacher Education in Europe Free University of Amsterdam. K. Maughan. and J. 2"d Edition. Larry Shuman and Charlie Yokomoto at FIE 1999. US Government Printing Office.M.. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Assessment in Higher Educationaf student learning. Dick Culver. (3). Heywood. C. P. 82. Fordyce. J.. D. Thesis.86. Senge. A Review of School Effectiveness Research. (1990) Value-Added Leadership: How to get extra-ordinary Performance in Schools. Sammons. University of London. (3).00 0 2000 IEEE 30thASEELEEE Frontiers in Education Conference F3F-13 - . 3 15-352 See ref. Open Books.C. T. T and K. Higgs. Baker-Wad. See ref. The nature of student learning in engineering.8 .. Cross. New York..