University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Creating transformational learning opportunities for teachers: how leadership affects adult learning on a school campus

(USC Thesis Other)

Creating transformational learning opportunities for teachers: how leadership affects adult learning on a school campus

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 1
CREATING TRANSFORMATIONAL LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES FOR TEACHERS:
HOW LEADERSHIP AFFECTS ADULT LEARNING ON A SCHOOL CAMPUS

by

Geoffrey G. Zamarripa

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2014

Copyright 2014 Geoffrey G. Zamarripa

LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 2
Dedication
The contemporary education dissertation is constructed by supportive family members,
school colleagues, and students and thus belongs to the composite order of architecture; this
dissertation is no different. Many dedicated educators lead full lives that are often not understood
even by family members who have not stepped foot on a school campus since their own name
appeared on a roll sheet. My mother left an indelible legacy of understanding what it means to be
a public school teacher upon the hearts of all in our family. My wife, Mónica, picked up my
mother’s baton and continued to champion all I do as an educator. I could not have finished this
enterprise without the inspiration, support, and love I received from my wife, Mónica. Like the
classroom teacher that inspires her students by giving of herself, I have been the fortunate
benefactor of the selfless acts of love from both of these women.

LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 3
Acknowledgements
The USC Rossier School of Education moves their students to achieve high levels of success
through inspiration. This inspiration is the very heartbeat of this dissertation. Dr. Pedro García
was instrumental in showing me the way with gracious warmth, practical wisdom and truly
virtuous patience. Dr. Reynaldo Baca poked and prodded me so that my voice shone through.
Dr. Michael Escalante asked questions and reminded me of the applicable nature of my task. Dr.
Julie Slayton opened the door to a world of ideas that acted as my roadmap.
Beneath—literally—these exceptional scholars lays the foundation of the Rossier
School’s Ed.D program: Dr. Linda Fischer. Dr. Fischer’s craft and genius are included in the
completion of this project. Many a bright and beautiful weekend was spent in the depths of
Waite Phillips Hall in which I gladly spent hours listening and learning from her. Her heartfelt
motivation kept me going and saw me through.
The Rossier Ed.D program transformed my ways of thinking and being as both an
educator and a life-long learner. Many great teachers can take credit for this. Most notably are
Dr. Sylvia Rousseau who, among her many breakthroughs, made me finally realize, twenty years
hence, why I had become an English major; Dr. Rudy Crew who turned my world upside down
in the best of ways; Dr. Sean Early who taught me to question the veracity of many education
dictums; and Dr. Katherine Strunk who pushed me to know what I was talking about.
I am grateful to the colleagues of my Tuesday night cohort whose ardent companionship
was fulfilling and enriched the Rossier Learning Landscape. Amidst this a special friendship
evolved with Mónica Muñoz. Those late night car rides back to El Monte were another level of
inspiration! This school of education is made all the more special by the interesting rainbow of
peoples that inhabit its brickhewn walls.
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 4
The Dissertation Support Center is another font of Fight On spearheaded by Dr. Ilda
Jimenez y West and Dr. Katie Moulton. Their thoughtful support and guidance as well as their
genuine interest in all of us played a significant role in getting this project completed as well.
I am grateful to the teachers and principals of this study who gave of their time in the
interest of supporting my learning. It is my hope that their efforts have contributed to the
understanding of new knowledge towards how we can improve our schools—both for the
students as well as those who work in the schools.
Finally, La Familia Zamarripa and all of those loved ones and friends that urged me on
and wondered if I’d ever finish are to be thanked. This endeavor has the breath of my father’s
dream to always Fight On and the caress of my mother’s hope that someday we would all make
it to our own personal mountaintop.

LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 5
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 7
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 9
Background of the Problem 10
Figure 1. Leadership, School Culture, and Adult Learning 16
Statement of the Problem 16
Purpose of the Study 18
Importance of the Study 19
Limitations 19
Delimitations 20
Definition of Terms 20
Organization of the Study 21
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 22
School Leadership 22
Instructional Leadership 23
Learning-centered Leadership 27
Transformational Leadership 32
Andragogy 34
Professional Development 38
Four Frames Model 42
Summary 47
Chapter Three: Research Methodology 48
Research Design 49
Sample and Population 49
Instrumentation 51
Data Collection 52
Data Analysis 54
Validity and Reliability 55
Chapter Four: Results 56
Participants 57
Research Question One: Leadership Knowledge of Adult Learning Theory 59
Principal Behavior did not Support Adult Learning 59
Principal Knowledge to Best Enact Adult Learning 64
Discussion Research Question One 68
Research Question Two: Leadership Influence on Adult Learning 69
Principals Continue to Make Many Decisions for Teachers 69
Budget Constraints have Altered Principal Views on Professional Development 74
Discussion of Research Question Two 76
Research Question Three: Leadership Approaches that Support Adult Learning 77
Teachers are Granted Limited Decision-making with Regards to their Own Learning. 78
Principals do not Adequately Understand the Strengths and Weaknesses of
their own Staff 81
Summary 83
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 6
Chapter Five: Study Findings 85
Discussion of Findings 87
Principals Create More Impact using the Human Resource Frame 87
Principals do not Adequately Include Teachers in the Decision-making Process 89
Principals do not Adequately Know the Strengths and Weaknesses of their Staff 89
Limitations 90
Implications for Practice 90
Operate from a Human Resource Frame 90
Create Space 92
Future Research 92
Conclusions 93
References 95
Appendix A Principal Interview Protocol 103
Appendix B Teacher Interview Protocol 104

LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 7
List of Tables
Table 1: Four Frames 46

Table 2: Instrument Matrix 51

Table 3: Timeline of the Study 54

LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 8
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to discover how school site principals can have an impact
on the learning of adults working in schools. One of the fundamental elements of U.S. education
reform rests on teachers’ constant and ongoing learning of new knowledge and ideologies and
implementation of new skills and strategies. The contemporary global marketplace places a
greater demand than ever before on schools to produce a highly-skilled workforce. Principals
and teachers must work together to meet these demands. In order to meet these demands,
teachers must continue to learn new knowledge and skills and employ them as part of their daily
practice. This study employed a critical qualitative approach (Merriam, 2002) utilizing Bolman
and Deal (1997) as a lens through which to examine school leadership and its influence on
professional development and teacher learning. Two principals and four teachers were
interviewed on various and separate occasions. These interviews elicited much data about how
principals can have an impact on the learning of all adults working in their schools.
Findings emerged from this study that can assist other principals better understand how
they can increase and enhance adult learning at their school. Principals must have an
understanding of what adult learning is, how it is different from teaching children, and how they
can enact the tenets of adult learning at their school. Further, principals must share the decision-
making responsibility for ongoing learning opportunities with their teachers and the staff.
Sharing this responsibility invites teachers to seek out what they want to know to improve as
opposed to what an external source suggests for improvement. Finally, principals will create
more opportunities to learn for all adults working in the school when they operate from Bolman
and Deal’s (1997) Human Resource Frame.

LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 9
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Student achievement in the United States continues to lag behind that of other
industrialized nations (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD],
2008). Teachers are the single most influential factor in determining student outcomes
(Hanushek, 2003; Spillane 2002; Wright, Horn & Saunders, 1997). In order for students to meet
the demands of the 21
st
century, teachers must possess the increasingly sophisticated content
knowledge, pedagogical skills, and beliefs necessary to adequately affect these outcomes
(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Elmore, 2000; Heckman & Montera, 2009; Resnick, 2003).
Schools must respond to this demand by supporting teachers’ ability to increase their
professional knowledge at levels that will meet students’ needs (Webster-Wright, 2009).
Teachers’ continuous learning of new knowledge and classroom implementation of new skills
are fundamental to U.S. education reform (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Elmore, 2000). Therefore,
teacher professional development is essential to successful student outcomes.
Much of the professional development that takes place in U.S. schools is not of the
caliber necessary to enact authentic professional learning (Webster-Wright, 2009). Too often, PD
is imposed on teachers from an external source as though they were technicians able to easily
digest information in a didactic learning format, quickly return to the classroom and effectively
implement a new skill fluidly and without need of additional support. Although authentic
professional learning can and should take place during PD, it is frequently absent (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2009; Webster-Wright, 2009). Professional development does not consider the
fundamental differences between the ways adults learn and the ways children learn. For teachers
to increase their knowledge, school leaders must understand how to apply these concepts to their
practice. How school leaders go about fostering adult learning is of vital importance in order to
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 10
enact change and improve student outcomes. This study examined the extent to which school
leadership affects professional development that supports and develops teachers’ learning of new
skills and knowledge.
Background of the Problem
Schools and teachers are not equipped with the knowledge, skills, and ideologies
necessary to adequately respond to the demands of standards-based reform (Elmore, 2000). The
need to improve the quality of teaching, large-scale reforms and policy-based external
accountability led to measures aimed at altering the character of classroom instruction in the
United States, with the results being mostly unsuccessful (Elmore, 2000; Kennedy, 2004).
Studies of professional development consistently point out the ineffectiveness of most programs
(Guskey, 2002; Kennedy, 1998). These programs largely mimic the factory model of teaching
developed over a century ago: place adults in a classroom with an instructor in front of the room
who imparts the knowledge students need to be successful (Guskey, 2002; Heckman & Montera,
2009). This model does not offer teachers the ongoing, sustainable learning opportunities
required to change the instructional core (Elmore, 2000; Heckman & Montera, 2009; Webster-
Wright, 2009). Federal, state, and local policy initiatives do not support the type of learning-
centered and learner-centered schools that both educators and students need to thrive and
contribute to a global society (Darling-Hammond, 1997). For schools to improve, they must
create a culture of learning which supports and develops teachers’ “intrinsic motivation, self-
esteem, dignity, curiosity to learn [and the] joy in learning” embody many of the qualities
inherent in successful reform models (Darling-Hammond, 1995; Darling-Hammond, 1997;
Senge, 1990).
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 11
A Review of Reform Efforts Over the past thirty years, reform efforts shifted from input-
based to performance-based theories. First, in 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in
Education (NCEE) published A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Education Reform. Findings
from this report called into question long-held assumptions about the high quality of teaching
and learning taking place in U.S. classrooms (NCEE, 1983). Based on the findings of this report,
reform movements swept across the country. These reforms focused on raising standards of
achievement, lengthening the school day and increasing teachers’ credentialing requirements and
salaries (Desimone, 2002). The theory of action employed with these reforms held that, in order
to increase student achievement, school systems had to increase what it was they were already
doing in terms of more instructional minutes, more credentialing classes, and larger salaries
(Hanushek, 2003). Accomplishing such reforms required pouring more dollars into the system
to intensify what was already in place (Desimone, 2002; Hanushek, 2003). Efforts that
amounted to intensifying what was already in place did little, however, to change the way
teachers taught and, thus, resulted in minimal student gains (Desimone, 2002; Elmore, 2000). In
essence, the lesson learned was that enhancing teacher effectiveness was not likely to occur via
these types of input-based policies (Hanushek, 2003).
In the early 1990s, a second wave began in which greater emphasis was placed on the
home-school connection, addressing the unique needs of specific groups of students and
increasing the content and roles of teacher education programs (Desimone, 2002). Because these
reforms did not intend to simply amplify what was already in place, calls to measure their worth
began to surface. An emphasis on state level standards-based accountability measures, mostly in
the form of standardized tests, increased (Desimone, 2002; Elmore, 2000; Guskey, 2002).
Standardized tests became an accepted method to determine an entire school’s effectiveness
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 12
(Desimone, 2002). This ability to measure school effectiveness led to Comprehensive School
Reform (CSR) models becoming prevalent, especially in urban areas where reform was most
desperately needed (Darling-Hammond, 1995; Desimone, 2002). CSR models developed around
a conceptual framework that included changes in classroom teaching but did not lay out specifics
as to how this would be accomplished and what it demanded of teachers to improve their practice
by including these changes (Guskey, 1986). Although these models address “a healthy school
climate” as a component, they generally addressed this issue through concepts of community
engagement, thus marginalizing the impact of internal school culture (Desimone, 2002).
In 1994, President Clinton set the stage for increasing standards-based reform and
accountability by introducing Goals 2000: Educate America, an unprecedented national
education reform movement (Superfine, 2005). In response to the continued failure of U.S.
schools to meet what were now considered global expectations for student achievement, “Goals
2000 represented one of the greatest intrusions of the federal government into education policy,
an area traditionally reserved to the states” (Superfine, 2005, p. 10). Backed by the White
House and Congress, Goals 2000 created accountability for funding, such as Title I. Consistent
with second wave reform characteristics, the federal government wanted to measure what return
it received on its investment. Thus, assessments were also used to measure the effectiveness of
federal programs such as Title I. Additionally, federal dollars now came with a stipulation that
schools would implement standards and assessments to ensure that all students would receive a
more rigorous education. This bill required state, local and school officials to implement it even
though they did not agree with it; understand how it affected their schools and classrooms; and
how it altered their current practices (Superfine, 2005). Most importantly, the teachers were not
given the resources necessary to make the alterations to their practice this bill required (Elmore,
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 13
2000; Superfine, 2005). Although Goals 2000 was a failed policy implementation, it set the
stage for the largest education reform effort in the history of the United States (Superfine, 2005).
With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), the federal
government embraced the concept of whole school reform (Desimone, 2002; Elmore, 2000;
Guskey, 2002). NCLB outlined more specific provisions for professional development created
from “scientifically-based research” (CDE, 2011; ed.gov, 2011). Although these provisions
allocate federal Title II dollars expressly for professional development, schools that can most
easily access these funds are more apt to be in Program Improvement, federal sanctions for
continual underperformance. This then limits how these dollars can be used (Hanushek, 2003).
1

Thus, the schools wishing to use the Title II professional development dollars with greater
amounts of discretion are less likely to be able to do so. The theory of action implicit in NCLB
is that it will induce schools and teachers to change based on its accountability requirements that
include a scale of increasing penalties for schools whose test scores do not improve (NCLB
Policy Report, 2005). NCLB recognizes the importance of professional development, but it fails
to consider the research base regarding how PD is best delivered so that authentic learning can
take place (Elmore, 2000). NCLB does not address the role of school leaders or that of school
culture as agents that foster improved teacher practice. A closer inspection of NCLB
requirements suggest they do little more than replicate the factory model for professional
development (Heckman & Montera, 2009). Because the guidelines for scientifically-based

1
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act requires all states to implement statewide accountability systems based on state
standards in reading and mathematics, annual statewide progress objectives ensuring that all groups of students reach proficiency
within 12 years. Assessment results are disaggregated by socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, disability, and limited English
proficiency to ensure that no group is left behind. Local education agencies (LEA) and schools that fail to make Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) toward statewide proficiency goals are subject to improvement and corrective action measures. In California,
Program Improvement is the formal designation for Title I-funded schools and LEAs that fail to make AYP for two consecutive
years (CDE, 2011).

LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 14
evidence outlined by the Bush administration did not adequately define rigorous social science
research, it opened the door to wide interpretations of what was considered acceptable “research-
based evidence” (Feuer, Towne, & Shavelson, 2004).
Now, with Race to the Top (RTTT), the Obama administration inched closer to
scrutinizing the instructional core and the behaviors of the teacher by including language in its
requirements such as “Creating school climates and cultures that remove obstacles to and
actively support, student engagement and achievement” (ed.gov, 2011). How these climates and
cultures are achieved is not specified, leaving this to be determined by the state or local
education agency. The use of and reasons for teacher professional development and how it is
implemented remains greatly varied throughout U.S. schools (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009).
The literature base on teacher professional development and teacher learning is significant in size
and scope. As evidenced by the current state of public education in the United States and
informed by the literature base, teacher practice must improve in order for student outcomes to
improve (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009). Few reforms attempted to understand how school
leaders and school culture affect the ongoing professional learning of teachers. A better
understanding of how we can maximize teachers as the central human resource to improving
student outcomes in needed along with addressing the influence of school leadership and school
culture on the ongoing professional learning of teachers.
In light of the fact that teachers have so much power in determining student outcomes,
the heart of any reform effort in education must be focused on improving the work of the teacher
(Darling-Hammond, 1997; Elmore, 2003; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman & Yoon, 2001;
Guskey, 2002). High Quality professional development (PD) for teachers plays a vital role in
teachers’ ability to acquire the knowledge and skills they need, yet, too often, PD in the teaching
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 15
profession is both perceived and delivered as a binary event that takes place once and then is
stored away so that the activity of teaching can take place (Reeves, 2006). This view of
professional learning must cease in order for teachers to deliver the high quality education
students need to be successful, competent, and thriving members of our democracy (Haycock,
1998; Kennedy, 2004). For teacher professional learning to flourish, school leaders must
understand the complex nature of how adults learn, the interrelatedness of learning and culture,
and how to activate this type of learning and link it to the instructional core to improve student
outcomes (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Elmore, 2000; Knowles, 1973; Slayton & Mathis, 2010;
Webster-Wright, 2009).
School leadership plays an important role in the ongoing professional learning of teachers
(Darling-Hammond, 1997; Elmore, 2000; Webster-Wright, 2009). Further, school leadership
affects school culture and the professional learning of teachers on campus (Darling-Hammond,
Chung Wei, Andree, Richardson & Orphanos, 2009; Louis, 2006). Because today’s schools are
required to achieve and perform at unprecedented levels, school principals must learn how to
maximize their human resources to increase student outcomes. A characteristic of effective
school principals is their ability to know how to lead people and students to achieve desired goals
while developing an organization that adopts a culture of learning (Spillane, 2009). Figure 1
diagrams the interplay among leadership, school culture, and adult learning.

LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 16

Figure 1. Leadership, School Culture, and Adult Learning
Statement of the Problem
The improvement of teacher practice is central to education reform, as the dynamic
between school leadership and school culture as influences of teacher learning is largely absent
from the literature. There are three fundamental areas essential to improving teacher learning.
First, it is of primary importance to understand how adults learn. Second, professional
development must be learner-centered. This means that external provider programs that often
take place outside the normal school day cause minimal impact on teacher practice in the
classroom. Third, the leader plays an important role in shaping the need for professional learning
as well how this learning is to have an impact on the instructional core.
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 17
School leadership and professional development both wield tremendous force on teacher
learning (Cohen, McCabe, Michelli & Pickeral, 2009; Hallinger, 2005; Louis, 2006). Teachers
must continue to learn new curricula, standards, strategies and techniques that will allow schools
to meet the needs of 21
st
century children (Darling-Hammond, Chung Wei, Andree, Richardson
& Orphanos, 2009). Incumbent upon the principal is an understanding of his/her role as
facilitator and primary agent of teacher learning that is enhanced by leadership practice and
developing a culture which supports effective professional development.
Research suggests that effective professional development is enhanced by a supportive
community environment (Webster-Wright, 2009). This evidence is balanced by the robust
literature on the importance of school leadership as a critical component of reform efforts
(Spillane, 2009). Spillane (2009) asserts that leadership must focus on human and organizational
development as “critical for school success” (p.17). Despite this evidence, what the field knows
about teacher learning is “puzzling” (Wilson & Berne, 1999, p. 174). If the key to reform is
through professional development (Darling-Hammond, 2009; Elmore, 2003; Spillane, 2009;
Wilson & Berne, 1999), then how adult learning is affected by school leadership merits further
study.
School leaders provide the focus and support for reforms and improvements to take place
(Hallinger, 1985), and emphasis must be placed on efforts that will directly improve student
outcomes. With respect to adult learning and professional development, three particular
leadership models emerge as particularly effective: instructional, learning-centered and
transformational. This study analyzed the impact of school leadership on how adults learn and
on effective professional development programs. It is, therefore, necessary to look at these three
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 18
models of leadership that are more effective with enacting adult learning and high quality
professional development.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine school leadership and the effect on adult learning
and professional development opportunities. Thus, this study focused on aspects of leadership
that positively or negatively affect the will and capacity of teachers to learn and the types of PD
that best enhance student outcomes. Educators need to understand how leadership that directs the
school is a critical influence on how they continue to learn and grow professionally and
personally. If we better understand the relationship among leadership, PD and adult learning,
then we can foster better environments in which adult learning can thrive. If adult learning can
thrive, then student opportunities to acquire the increasingly sophisticated skills demanded of a
21
st
century learner will also increase.
Using a critical qualitative approach (Merriam, 2002) based on the conceptualization of
andragogy put forth by Knowles and Mezirow, the research questions for this study are:
1. To what extent does principal leadership support and influence adult learning for teachers?
2. To what extent does principal leadership support and influence professional development
for teachers?
3. What leadership approach best supports adult learning and professional development?
The Four Frames of Bolman and Deal (1997) served as a lens to explain leader dynamics
and impact on adult learning and professional development. Bolman and Deal (1997) combined
years of research and various schools of thought into the development of their four frames of
leadership. These four frames, structural, human resource, political, and symbolic, can be useful
in understanding how a leader can best approach a situation. Effective leaders have been shown
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 19
to use any number of frames (Thompson, 2000). What is important is to understand which frame
works best for a specific situation. In the case of the present study, the frames were used in
relation to the research questions.
Importance of the Study
This study contributes to the research base by creating a greater understanding of what
school leaders must do to support adult learning and professional development on our school
campuses. The type of teacher learning that must occur to support the efforts of 21
st
century
school reform must have as its focus the learning of the teacher (Elmore, 2000). Educators must
understand that learning to read, to write and to compute are not enough (Heckman & Montera,
2009). At present, our nation’s school system is entropic (Heckman & Montera, 2009). As a
system, we reproduce students with an outdated skill set and static knowledge (Elmore, 2000).
School leaders must prioritize teachers’ needs for authentic professional learning by working to
support this learning (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Elmore, 2000). This study suggests a
blueprint for what leaders must do to enhance the learning of all adults on their campus.
Researching leadership practices and school culture, will aid in uncovering the specifics of these
two forces that shape adult learning on a school campus.
Limitations
Participation in this study is voluntary, relying on the willing cooperation of all actors to
respond and act with honesty and openness. In order to create an environment of trust, the
researcher stressed the importance of honesty and openness with all participants before observing
and interviewing. The data collection was limited by the amount of time invested in the study as
well as the sample culled from each school. As an observer, mere presence in the field can color
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 20
the setting and affect the responses of participants (Patton, 2002). Interviewees may be biased or
ensconce their true feelings from being known.
Delimitations
This study was exclusive to interviews of principals and teachers, each working in local
school districts. This study included three schools, each with a staff of approximately 45 teachers.
The goal of the qualitative research and analysis of these interviews was to answer the research
questions based on the data collected and analyzed. The study was delimited by its size, its
student demographics and its generalizability to other contexts.
Definition of Terms
Andragogy: Used to describe the unique characteristics of adult learning, Andragogy first
surfaced as a theory in 19
th
century Europe (Knowles, Holton III & Swanson, 1998, Fifth
edition). Knowles et al. (1998) summarize andragogy as containing “the core principles of adult
learning that in turn enable those designing and conducting adult learning to build more effective
learning processes for adults” (p. 2). Mezirow (1991, 1996, 1997) proposed a definition of adult
learning that leads to transformation, a process in which the learner’s experiences and
preconceived worldview (“frames of reference”) are critically scrutinized. Such critical
reflection is the key to unlocking new frames of reference that trigger transformation.
Professional Development: Professional development (PD) is "the sum total of formal
and informal learning experiences throughout one's career from preservice teacher education to
retirement" (Fullan, 1991, p. 326). Gusky (1986) states that professional development is “a
systematic attempt to bring about change—change in the classroom practices of teachers, change
in their beliefs and attitudes, and change in the learning outcomes of students” (p. 5). Elmore
(1997) synthesized the characteristics of good professional development to include (a) a focus on
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 21
concrete classroom applications of general ideas; (b) exposure of teachers to actual practice
rather than descriptions of practice; (c) opportunities for observation, critique and reflection; (d)
opportunities for group support and collaboration; and (e) deliberate evaluation and feedback by
skilled practitioners with expertise about good teaching.
Continuous Professional Learning: Continuous professional learning (CPL) is defined by
Webster-Wright (2009) as “the learning of practicing professionals. The term CPL can be
distinguished from the more common phrases, continuing professional development (CPD), PD,
and continuing education (CE)…use of the term CPL avoids a dichotomy between PD courses
and everyday professional growth” (p. 705).
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter one introduces the need for a study on
school leadership’s influence on teacher learning and professional development. Chapter two
reviews the literature of adult learning, professional development, and leadership and provides a
framework based on the work of Bolman and Deal (1997). Chapter three describes the
qualitative methodology and interview protocol that will take place as well as the timeline of
events. Chapter four describes the results of the study in detail. Chapter five provides a
summary of the findings and recommendations.

LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 22
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Teachers’ continuous learning of new knowledge and classroom implementation of new
skills are fundamental to U.S. education reform (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Elmore, 2000). For
schools to produce successful citizens of the 21
st
century, teachers and leaders must work and
learn together in a positive, collaborative, and nurturing environment (Cochran-Smith & Lytle,
1999; Elmore, 2000). This review examines three bodies of literature. These three bodies
highlight the need for school leaders who are strong in their ability to foster learning
communities where all adults on campus continue to evolve professionally. First, this chapter
examines three models of school leadership: instructional leadership, learning-centered
leadership and transformative leadership. Next, it presents a review of andragogy as it pertains to
adults learning on a school campus. Finally, it provides a review of professional development
and professional learning. This review provide insights drawn upon to inform the approach how
to studying leadership’s influence on adult learning and professional development. This study is
concerned with the effects of school leadership on adult learning, specifically professional
development and how adults learn. The review of the literature concludes with a discussion of
the Four Frames Model of Bolman and Deal (1997).
School Leadership
Second only to classroom teaching as an influence on student learning is school
leadership (Leithwood, Harris & Hopkins, 2008). School leadership, commonly referred to as
site administrators, such as principals and assistant principals, plays a critical role in shaping the
performance of the teachers and staff on campus (Darling-Hammond, 2007, 2009). School
administrators collectively, and what adults do on a school campus—the decisions they make,
the actions they take—account for the two largest effects on student learning (Hattie, 2009;
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 23
Reeves, 2006). Thus, an exploration of leadership models that support adult learning is needed.
Emphasizing instructional improvement as the surest way to improve U.S. schools, Elmore
(2000) defines leadership as “the guidance and direction of instructional improvement” (p. 13).
Supporting this claim that instructional improvement should be the central focus of a school
leader, Spillane, Halverson and Diamond (2001) assert, “leadership involves the identification,
acquisition, allocation, coordination, and use of the social, material, and cultural resources
necessary to establish the conditions for the possibility of teaching and learning” (p. 24).
Goldring et al. (2007) acknowledge this resume of critical components of leadership needed to
“cultivate particular in-school processes and conditions such as rigorous academic standards,
high-quality instruction, and a culture of collective responsibility for students’ academic success”
embodied in “instructional and transformational leadership” (p. 1). Finally, Northouse (2007)
argues that transformational leadership moves followers to accomplish even greater work
outcomes than they thought possible, making their work and their practice transcendent in nature.
Together, this literature frames school leadership as it pertains to adult learning with three
models: instructional, learning-centered and transformational.
Instructional Leadership
Instructional Leadership provides teachers with a focus as well as structures to the goals
of the school and the wider goals of the district. By first considering the evolution of
instructional leadership in light of the last decade’s demands for greater school accountability,
this study creates a link between this model of leadership and the implicit demands it places on
school leaders and teachers. This research builds upon Hallinger and Murphy (1985), Elmore
(2000), Hallinger (2005), Blasé and Blasé (2008) in that their work relates to the understanding
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 24
of instructional leadership as an effective model that supports the learning of adults on a school
campus.
Hallinger and Murphy (1985) made an early attempt to uncover specific characteristics
that define what instructional leaders do. Using the results of a study that examined the work of
principals at 10 elementary schools, they found that principals who managed curriculum by
working closely with teachers also tended to have better relationships with the teachers on their
campus. One of the foundations that this finding sets forth for instructional leadership is the
importance of the relationship between teachers and administrators. This research foreshadows
collaboration as a key element to improving teacher practice. Although the authors state that
these findings may have significant limitations and a low degree of generalizability, they
nonetheless push forward the discussion about what characteristics of the instructional leadership
model principals must enact in order to improve student and teacher learning.
Elmore (2000) argues that standards-based reformed made instructional leadership a
necessary model from which school leaders operate in order for school improvement to take
place. Elmore’s (2000) conception of instructional leadership includes all the skills “that can be
connected to, or lead directly to, the improvement of instruction and student performance”
(Elmore, 2000, p. 14). Elmore is important in this study of instructional leadership because he
insists on moving away from a school management model and towards a model that focuses on
the “instructional core.” The instructional core is the classroom where the teacher and the
students interact. It is here that a true instructional leader must affect change. Most important to
this research is how the leader interacts with teachers by guiding and supporting their attempts to
change their practice, which is what can have a lasting impact on improved student outcomes.
Elmore (2000) found that school principals must provide clear and attainable goals that give
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 25
meaning to a teacher’s daily practice. In this stance, the leader’s interaction with teachers creates
a tension between the present state of learning and the desired state of learning (the goal) that can
ignite the teacher’s desire to learn and grow.
Elmore (2000) argues that this daily practice must also be undertaken as a collaborative
effort that entails teachers and administrators working together around an explicitly created
normative environment. This relates to this research because it is incumbent upon school leaders
to foster teacher learning through the way they interact with teachers and the collaborative
learning environment they create amongst teachers. Elmore contends that creation of this
environment moves beyond mere collegiality and into a deeper idea of accountability to a system
that is mutually fulfilling to the teacher as learner as well as the student as learner. This
highlights the need for teachers to not only continue to learn in order to meet accountability
requirements (in the form of increased student outcomes) but also as an act of personal
fulfillment.
Drawing from several extensive reviews of educational leadership literature, Hallinger
(2005) updated and redefined characteristics of instructional leadership. Reviewing the
development of instructional leadership, he found that this particular model of leadership was
originally configured as a role to be enacted by a school site leader (i.e., principal). Hallinger
(2005) asserts that principals who were effective in employing an instructional leadership model
defined the school’s mission, managed the instructional program, and promoted a positive school
learning climate. Hallinger does not uncover the degree to which the principal works with
teachers to accomplish these tasks. He does move the knowledge base toward my research by
noting that “one of the major impediments to effective school leadership is trying to carry the
burden alone. When a principal takes on the challenges of going beyond the basic demands of
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 26
the job, the burden becomes even heavier” (p. 14). Thus, instructional leadership demands a
shared approach that involves school staff who, together, conceptualize leadership as a “mutually
influential process, rather than a one-way process in which leaders influence each other
(Hallinger, 2005, p. 15). Hallinger’s findings, however, are relevant, as they demonstrate that
principals play an import and influential role in contributing to the overall effectiveness of the
school.
Blasé and Blasé (2000) conducted a study that brings teacher voice into the dialogue of
what instructional leaders do to enhance teacher practice. This study included open-ended
responses on a questionnaire from over 800 U.S. teachers regarding their perspective on
principals’ everyday instructional leadership characteristics. Blasé and Blasé (2000) reported
that teachers’ opinions of the most effective instructional leadership practices were talking with
teachers to promote reflection and promoting professional growth. Their study found that,
according to teachers, effective instructional leaders interacted with teachers “about instruction,
processes such as inquiry, reflection, exploration” that allow for experimentation which develops
teachers’ “repertoires of flexible alternatives rather than collecting rigid teaching procedures and
methods” (p. 132). Specifically, five aspects to this dialogue promoted critical reflection among
teachers: making suggestions, giving feedback, modeling, using inquiry and soliciting advice and
opinions and giving praise (Blasé & Blasé, 2000). Further, principals made suggestions to
teachers both formally and informally in day-to-day interactions that were purposeful, non-
threatening, and were characterized by listening, sharing their experiences, using examples and
demonstrations, giving teachers choice, contradicting outdated or destructive policies,
encouraging risk-taking, offering professional literature, recognizing teachers’ strengths, and
maintaining a focus on improving instruction (Blasé & Blasé, 2000). The overall effect of these
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 27
principal behaviors was to enhance the ability of teachers to critically reflect upon their practice.
This study concludes by claiming, “talking with teachers to promote reflection and promoting
professional growth are two major dimensions of effective instructional leadership” (Blasé &
Blasé, 2000, p. 137). Blasé and Blasé (2000) create a dialectical frame that allows the leader to
learn from the teacher in order to reciprocate his/her learning with the teacher.
Instructional leadership operates from a stance of learning as the central focus of a
school leader’s energies. The models of instructional leadership reviewed above demonstrate a
shared commitment by principals and teachers to agree on this central focus in order to learn, to
know, to grow and, by so doing, to affect student achievement.
Learning-centered Leadership
Peter Senge reminds us, “Human beings are designed for learning” (1990, p. 7).
Learning-centered leadership operates from this stance as well (Goldring, Porter, Murphy, Elliott
& Cravens, 2007). Building upon the ideas of instructional leadership, a learning-centered
approach raises the capacity of those inside the system (i.e., principals and teachers) in order to
improve school outcomes. Learning-centered leadership strives to develop organizations in
which the learning taking place inside the system is at the heart of its existence (Senge, 1990).
Learning-centered leadership moves closer to the core of this research by giving insight as to
what leadership should do to foster learning in the system as a necessity to promote the learning
outcomes of the system.
Senge was one of the first to crystallize evolving concepts of the learning organization.
Senge (1990) describes such organizations as ones that consider learning central to their
existence:
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 28
The impulse to learn, at its heart, is an impulse to be generative, to expand our capability.
This is why leading corporations are focusing on generative learning, which is about
creating, as well as adaptive learning, which is about coping. (p. 8)
This quote illustrates Senge’s call for leadership to promote the learning of all members of the
organization. Creative tension is developed by allowing people to see the vision of what the
organization strives to become against its current reality of what it is (Senge, 1990). The leader
fosters and supports individuals’ abilities to work with this tension in order to achieve the goal
(Senge, 1990). The leader must work to continuously hold up the current reality as a mirror that
juxtaposes this state with the desired state of the vision. Senge (1990) outlines tangible roles
which school principals must enact with their teachers in order for those teachers to become
generative and innovative learners and doers.
Senge (1990) articulates these three roles that leaders must embody: designer, teacher and
steward. All three are necessary to support the learning organization’s goal of developing
creative tension. The leader, as designer, builds the foundation of the organization through
enacting the vision that creates the tension. Using the example of how Johnson and Johnson
prevented more harm in the 1982 Tylenol tampering case, Senge (1990) argues the company’s
credo saved the day by pulling all Tylenol off the shelves. Although this came at considerable
expense to the company, the leaders followed the vision conceived forty years earlier by Robert
Wood Johnson: service to its customers comes first. Elmore’s (2000) plea for strong instructional
leadership cuts at the very core of this need for a strong and binding vision that allows for such
decisions to be made. In a learning organization, the collectively built vision allows for making
decisions and taking actions that lead to improved outcomes.
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 29
The second role of the leader is as teacher who acts as a facilitator to help people achieve
a more accurate view of reality (Senge, 1990). When members of an organization work to share
a common reality, the views converge, becoming more insightful, and ultimately yielding a more
empowering view of reality (Senge, 1990). This role of leadership teaches its constituents to
focus on seeking to restructure such frames of reference so that generative learning can flourish.
The third role of the leader as steward is the subtlest of the roles that rests almost solely
on the leader’s attitude, yet this attitude is considered a critical attribute to the culture of the
learning organization (Senge, 1990). This stewardship operates on two levels: “stewardship for
the people they lead and stewardship for the larger purpose or mission that underlies the
enterprise” (Senge, 1990, p. 12). Servant leadership, in this stance, requires the leader to serve
the mission itself, not just those trying to achieve it. This gives the leader clarity when challenges
arise; to serve the mission is to do what is right. When the leader of a learning organization
enacts these three roles, Senge (1990) argues that s/he generates creative learning as a
sustainable source of energy that moves the organization toward its vision. These leaders
understand that they are ultimately responsible for learning (Senge, 1990). Thus, school site
leaders wanting to create a learning organization must take ownership of all learning on the
school campus.
In an attempt to exact the science of what a leader should do to affect adult learning,
Goldring et al (2007) developed a school leadership assessment instrument (VAL-Ed) based on a
conceptual framework that synthesizes leadership literature into six core components and six key
processes. These core components and key processes are based on ISLLC Standards for School
Leaders. Goldring et al (2007) explain, “effective leadership, both individual and team, requires
core components created through key processes” (p. 2). Their framework rests on the premise
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 30
that leadership, especially principal instructional and transformational leadership, is important in
building the conditions that lead to successful school outcomes (Goldring et al, 2007).
Continuous professional learning of those working on a school campus is an elemental feature of
the conditions Goldring et al (2007) also consider important. Thus, an understanding of this
framework sheds light on leadership practices that inform my research.
The key processes outline leadership behaviors, mostly learning-centered aspects of
leadership, that have been associated with “processes of leadership that raise organizational
members’ levels of commitment and shape organizational culture” (Goldring et al, 2007, p. 2). In
assessing learning-centered leadership, Goldring et al (2007), by intersecting the key processes
and the core components, capture “what principals or leadership teams must accomplish to
improve academic and social learning for all students, and how they create these core
components (the key processes)” (p. 17). One of these core components is a Culture of Learning
and Professional Behavior (Goldring et al, 2007, p. 6). This culture of learning is developed by
leaders who create a climate focused on continuous improvement of student outcomes. To enact
this climate, Goldring et al. (2007) assert that leaders must develop a stance of inquiry that
translates to the adults’ own understanding of how their practice orients to the learning of the
students. In other words, principals must model practices and ways of thinking that stimulate
inquiry in their teachers and, thus, create the culture of inquiry.
Using large urban districts seeking to improve both learning and leadership, Knapp,
Copland, Honig, Plecki and Portin (2010) performed an intensive qualitative and mixed-method
study with the overarching question, “What does it take for leaders to promote and support
powerful, equitable learning in a school and in the district and state system that serves the
school?” (preface, para. 1) This study furthers the knowledge of how learning-centered
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 31
leadership is enacted by reporting specific areas of emphasis and processes undertaken by two
large urban districts. This analysis defined learning-focused leadership as, “the shared work and
commitments that shape the direction of a school or district and their learning improvement
agendas, and that engage effort and energy in pursuit of those agendas” (Knapp et al., 2010, p. 4).
Within this frame of leadership, Knapp et al. (2010) treat learning-focused leadership as
“intentional efforts at all levels of an educational system to guide, direct, or support teachers as
they seek to increase their repertoire of skills, gain professional knowledge, and ultimately
improve their students’ success” (pp. 4-5). Knapp et al. found that learning-focused leadership
works optimally when it is inherently distributed across the organization, whether the
organization members realize it or not. Recognizing that learning-focused leadership implied
many differing demands to many people within the system simultaneously, they discovered that,
only when a variety of actors at a variety of levels and across the system communicated
intentionally around improvement of learning for all people in the system, did changes begin to
take place. These changes manifested themselves as five central practices of learning-focused
leadership: 1) Persistent public focus on learning 2) Investment in instructional leadership 3)
Reinvention of leadership practice 4) New working relationships within and across levels 5)
Evidence as a medium of leadership (Knapp et al., 2010). Finally, in order to achieve a fully
operating system of learning-focused leadership, the research elicited the following five
requirements: 1) Bedrock convictions 2) Explicit focus on improving the quality and practice of
leadership 3) A learning stance 4) Talent search and development 5) Systemic perspective
(Knapp et al., 2010). This study’s findings not only sharpen the definition of learning-focused
leadership, but support the notion that district-wide undertakings must include distributed
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 32
leadership within the framework. This multi-strand study supports the discussion of learning-
focused practices of a school leader as a necessary component of a learning organization.
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership provides insights as to adults learning and strikes at the heart
of the individual, specifically personal transformation and change. Transformational leadership
emerged as a socialized style that engaged people’s values, beliefs and morals to motivate them
to improve practice (Hallinger, 2003). Leithwood and Jantzi (2000) state transformational
leadership “fundamentally aims to foster capacity development and higher levels of personal
commitment to organizational goals on the part of leaders’ colleagues” (p. 113). Use of the term
colleague diminishes the power of an outdated hierarchy between leader and subject and
suggests that power rests in a leader’s ability to improve practice and productivity from a
sociocultural approach as opposed to an authoritarian approach. Leithwood and Jantzi (2000)
use a database of surveys that includes over 1,700 teachers and 9,941 students in one large
district to explore the relative effects of transformational leadership on selected organizational
conditions and student engagement within schools. They conclude that transformational
leadership exhibits a strong effect (ES=.65) on school conditions and a weaker, yet relevant,
effect (ES=.52) on student engagement (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000). It is important to note that
family education was used as a mediating factor of student engagement and created considerable
variance between schools (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000). This suggests that transformative
leadership should consider community stakeholders as part of its effect as well. As Leithwood
and Jantzi (2000) claim, “This suggests that future school and leadership effect studies ought to
conceptualize family variables more prominently in their design” (p. 126). Thus, transformative
leadership casts a broad net in the way it considers its stakeholders. School leaders should
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 33
include the “whole teacher” when approaching professional development or ways to enact adult
learning.
Hallinger (2003) reflects on conceptualizations of transformational leadership as a
possible model for schools that require change. Understanding that a school that is under-
performing might necessitate a more directive model that has a tight focus on instructional
improvement, Hallinger (2003) differentiates the need for instructional leadership, as opposed to
transformational leadership, as one of context. Further, Hallinger (2003) argues that
transformational leadership is capable of generating second order effects.
Transformational leaders increase the capacity of others in the school to produce first
order effects on learning. For example, transformational leaders create a climate in which
teachers engage in continuous learning and in which they routinely share their learning
with others. (p. 338)
Transformational leadership is often criticized because it operates in a more social-
psychological dynamic than other forms of leadership, leaving considerable space for
interpersonal ambiguity (Hallinger, 2003). Hallinger (2003) concludes that his study is limited
by this ambiguity in that its very nature is elusive and difficult to measure. His calls for
developing valid measures align with Spillane’s (2005) attempts to capture the complex nature of
distributed leadership.
Transformational leadership, despite this ambiguity, is an essential element for a
principal to create commitment from his/her teachers (Hallinger, 2003). Because
transformational leadership is a social process that is concerned with the collective good,
transformational leaders are said to transcend their own interests for the sake of others
(Northouse, 2007). Transformative leadership, as its name suggests, is supported by Mezirow’s
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 34
(1991) concept of transformative learning. By working from the inside out, schools, as well as
the adults who work in them, can experience profound learning through collaboration and critical
reflection that yields life-changing alterations.
Andragogy
Andragogy as a formal concept of study was first written about in 1833 when a German
high school teacher, Alexander Kapp, published a book about the lifelong necessity to learn titled
Plato’s Educational Ideals (Reischmann & Brown, 2008). However, the concept of people
addressing their understanding of the world through reflection and continual learning is a
constant throughout human history from Confucius, the Hebrew Poets, and Jesus Christ to the
Enlightenment and the American Renaissance spearheaded by Emerson. Most of these thinkers,
however, theorized about the ends of adult learning with considering the means of adult
education (Knowles, 1978). In 1926, the American Association of Adult Education was founded
with backing from the Carnegie Corporation of New York during the same year Edward C.
Lindeman’s The Meaning of Adult Education was published (Knowles, 1978). Lindeman
proposed fundamental differences for adult learning (Brookfield, 1984). These elements were
that learning:
 Is emancipatory in that it is an act of free will by the learner to understand his or her
subject matter and how it pertains to the self.
 Has as its primary aim the discovery of the meaning of the learner’s experience
 Is entirely non-authoritarian in that it rejects the “merely additive process” of education
in schools where the teacher “gets from his students what he has already imparted from
his academic repository.”
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 35
 Is filled with the life experiences of the learner that has its own demands unknown to the
teacher. These demands construct education as life itself and they must be reconciled by
the learner in a reflective stance of inquiry. (Brookfield, 1984)
These tenets highlight a learner-centered education where adult experience, not external goals or
accountability measures, is at the heart of the learning.
Knowles (1968) proposed a theory about the process of how adults learn. Knowles,
using Lindeman as “the foundation stones of modern adult learning theory,” moves the concept
of andragogy towards a more contemporary understanding as a field of study (Knowles, 1978).
Knowles advances his concept of andragogy by asserting the adult learner has unique learning
needs. Knowles differentiates between the assumptions of the needs and reasons for learning of
adults versus those of children (Knowles, 1973). He elaborates that, as an individual matures:
his need and capacity to be self-directing, to utilize his experience in learning, to identify
his own readiness to learn, and to organize his learning around life problems, increases
steadily from infancy to pre-adolescence, and then increasingly rapidly during
adolescence. (p. 43)
Knowles bases his andragogical theory on several assumptions that are different from a
pedagogical model (Knowles, Holton & Swanson, 1998):
 The need to know. Adults need to know why they need to learn something before they
undertake to learn it. The teacher/facilitator of adults must help the learners become
aware of “the need to know.” Adults will probe the benefits to learning something and the
negative consequences of not learning it before making a decision if it is worth their
investment of energy.
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 36
 The learner’s self-concept. Adults have a self-concept of being responsible for their own
lives, their own decisions. Once this self-concept becomes ingrained in an individual,
he/she feels a deep psychological need to be perceived as someone who is self-directed
and capable of making their own decisions. Teachers of adults must be cognizant of the
learner’s self-concept and allow their students to make important decisions about their
learning.
 The role of the learner’s experiences. Adults enter a learning situation with a greater
amount and wider variety of experiences than do children. Simply by their longevity,
adults have accumulated more experiences than they had as youths. These experiences
will also create a greater heterogeneity amongst any group of adults that will require
greater differentiation of learning. Children see experiences as something that happens to
them while adults view their experiences as who they are. To value an adult’s
experiences is to value and respect the individual.
 Readiness to learn. Adults become ready to learn those things they need to know and be
able to do in order to cope effectively with their real life situations. Readiness to learn in
adults is often accompanied by a change in developmental stage such as a new job, task
or even a recreational endeavor.
 Orientation to learning. In contrast to the subject-centered orientation to learning of
children in a school setting, adults are life-centered in their orientation to learning. Adults
are motivated to learn that which will support their personal goals. Understanding this life
skill orientation to learning is imperative for adults to accept the learning as valuable and
worthwhile.
 Motivation. Although adults are subject to some external pressures that increase
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 37
motivation (a better job, a promotion, a higher salary), the most intense motivators are
intrinsic (increased job satisfaction, learning for learning’s sake, personal fulfillment). A
block to unlocking this motivation to push adult learners “to begin again” is their own
negative self-concept as a student. Adults often assume that “going back to school” will be
reliving past experiences. (Knowles, Holton III & Swanson, 1998)
By establishing a critical lens with which to view the unique characteristics of adult learning,
Malcolm Knowles laid the groundwork for better understanding the needs of adults who
continue in their development as professionals, orienting themselves to a new stage in their
personal growth or “beginning again” on their journey to discover more about their life and their
world.
Mezirow (1997) expands concepts of adult learning to include sociocultural and
psychocultural frames of reference that must be taken into consideration for transformative
learning to occur. Largely unexamined by Knowles, Mezirow considers a learner’s personal
background, the frames of reference, to be of primary importance to how he or she makes sense
of the world and thus, learns. Mezirow (1996) argues that it is not just the adult learner’s
experience and orientation to learning that matter, but it is the very essence of the individual and
how she views the world that frame her view of the world. Paramount for the teacher of adults is
to understand how to unshackle learners from past ways of thinking and seeing to new ways of
configuring their lives and to give new frames of reference that allow the learner to transform
themselves through reconceptualizing their thoughts, emotions, actions, needs and desires
(Mezirow, 1997). School leaders must learn to use this knowledge when working with teachers
and asking them to change their practice in order to improve student outcomes.
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 38
Mezirow (1997) offers a model of the elements that support adult learning. This model
includes a learner-centered discourse “that fosters critically reflective thought, imaginative
problem posing, is participatory and interactive, and it involves group deliberation and group
problem solving” (Mezirow, 1997, p. 10). In addition to the characteristics mentioned above,
Mezirow also concludes that an ideal learning environment must be created for the learners to
realize their potential. This environment attempts to optimize the learner as a more complete
individual by transforming frames of reference through critical reflection of assumptions,
validating contested beliefs through discourse, taking action on one’s reflective insight and
critically assessing it (Mezirow, 1997, p. 11). Professional development that allows for critical
reflection and a chance for teachers to understand how it might change their practice could
greatly enhance the possibility that this PD creates positive change in the instructional core.
The two contemporary proponents of andragogy in this study, Malcolm Knowles (1973,
1998) and Jack Mezirow (1991, 1995, 1996, 1997), provide an outline of how adults learn as
well as a theory of how adult learning can transform the learner’s worldview (a frame of
reference), behavior, interpretation of experiences and very being. Their work gives us insight
into understanding the characteristics of adult learning, the structures that enhance the learning
environment as well as how this environment should be imbued with a learner-centered approach.
Professional Development
The professional development of teachers is at the heart of any school reform (Darling-
Hammond, 1997; Elmore, 2000; Loucks-Horsley, 1998). Underscoring PD’s importance, the
federal government allocated over three billion dollars to teacher professional development
(Darling-Hammond et al, 2009). Guskey (2002) claims that “high quality professional
development is a central component in nearly every modern proposal for improving education”
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 39
(p. 381). He defines professional development programs as “systematic efforts to bring about
change in the classroom practices of teachers, in their attitudes and beliefs, and in the learning
outcomes” (p. 381). Much of the literature under review in this study calls into question the
assumptions made by Guskey (1986) about his original model. This model suggests that
professional development is an entity that takes place before changes in teachers’ classroom
practices occur and before changes in teachers’ beliefs in attitudes. Dall’Alba and Sandberg
(2006) refer to this concept of professional development that is built around specific steps
through which the learner must linearly progress as a “container model” that “is often seen as an
objective structure consisting of institutionalized social rules and norms” (p. 384). When PD is
seen as a container, it does not allow for the nature of transformative learning Mezirow (1996)
describes as necessary for adults to change in the manner described by Guskey. Arguing for a
move away from traditional “container” notions of PD to a more holistic approach that focuses
on learning as opposed to development, Webster-Wright (2009) asserts that “Apart from
innovative examples, only lip service is paid to these notions in many PD programs, with a lack
of congruence between what we say we understand learning to be and how we seek to support it.”
(p. 724). Thus, professional development must be focused, concise, consistent, and involve deep
study of a single subject in order for it to create teaching practices that will affect student
achievement. Loucks-Horsley (1998) argues for two teacher-driven professional development
strategies that support teacher learning: curriculum implementation and curriculum replacement.
According to Loucks-Horsely (1998), curriculum implementation begins with teachers’ selecting
instructional materials, learning how to use them, piloting them in their classrooms, reflecting
upon their experiences, and then receiving support over time to refine their use. Curriculum
replacement begins with teachers trying out a new unit that embodies new teaching perspectives
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 40
and strategies, and document and discuss their experiences in order to undertake these new ways
of helping students learn. Loucks-Horsely (1998) asserts that time is a critical factor. Loucks-
Horsely (1998) linked the effectiveness of these two strategies with duration of use by teachers.
Those who were given larger portions of the school year to work intimately with new curriculum
and strategies were able to change at deeper, more permanent levels of understanding.
Darling-Hammond and Richardson (2009) establish consensus for a new definition of PD.
Focusing on the content, context and Design of PD, Darling-Hammond and Richardson (2009)
argue, “teachers must teach in ways that develop higher-order thinking and performance” (p. 46).
Creating PD that is centered on student learning must be accompanied by a PD format that
“emphasizes active teaching, assessment, observation, and reflection rather than abstract
discussions (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009, p. 47). The context of the PD must be
integrated with school improvement as opposed to a one-shot workshop; it must be related to a
school reform effort, reflective of how these goals are to be achieved (Darling-Hammond &
Richardson, 2009). When PD is situated within schools, it allows for “critical mass for changed
instruction at the school level” (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009, p. 48). Teacher
learning can be enhanced and act as a transformative agent to improve practice (Darling-
Hammond & Richardson, 2009; Webster-Wright, 2009). Implicit within this new definition of
PD is a design that includes professional learning communities: “When professional
communities study practice and research together, they can make meaning of new strategies and
concepts and can support one another in implementing new ideas” (Darling-Hammond &
Richardson, 2009, p. 52). Therefore, leadership must foster the structures that allow for teachers
to meet and work together collaboratively.
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 41
According to Desimone (2009) there are five features of effective professional
development. First, the most influential feature of teacher professional development is content
focus. Desimone (2009) cites evidence that “points to the link between activities that focus on
subject matter content and how students learn that content with increases in teacher knowledge
skills” (p. 184). This study focused on Desimone’s (2009) “critical components of effective
profession development” as they relate to the literature under review (p. 184).
The second feature is active learning. Ensuring teachers are engaged in active learning
opportunities is strongly related effective PD. When teachers review student work, engage in
meaningful discussion, share ideas and observe their colleagues in the classroom, learning can
increase. The third feature involves the concept of coherence. Desimone explains two important
aspects of coherence. First, the PD must have a link between what teachers are learning and
their current knowledge and beliefs. Second, that coherence implies the consistency of the PD
with state, local and school reforms and policies. The fourth feature describes the duration of the
PD. “Research shows that intellectual and pedagogical change requires professional development
activities to be of sufficient duration” (Desimone, 2009, p. 184). The threshold of 20 hours of
“contact time” necessary for change to begin approximates the 14 hours stipulated by Darling-
Hammond and Richardson (2009). Simply put, one day will not suffice. The final feature is
collective participation. An umbrella term for social learning, collective participation can take
many forms—from formalized professional learning communities to informal conversations on
or off campus. Regardless, these interactions provide powerful opportunities for teachers to learn.
Desimone (2009) “offers ideas to improve the quality of inquiry into teacher learning, one of the
most critical targets of education reform” (p. 181). By first asking what counts as professional
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 42
development, Desimone (2009) moves the epistemological argument from what we know to how
we know this.
Franke, Carpenter, Fennema, Ansell and Behrend (1998) conducted an in-depth
qualitative analysis of how teacher change can be self-sustaining and generative in the context of
professional development. Using Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) as a lens to view
teachers’ thinking and understanding of how their students learn, and as a means of working
together to create new concepts of how students learn, this study supports Mezirow’s (1997)
assertion that, by learning together, we can “analyze the related experiences of others to arrive at
a common understanding that holds until new evidence or arguments present themselves” (p. 7).
In this example, PD is a vehicle that opens teachers to transformative ways of thinking and
behaving to improve student achievement.
Darling-Hammond (2009) led a team of researchers that investigated states’ policies on
PD, how it was implemented and what comprised this PD. Drawing on nationally representative
data from the National Center for Education Statistics’s 2003-04 Schools and Staffing Survey,
key findings revealed U.S. teachers do not receive adequate training teaching special education
or limited English proficiency students, spend more of their own money on PD than their global
counterparts, and are rarely given the time to participate in extended learning opportunities and
productive collaborative communities (Darling-Hammond et al, 2009). The literature base of
effective PD is not maximized in our nation’s schools. One of the most obvious absences here is
that of time to collaborate, critically reflect upon one’s practice, and share learning and ideas.
Four Frames Model
The impact, direction, and efficiency of an organization’s leadership hinges on what
leaders see, how they make sense of what they see, and, based on this vision, how they act
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 43
(Bolman and Deal, 1991, 1997). School leaders must understand an increasingly complex set of
demands in order to move their systems forward. Bolman and Deal’s (1997) Four Frames of
Leadership give clarity to understanding how to leverage leadership based on context and
specific situation. These four frames serve as a roadmap for leadership actions. This study
applies the four frames to elucidate how leadership can affect adult learning and professional
development on a school campus.
Consolidating major themes of organizational ideas, Bolman and Deal (1997) developed
a theory of leadership with four essential elements: Structural Frame, Human Resource Frame,
Political Frame, and Symbolic Frame. Each frame suggests ways of seeing and knowing about a
situation, problem or context and how leadership can utilize knowledge of each frame to give
direction towards a positive outcome for the organization. Through studying both the behaviors
and actions of effective leadership as well as the ultimate reasons for the collapse of
organizations, Bolman and Deal (1997) argue that leaders too often fall victim to seeing
problems through only one lens or perspective. By offering four lenses, or frames through which
to see and analyze a more complete perspective of each situation, Bolman and Deal (1997) argue
that leaders can avoid organizational failure and exact the science of success. Schools and
school systems are a deceptively complex type of organization (Elmore, 2000). Bolman and
Deal’s (1997) frames offer an especially compelling opportunity for educational leaders because
they have been developed around ideas of complexity and contemporary issues of high stakes
decision-making enmeshed in an environment of transparency and accountability—challenges
that are at the forefront of a school principal’s daily and ongoing work.
The structural frame can best be understood in relation to its importance to managerial
competence of an organization. Bills must be paid, deadlines created and met, goals set and a
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 44
clear plan of action executed in order to meet those goals. The structural frame has its roots in
early 20
th
century organizational analysts Frederick Taylor and Max Weber (Bolman & Deal,
1997). Predictable, consistent behavior regulated by station and task ruled the day in these
systems. Today’s complex organization needs structure as a way to give clarity and orientation
as a means of focus and direction. Schools, especially, have changed dramatically in this regard
in the NCLB era. Having clearly defined roles that support well-understood tasks and linked to
goals will lend support to teachers knowing and understanding their responsibilities.
Linked to the Structural Frame by the concept of managerial effectiveness is the Human
Resource Frame (Thompson, 2000). As its name implies, this frame is best employed by leaders
who “Show high levels of support and concern for others, build trust through open and
collaborative relationships, and show high sensitivity to others’ needs and feelings (Thompson,
2000, p. 987). This configures the organization as a family with unique members each with their
own needs. Here, the leader must know the nature of each member in order to gain trust as well
as productivity. School leaders employing this frame exhibit behaviors similar to those of
posited by adult learning research: paying homage to one’s history and skill set are precursors to
creating buy-in as well as authentic professional learning (Webster-Wright, 2009). School
reform, especially, demands that leaders foster genuine relationships with people in the system in
order to organize and act upon new and challenging goals. For many, these goals are
intimidating and may expose insecurities. Leaders who can work within the Human Resource
Frame give space for insecurity while ensuring a bright outlook through being helpful and
responsive to others’ needs and a highly participative manager (Thompson, 2000, p. 988).
The Political Frame lies on the side of the quadrant that calls on acts of true leadership.
This frame views the organization as an arena where battle is waged between competing
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 45
elements vying for power. Leaders use their position to exert influence, create coalitions and
strengthen their position. The Political Frame does not inherently search for conflict, but seeks
to reduce the possibility of strife by bargaining, negotiating, and maneuvering people,
transactions, and ideas (Bolman and Deal, 1997). Using this frame allows a school leader to
assert a vision, uses alliances to build a strong base of support, and enact a plan to lead change.
The Symbolic Frame is the counterpart of the leadership quadrant that sees organizations
as cultures rich with tradition, myth, lore, and even mascots (Bolman and Deal, 1997). This
frame gives leaders a chance to connect with people around rituals and stories that link us as
humans. These connections manifested through stories, humor, play, and even theatre can
generate loyalty and enthusiasm among members of the organization (Bolman and Deal, 1997).
Meetings can work well in this frame as “actors” take on roles and theatre unfolds that includes
ceremony and ritual that only serve to strengthen culture. A school leader that honors the
school’s culture while using the other frames to conduct business and move the school forward
also creates connections that will allow others to see him as a “real” person. This personal view
of the leader can act as a catalyst that enhances the validity of the vision (Bolman and Deal,
1997).
The four frames operate as leadership models from which a school leader can explore
how to best enact adult learning and professional development on a school campus. A careful
examination of each frame as it pertains to theories of adult learning and professional
development can guide a principal in how to best accomplish school and district goals. The four
frames, then, provide a more complete picture of what is going on in the system, and how the
leader can most effectively act upon what he “sees” in order to attain goals.
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 46
Table 1
Four Frames
Frame
Effect on Adult Learning Theory
(Androgogy)
Effect on Professional
Development
Structural This frame could best be used in
regards to adult learning by giving
clear goals to give the learner direction.
It would be detrimental, however, for a
leader to rely too much on this frame to
enact high levels of adult learning.
Professional development needs to
be learner-centered. The leader
would be wise to incorporate
learner needs into the structure
created for any PD program.
Human
Resource
This frame has a strong tie with adult
learning. The adult learner is motivated
by their own desire to grow and
change, not by external forces. The
leader has a massive opportunity to
create change through learning by
operating out of this frame.
Professional development should
integrate goals of the program with
those of each learner. Just as
important as the goals of the
program itself, are those of the
learner. The human resource frame
allows the leader to align the
personal goals of each learner to
those of the system.
Political The leader needs to understand the
political dynamic at play in the system.
This is especially important as it
pertains to adult learning in regards to
how adults perceive the importance of
their learning. If the campus
understands that the focus is on
improvement despite obstacles, then
negotiations and deals must be made
between the leader and the teachers in
order for learning to occur. Adult
learning will diminish if many of these
primary demands are not met.
The leader must work behind the
scenes to ensure that the PD
program is learner-centered. Place
and time are just as important as
content. This is a great opportunity
for the leader to be present (if not
conducting) during the professional
development.
Symbolic Although this frame is tempting for the
leader trying to enact adult learning,
there is a caution here. The adult will
continue to want to know, grow, and
learn because of their own desires or
what they view as important to them.
Inspiration can be a guiding force, but
the adult learner must see what is in it
for them.
Professional development should
have a clear focus based on system
and school goals. Being part of
learning program does not depend
on a leader’s articulation of
inspirational motivation. This
motivation should come from
structural alignment between
learning and goals. Thus, there is
little to be gained by a spending
much time in the structural frame
with regards to PD.
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 47

Summary
Utilizing Bolman and Deal (1997) as a lens to understanding the effects of leadership on
adult learning and professional development, the importance of enacting specific leadership
qualities for specific situations becomes clear. Teachers are the heart of any school reform
(Darling-Hammond, 2009; Elmore, 2000). For effective professional development to support
school reform, it must be on-going, systemic, and, most importantly, include an andragogical
framework at its core (Darling-Hammond, 2009; Drago-Severson, 2012; Knowles, 1978;
Mezirow, 1997). For U.S. school outcomes to improve, school principals must have the
knowledge and expertise to develop school climates that foster adult learning and
collaboration—two elements necessary in an era of constant, adaptive change (Drago-Severson,
2012; Slayton & Mathis, 2010).
The following chapter describes the methodology used to address the research questions.
Qualitative methods of research that include principal and teacher interview and school wide
observation will explore the extent to which school leadership and school climate affect adult
learning.

LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 48
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In order for students to meet the demands of the 21
st
century, teachers must possess the
increasingly sophisticated content knowledge, pedagogical skills and beliefs necessary to
adequately affect these outcomes (Elmore, 2000; Heckman & Montera, 2009; Resnick, 2003).
Schools must respond to this demand by supporting teachers’ ability to increase their
professional knowledge at levels that will meet students’ needs (Webster-Wright, 2009). One of
the fundamental elements of U.S. education reform rests on teachers’ constant and on-going
learning of new knowledge and ideologies and implementation of new skills (Darling-Hammond,
1997; Elmore, 2000). For the millions of teachers in our nation’s schools, the extent to which
they continue to learn is affected by their school context (Drago-Severson, 2012). Specifically,
school leadership and professional development both play a role in teacher learning on a school
campus (Elmore, 2000; Darling-Hammond et al, 2009; Slayton & Mathis, 2010). For our
nation’s schools to meet these increasingly sophisticated 21
st
century demands, there must be a
better understanding of the degree to which school leadership and professional development
affects teacher learning.
Using a critical qualitative approach (Merriam, 2002) utilizing Bolman and Deal (1997)
as a lens from which to examine school leadership and the influence on professional
development and teacher learning, the research questions for this study are:
1. To what extent does principal leadership support and influence adult learning for
teachers?
2. To what extent does principal leadership support and influence professional
development for teachers?
3. What leadership approach best supports adult learning and professional development?
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 49
Research Design
This study employed qualitative data collection based on interviews situated in the field.
A qualitative study conducted in the natural settings of three schools allowed for analysis of the
situational context of the interviewees as well as of how they act and think in the place under
study (Creswell, 2003). This research design allowed for probing into the nuanced thinking of
both the principals and teachers in the study. Further, a qualitative, naturally situated, provides
greater depth of understanding with respect to the complexity of the context (Creswell, 2003).
Sample and Population
This study used purposeful sampling methods that provide “information-rich cases for
study” (Patton, 2002, p. 230). The field of study consisted of three schools in Los Angeles
County, similar in size and demographics. Purposeful sampling for this study included interviews
of principals and teachers as well as observations of staff meetings. Interviews were sought in
order to “yield direct quotations from people about their experiences” that contribute to a deeper
understanding of the factors that have impacted their learning at a school as well as how they
view themselves as learners (Patton, 2002, p. 4). Observations provide thick description “of
behaviors, actions, and the full range of interpersonal interactions and organizational processes
that are part of observable human experience (Patton, 2002, p. 5).
The purposive sampling (Patton, 2002) consisted of multiple layers. The schools were
selected with a purposive lens based on their steady progress over the few years prior to this
study (CDE, 2011; WestEd, 2009). The administrators and teachers within these schools were
selected with a purposive lens that allows for the best understanding of selected cases of special
interest that pertain to the research questions (Patton, 2002). Because this study analyzed the
effects of principal leadership on how adults learn, a broad cross section of teachers was
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 50
considered to allow for capturing and describing central themes that develop through interview
and observation (Patton, 2002). Teachers heading collaborative teams, involved in school site
leadership and departmental leadership were instrumental as they acted as distributed guides of
the principal’s vision for the school (Spillane, 2005).
The sample was comprised of educators at the three sites who volunteered to be part of
this study. Because they were voluntary participants, the researcher sought to be objective and
sincere in his intentions as a researcher. Participants had to be those who, through honest
volition, wished to share their thoughts, experiences and knowledge with me. Further, the
limitation of self-selection affects the data. Although single stage self-selection was used
initially (Creswell, 2002), multiple-stage self-selection was allowed for as the study unfolded.
Three schools were purposefully selected to aid in understanding the problem and the
research questions (Creswell, 2003). The three schools are located in the Southwestern United
States and serve a predominantly Latino, working-class community. All three schools are
similar in size and serve kindergarten through eighth grade. Each school is configured with the
relatively same personnel structure of a principal, an assistant principal, a literacy coach, a
shared outreach consultant and school psychologist as well as approximately 45 certificated
classroom staff. The principal as well as three teachers from each school agreed to be
interviewed. The selection criteria included three schools with relatively similar school context
and challenges in both scope and size. This allows for generalization of findings amongst the
three schools in terms of how the three schools approach issues presented in the research
questions.

LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 51
Instrumentation
This study used an interview instrumentation that combines the interview guide approach
with the standardized open-ended interview as outlined by Patton (2002). A specific sequence of
questions formed the basis of each interview for teachers and principals (see table 3.1) with
flexibility for informal conversation to enrich each response, allowing for a participant’s voice to
color the nuances and themes as they emerge in the dialogue. The questions developed in this
semi-structured approach act as framework understandings developed from the research
questions and informed by the bodies of literature. Table 2 illustrates how each question was
designed to inform the research questions and was derived from specific bodies of literature.
The questions have been numbered for both principal and teacher interviews.
Table 2
Instrument Matrix
Research
Question
Instrument Interview Questions Related to Research
Question
PQ = principal question TQ = teacher question
Research
1.) To what
extent does
principal
leadership
support and
influence adult
learning for
teachers?
Interview
Observation

1) PQ: What are the elements of effective adult
learning (andragogy)?
2) PQ: What do you consider to be your role in the
ongoing learning of your teachers?
3) PQ: How do you promote ongoing teacher
learning at your school?
1) TQ: How often do you have opportunities to
engage in professional learning?
2) TQ: Describe a recent learning experience and
how it impacted you.
3) TQ: How does your principal support your
ongoing professional learning?
Bolman and Deal
(1997)
Darling-Hammond
(2009)
Hallinger (1985)
Knowles (1978)
Mezirow (1991, 1996)

2.) To what
extent does
principal
leadership
support and
influence
professional
development
for teachers?
Interview
Observation
4) PQ: How do you enact professional development
for teachers at your school?
5) PQ: In what ways has professional development
changed since you have been principal? What has
contributed to this change?
4) TQ: Do you feel that your own learning is
enhanced by the leadership of your school?
5) TQ: Is professional development of teachers a
priority at your school?
Bolman and Deal
(1997)
Darling-Hammond and
Richardson (2009)
Desimone (2009)
Drago-Severson (2012)
Goldring et al (2007)
Hallinger (1985)
Hallinger (2003)
Loucks-Horsely (1998)
Webster-Wright (2009)

LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 52
Table 2, continued
3.) What
leadership
approach best
supports adult
learning and
professional
development?

Interview
Observation
6) PQ: How do you perceive your role as an
instructional leader?
7) PQ: How do you foster the continued growth and
development of your teachers?
6) TQ: How does your principal foster your
continued growth as a professional?
7) TQ: Does your principal support your efforts to
grow and learn (i.e. attend conferences, take classes,
attend workshops, try new practices, and support
risk-taking)?
8) TQ: What have you learned from your principal
about your practice as a teacher?
Bolman and Deal
(1997)
Desimone (2009)
Goldring et al (2007)
Hallinger (2003)
Knapp et al (2008)

Observation Protocol
The protocol for this study carried consistency across the three schools. The protocol
developed for this study was semi-structured interviews situated in the natural setting (Creswell,
2003; Patton, 2002). All three principals agreed to be interviewed in their offices after school
when convenient for them. Teachers were interviewed after school or off site. The recording
protocol consisted of a simple electronic device to record the interviews as well as both
descriptive notes and reflective notes (Creswell, 2003). Principals and teachers received a paper
with the questions pertinent to their role (Appendices A and B).
Data Collection
Data collection took place at three schools of similar demographic standing and size.
Data collection at the schools involved interview of subjects, observation of meetings as well as
the school environment. Spillane, Halverson and Diamond (2001) explain the interdependence
between the individual and their environment that “shows how human activity is distributed in
the interactive web of actors, artifacts, and the situation is the appropriate unit of analysis for
studying practice” (p. 23). Thus, observing the situation into which the researcher enters can
itself lend rich qualitative data collection. An understanding of how the actors on a school
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 53
campus are engaged with their peers and leadership can elicit data that answers the research
questions as they pertain to the effects and influences of school leadership.
Observing the field of study and describing it is the “first order” of collecting such data
(Patton, 2002, p. 262). Specifically, Patton (2002) defines the field as “the setting, the activities
that took place in that setting, the people who participated in those activities, and the meaning of
what was observed from the perspective of those observed” (p. 262). The advantage of directly
observing the field setting is that the researcher is “better able to understand and capture the
context within which people interact. Understanding context is essential to a holistic perspective”
(Patton, 2002, p. 262). Being in the setting is also essential for me as the researcher to take an
inquiry-oriented stance based on what I am seeing, inductively, that is transpiring in front of me
as opposed to prior conceptualizations based largely on literature about the topic of study (Patton,
2002). Finally, observation allows the researcher to see routine things that may escape the
awareness of those inside the setting that are important nuances which need to be recorded
(Patton, 2002).
Interviewing of principals and teachers occurred as an on-going, multi-stage process
throughout the duration of the study. Table 3 presents a timeline of the study. The purpose of
interviewing was to allow the researcher “to enter into the other person’s perspective” (Patton,
2002, p. 241). Understanding the need to “hear” what interviewees are “saying” is critical to
comprehending their terminology and judgments and “to capture the complexities of their
individual perceptions and experiences” (Patton, 2002, p. 348). Herein lays the rich distinction
between qualitative and quantitative research. Capturing the essence of an individual’s
experiences that provide the researcher with a unique human dialogue can pave the way to a
unique data analysis.
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 54
Table 3
Timeline of the Study
Event Date Research Methods
Qualifying Exam January, 2013

IRB Process February, 2013

Establish contact with schools for the
study
September 2012

Attend staff meeting to seek volunteers
for study
February 2013
 Observation
Conduct primary interview with teachers
Conduct primary interview with
principals
February 2013
 Interview
Ongoing interviews of teachers and
principals
February – March
2013
 Interview

Data Analysis
In a qualitative study, the process of data analysis involves multiple steps to prepare the
data to be effectively analyzed (Creswell, 2003). At the heart of this process is that qualitative
data analysis involves sense-making of what was collected (Creswell, 2003). the researcher
looked for patterns while engaging continual reflection about what was collected by moving
deeper and deeper into the data. Creswell (2003) suggests a six-step programmatic approach to
data analysis.
First, organization and preparation as a system of coding of all data collected was devised
based on the research questions. Second was a preliminary reading of the data to allow for
making sense of what was gathered... Next was a detailed analysis and coding. Data analysis
was informed by the research questions, but the participants, at this stage, also influenced coding
and categorization of the data along with the terminology used to describe the data. Creswell
(2002) calls these terms in vivo usage, as they are derived directly from the context from which
the data was collected. After this analysis, coding began. A detailed coding system involves
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 55
detailed preliminary analysis. As Creswell (2002) reminds, the question is not “what is this?”
but “what is this about?”
The final two steps formed the basis of the results and summary of recommendations.
The first was to construct a plan to insert description and themes into the qualitative analysis.
This process evolved organically throughout the study and subsequent analysis. Last was
interpretation and sense-making to determine what lessons were learned from this study that
contribute to the literature. Interpretations were informed by the theoretical frame of Bolman
and Deal (1997) as well as andragogical concepts and how they function with school leadership.
Validity and Reliability
The study was presented firsthand to school staff in order to clearly explain the
parameters and intent of the study, to assure them of confidentiality, integrity and a high code of
personal, professional and institutional ethics as outlined by USC IRB, the researcher’s own code
of professional conduct and his personal beliefs. This served to lay the groundwork for a quality
study with genuine and honest participants. Data will be triangulated to paint a clear picture of
what transpired at the two schools and how this informs the research questions.

LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 56
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to understand the influence of leadership on adult
learning on a school campus, how a school leader enacts learning opportunities for staff, and
how teachers respond to these opportunities. Teachers are the single most influential factor in
determining student outcomes (Hanushek, 2003; Spillane 2002; Wright, Horn & Saunders,
1997). In order for students to meet the demands of the 21
st
century, teachers must possess the
increasingly sophisticated content knowledge, pedagogical skills, and beliefs necessary to
adequately affect these outcomes (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Elmore, 2000; Heckman &
Montera, 2009; Resnick, 2003). Teachers’ continuous learning of new knowledge and classroom
implementation of new skills are fundamental to U.S. education reform (Darling-Hammond,
1997; Elmore, 2000). This study sought to uncover how principals meet these demands for
increased teacher professional growth as well as how they provide ongoing professional learning
opportunities. The goal of interviewing principals and teachers was to distill themes that elicit a
clearer understanding of the ways in which leadership can enact greater amounts of learning
amongst all adults on a school campus. Two principals and two teachers were interviewed at
each of the two school sites using an interview protocol for both principals (Appendix A) and
teachers (Appendix B) based on the research questions. This chapter presents the results from
the thematic analysis of each research question, addressing themes that emerged from the data
analysis. Insights from these themes will be addressed using the Bolman and Deal (1997) Four
Frames conceptual lens. From the data, the following central themes emerged in response to the
research questions: (a) principal behavior does not support adult learning; (b) principal
knowledge of how to best enact adult learning is lacking; and (c) teachers are open to learning
from their principals. Each of these themes is discussed below.
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 57
Participants
The researcher interviewed two principals who work in similar districts with schools that
are similar with regard to student demographics, community population, school size, number of
teachers and available resources. By virtue of their position, both principals described their job as
a hectic one, in which they felt it sometimes “nearly impossible” to communicate with teachers,
let alone work with them to create meaningful change in their practice. The first principal,
Principal Martinez, is a woman who has worked in public education for over 20 years. She began
as a substitute teacher, then taught several years at an elementary school and then became the
head of a small continuation school before transitioning to school administration. She has been at
her current school for six years, five as principal and the first year as assistant principal. This
principal seems to be an astute observer of student behavior, especially for at-risk youth. She
carries a very positive outlook on life with her and shared that, despite many personal obstacles,
she is determined to move her life forward through her own independent spirit.
The second principal, Principal Sanchez, came to his school four years ago. Before this,
he served as assistant principal for six years at two different schools. He began his career in
education as a sixth grade teacher. During his time as principal of his current school, this school
underwent massive capital improvements in which the school was transformed to a new and
dramatically upgraded campus complete with modern amenities such as a large computer lab in
the library and Wi-Fi throughout the campus. This principal is a very positive and happy
individual who works hard for his school and wants to do the right thing for the community he
serves.
Teacher Engle is a teacher at Principal Martinez’s school. She is young and intelligent,
grew up near the school, and is very dedicated to her students. This teacher confided her
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 58
aspirations to become a site administrator. Although she respects her administrator, she also
becomes easily frustrated with what she sees as her duplicitous actions that cause staff to
disengage and veer in different directions from a stated goal.
Teacher Finn is also a teacher at Principal Martinez’s school. She has one year left before
she retires, and she is very clear about this fact. Although she is at the end of her teaching career,
she is willing to try new ideas and give feedback on how they went. She is a brilliant language
arts teacher who delights in teaching middleschoolers Shakespeare and Dickens. Teacher Finn,
however, is very skeptical of Principal Martinez. She believes this principal does not act with
the forceful nature that the Political Frame demands and lets it be known.
Teacher X is a teacher on Principal Martinez’s staff. Teacher X has been an eighth grade
language arts teacher for many years and is nearing the end of her career. Very thoughtful and
articulate, this teacher is excellent with gifted students, whom she claims are her passion. She
has been reluctant to join the Professional Learning Community (PLC) movement at her school
and feels more comfortable teaching alone. She said this is so because her 8
th
grade colleagues
are not her favorites to work with since they were moved into her grade level because of a school
closure. Teacher X loves reading and loves sharing “reading adventures with her students.”
Teacher Morelos recently moved to Principal Sanchez’s school as an 8
th
grade social
studies teacher. Having been a teacher less than ten years, he is young and energetic, but
confessed his energy and focus on his teaching practice has been tested by recently becoming a
father. This teacher, of the four who were interviewed, seems the most knowledgeable and
progressive in terms of understanding new ideas in teaching and education especially with
regards to the Common Core State Standards. He is a very positive and respectful person.

LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 59
Research Question One: Leadership Knowledge of Adult Learning Theory
Research question one asked, “To what extent does principal leadership understand and
use knowledge of adult learning for teachers?” The aim was to uncover what the principals knew
about adult learning theory and if they knew how to apply these theories at their schools to
advance teachers’ continued growth and learning. Under the present context of NCLB, schools
must continue to learn how to respond to large-scale external accountability measures. School
leadership is fundamental to providing avenues of support for this learning and transformation to
occur. Although the principals were not familiar with the academic terms of adult learning
theory or andragogy, they enacted some of the elements of these theories at their school sites.
What became clear, however, is that the principals in this study did not cross the threshold of
knowledge and skill necessary to create or support transformative learning for the adults they
lead at their schools. Further, these principals admitted they were very busy and had little time
to be instructional leaders because of the demands of managing the school. Although they
lamented this fact, it appears they could have operated from the Human Resources Frame to
better support professional development and learning opportunities for teachers. Two themes
emerged from the data gathered pertaining to this research question. First, principal behavior did
not support adult learning. Second, a mismatch between what principals knew of adult learning
and how they purported to use this knowledge with teachers was revealed.
Principal Behavior did not Support Adult Learning
For the context of this study, principal behavior is defined as the actions and dialogues
principals engage in to work with staff around the development of teacher learning. Behaviors
that did not support adult learning were revealed in two ways. First, principals did not have tacit
knowledge of adult learning and, thus, were unable to employ the necessary skills to create or
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 60
support ongoing professional learning opportunities. Second, these leaders did not focus enough
of their efforts on professional learning in order for it to make a meaningful difference—
seemingly for teachers and subsequently students. Both of these behaviors can be considered
elements of instructional leadership in that they serve to increase the quality of instruction
through working with staff and creating valuable learning opportunities.
First, regarding the principals’ knowledge and skills of adult learning theory, neither of
the two answered affirmatively that they knew what adult learning theory, or andragogy,
entailed. Principal Sanchez stated, “I’ll be honest, I do not know what andragogy is, and I am
guessing that adult learning theory is connected to that, but, beyond that, I do not know anything
about that.” Principal Martinez never directly answered this question but gave a lengthy answer
in regards to how she does enact support for teachers:
I want to be the instructional leader, but, most times, honestly, I just feel like I am doing
so many other things. But I know this is very important, and I know where I want to go
with it. So, what I do is I tend to use my staff meetings to talk about new topics. What I
do is I have staff share out at staff meetings. For example, I had staff talk about what
they are doing in their classes with the DII (Direct Interactive Instruction) PD that we
have been having. And then, I follow up with staff members about this. Mostly, the
teachers like talking about their experiences.
This response reveals this principal’s intention to do well and work hard is hampered by not
knowing about the concepts of adult learning. An outcome of this study is to discover ways to
improve adult learning on a school campus to give to principals such as this. This response
reveals the very need for this research.
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 61
Both proceeded to suggest, however, that elements of adult learning might include
collaboration and a practical, hands-on approach in ways that administrators work with staff
around professional development and learning opportunities. And, even with this knowledge,
both principals painted a picture at their school of the difficulty of trying to be the instructional
leaders because they feel they are pulled in so many different directions. Three of the four
teachers interviewed agreed that they do not receive much explicit support regarding curriculum
and instruction from their principals. Although both principals stated that they were acting as
instructional leaders by acknowledging their teachers’ concerns, one of the teachers, Engle,
responded to this claim by suggesting, “No disrespect, but I do not believe my principal gives me
the time I need to learn. I know she is busy, but I do not get much from her about how I am
supposed to implement (a new ELD curriculum).” Giving teachers the support they need to learn
a new aspect of their practice is critical. This is no easy task to accomplish, however. It requires
a principal who not only understands the importance of supporting teacher efforts to learn, but
also knows how to enact those efforts.
While these principals did not enact many adult learning opportunities at their school
sites for their teachers, they did communicate frequently with their staff members about the
importance of continuing to develop professionally. The teachers interviewed responded that the
principals are, indeed, frequently communicative with staff and are usually friendly and positive.
This did not translate, however, to any increase in adult learning opportunities, nor did it seem to
inspire adults to ask questions around the idea of wanting to continue to learn and grow
professionally. As Teacher Engle stated, “I enjoy talking with her (Principal Martinez). She
encourages me. We don’t really talk about how I am going to get better as a teacher. Just that I
have a great future.” This quote illustrates the importance of what is talked about; not only the
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 62
frequency of discussion. Creating adult learning opportunities for teachers, then, requires
principals to have honest and frank discussions about their practice and how they can improve
their practice.
The principals did not respond to the needs of the teachers and their requests to learn in
ways that were supported by most theories of adult learning. For example, Principal Sanchez
offered evidence that he worked with teachers to get them involved in learning new practices and
sharing this learning, but he did so in a way that placed considerable restrictions on what was to
be learned and how it was to be learned:
I tell my staff what I want to see. I tend to ask questions, which is what I’ve gathered that
the previous principal did not do, because I get pushback when I ask questions. I have to
see why there is a need for going to a particular piece of PD. Like, how is it going to
benefit you and then benefit your students? I need to see the benefit and then I demand
that they explain this to me and I tell them they will be teaching this to the rest of the staff
when they get back. They don’t like that. After I mention this, they back off completely
from going.
Although the principal was trying to create a sense of mutual accountability, he went
about it in a way that ultimately led to teachers feeling discouraged and not wanting to be
included in learning or sharing of new knowledge. He imposed, from a strict adherence to the
Political Frame, a stance of power and enforced a quid pro quo of attending training in return for
presenting the learning to the staff. The teacher in this situation had no choice but to accept this
dictum or retreat and shy away from the learning prospect. Thus, teachers who desire to
undertake new learning opportunities should be given a chance to do so in a manner supportive
of their needs rather than the accusatory tone of Principal Sanchez’s approach. Because he
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 63
demanded teachers who ask for additional learning opportunities return to school and impart the
new knowledge to others, Principal Sanchez shut down several opportunities for growth of staff
members. Teacher X stated, “He’s a great guy (Principal Sanchez) but I prefer to work more
independently. He asked me to share some of my expertise in ELA (English Language Arts) with
staff but I didn’t feel comfortable doing it.” In a similar situation, Principal Sanchez tried to
convince teachers to attend a day of professional development from an external provider that
would “help with what the district wants us to implement.” Bolman and Deal (1997) argue that,
by employing the Human Resources frame in this instance, Principal Sanchez might have
avoided turning off teachers to attending professional development by insisting on what and how
they engage in this experience. Rather, using the Human Resource frame in such instances
focuses not on the external outcomes of the experience, but on the internal desire of the
individual (Bolman & Deal, 1997). Likewise, Knowles (1978) argues that one of the conditions
of learning for adults is that they share in the responsibility for planning and operating a learning
experience. Principal Sanchez took this opportunity away from staff members by placing
reciprocal accountability constraints on them without offering any support.
In a similar stance, Principal Martinez asked much of her teachers in order for them to be
afforded professional growth opportunities. She maintained that many teachers were accustomed
to “getting whatever they wanted.” However, rather than employing the Human Resource frame
with individuals, she, like Principal Sanchez, questioned their intentions and shut down any
chance to build a bridge with the person and create trust. As teacher Engle, a teacher at Principal
Martinez’s school, responded, “People just don’t want to go and ask her for anything because
they know they will get shut down.” Teacher Engle was quick to point out that she is on good
terms with the principal, and received much support from her. When asked if she receives the
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 64
kind of support from her principal that allows her to improve her skills and knowledge as a
teacher, Engle responded, “With all respect to her, I would have to say no.” Engle’s reply
suggests that Martinez is operating from a Political Frame hoping to exert power and regain a
sense of control of the school seemingly lost by previous leadership.
Both principals in this study stated that they were working with staff to increase
professional learning opportunities. The rich and extensive research base suggests that
supporting and influencing learning opportunities for teachers must include giving teachers
considerable autonomy in the direction of their own learning, allowing for a personal orientation
to learning, and giving teachers responsibility to shape their own learning (Knowles, 1978). The
fact that these principals were not familiar with adult learning theory underscores the likelihood
that they worked with staff not from a Human Resources frame but from the Political Frame.
However, with regards to improving learning opportunities for staff, principals must work
through the Human Resource frame. Bolman and Deal (1997) posit that this frame allows for
personal discovery of new learning limits and is essential to a learning organization. A more
traditional school leadership model would suggest otherwise, but enacting higher levels of adult
learning must include a leader who works from the more humble aspect of the Human Resources
frame. This frame best aligns itself with the concepts of adult learning.
Principal Knowledge to Best Enact Adult Learning
There is a mismatch between the way principal knowledge of adult learning was enacted
and the way it should best be enacted according to the literature. This mismatch showed up in
two different ways: 1) both principals demonstrated their perception of adult learning as a
leverage piece as opposed to an authentic adult learning 2) both principals, in an attempt to be
student-centered, nearly eliminated the importance of teacher learning.
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 65
First, principals perceived adult learning as something that can be leveraged. The
principals in this study described the ways in which they worked with their teachers to create
increased student outcomes. Although both principals talked about how they deal with their
teachers, and the teachers interviewed responded likewise to these dealings, both groups had
different views as to what their needs were in order to obtain the common goal of increased
student outcomes. Thus, what teachers said they needed did not match what the principals
thought that the teachers needed. As teacher Finn stated, “Sometimes I feel as though what she
wants us to do and what we actually do are two different things.” Striking about this quote is that
the teacher is unsure if what she is “doing” aligns with what she assumes the principal wants
teachers to do. First, it is clear that there is a disconnect between stated goals and the way in
which those goals are to be achieved. Both principals stated that they used external sources of
professional development to compel teachers to do things, as Principal Martinez stated, “to get
buy in.” Principal Sanchez explained that she tries to “get professional development done in 15-
minute segments during staff meetings so that they (teachers) know what I will want.” These
comments begin to paint a picture of a two principals working diligently to get staff to work
together and see a common goal. However, neither of the principals demonstrates a clear
understanding of what his/her teachers’ needs are in order to achieve this goal or if their teachers
understand what the goal is.
Rather, both principals in this study used various notions of professional development as
a means to leverage their own goals. Doing so allowed these two school leaders to try to shape
teachers’ vision to their own without clearly explaining what this vision was. Teachers who
wanted to explore new ideas were not allowed to do so or were “punished” by being coaxed into
sharing their learning with staff upon returning from a professional development. The approach
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 66
by the principals was to try to harness teachers into being more collaborative rather than to go off
on their own to discover something new. However, the principals, instead of encouraging
collaboration, only shut down teachers’ desire to learn and know.
These principals were newer to their schools as leaders and were trying to respond to an
old-school mentality of “egg-crate” teacher practice with an old-school approach: top down,
authoritarian leadership. Rather than try an authentic approach of forming a vision and
developing a culture of collaboration, they used the Political Frame to “combat” the teachers’ old
habits of being individualist, non-student centered workers. This only created more distrust
between the principal and the teachers. As Principal Sanchez stated, “My goal through
professional development is to achieve buy in of my staff to my vision.” This again, is a strict
use of the Political Frame by Principal Sanchez to attempt to change culture and attitudes.
Principal Sanchez admitted his attempts at trying to change the direction of the school via this
method have been met with considerable resistance. “I have a passive/aggressive group (of
teachers) here. Yet, I don’t want to tell them what to do and I don’t want them to tell me what it
is they need to do, I want them to think.” Principal Sanchez tried to use professional
development as a means to implementing his vision, as opposed to a means for increasing
teacher knowledge and skill. It is here that he adopts the Political Frame not to move a vision
forward, but, rather, to instill his own beliefs. By doing this, he cuts off the dialogue between
himself and the teacher, allowing little space for learning. Such learning, single-loop at best, has
little opportunity to grow and affect teacher practice.
This principal was trying to shape the future of the school by sheer force. In so doing, he
used authentic learning opportunities to wield political power instead of growing the knowledge
inside the system. “I need to move this school forward. I can’t always wait for everyone to catch
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 67
up.” This quote from Principal Sanchez underscores his lack of knowledge of adult learning
theory (as well as creating a learning organization in general). In order to move the school
forward, everyone must understand what it takes to do so. A large body of research maintains
that teachers need to continue to increase their knowledge of practice in order to be successful
and achieve improved student outcomes. Teachers Finn and X, under the direction of Principal
Sanchez, both stated that there were specific moments when they asked Principal Sanchez if they
could attend a conference to learn more about implementing an ELD program and were not
allowed to do so because, as Finn explained, “Those days were already used up. We already
attended that training as a staff.” Again, an opportunity to support teacher learning was reframed
from a political perspective in a seeming attempt to control and coerce teachers rather than grant
them professional autonomy to grow and learn.
Second, principals nearly eliminated teacher learning in their attempt to be student-
centered. The data unexpectedly revealed that both principals denied teachers professional
growth and learning opportunities in the seeming interest of being student-centered. Student-
centered leadership models promote the idea that, if all school actions are centered on the
student, improved student outcomes will ensue. Principal Martinez, especially, often used the
phrase, “Is it good for kids? If it’s good for kids, let’s do it.” Teacher Engle felt cut off before
she ever had a chance to start by this phrase. To her, “good for kids” became a barrier the
principal would use when she did not want teachers to do something. Thus, Teacher Engle
responded, “Many teachers do not go in to ask her for anything because they feel she is just
going to ask them if it’s good for kids and then they will be denied.” During her interview,
Principal Martinez used the “if it’s good for kids” phrase five different times. This was in
response to questions regarding enacting adult learning.
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 68
Similarly Principal Sanchez, while speaking of ways in which he facilitates
conversations, said, “I ask how it will benefit children. Then if there is no benefit, I tell them
they cannot go (attend a conference).” Adult learning must be self-directed, and principals must
develop trust and respect among staff by allowing them the space they require to learn and adapt
to new situations. One of Principal Sanchez’s staff members, teacher X, explained, “Well, he
wants us to focus on the students. And that should be obvious. But I am not sure it is to
everyone. Many people (who work at the school) think he’s just doing this to somehow control
us.” Principal Sanchez, in his attempt to be student-centered, had been construed as a
Machiavellian leader whose duplicitous nature was not to be trusted. The researcher was unable
to determine to what extent this belief pervaded the school, but it was also alluded to by teacher
Morales, who stated, “I just stay away. He says he wants us to be centered on students, but I
don’t know what he means by that based on what I see.” A student-centered leadership approach
has at its core a focus on student achievements as well as outcomes that pertain to the whole
child. The examples in this section reveal that the principals’ words and actions did not match.
Although they were advocating for students with their words, their actions suggested they
created barriers among themselves, their teachers, and quite possibly the students themselves.
Discussion Research Question One
Both Principals under study operated from the political frame to enact adult learning.
However, the tenets of the Political Frame run contrary to those of adult learning theory. In this
study, the principals attempted to coerce teachers to either engage in a learning situation which
entailed a quid pro quo of then teaching staff or retreating from the situation. Rather than enact
an environment of andragogy, the principals re-enacted an environment of pedagogy. The
principals were the teachers and the teachers were the students, and the relationship recalled the
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 69
teachers’ own schooldays and the way they were treated as children. Not only did teachers need
to ask for permission to do something, there was punishment involved for not doing it the way
the principal expected it to be done. Further, in some instances, even the teachers’ very ideas
were dismissed as unworthy of mention because they were deemed “not good for students.”
These principals, in their attempt to align and control the school, actually extinguished potential
learning opportunities.
Research Question Two: Leadership Influence on Adult Learning
Research question two asked, “To what extent does principal leadership support and
influence professional development of teachers?” There is substantial and growing evidence of
the impact a school leader has on the learning that takes place on his campus for both adults and
students. Research and theory also tend to agree that students and adults each require their own
set of actions and behaviors from the leader in order to enact learning; thus, this makes for the
distinction between pedagogy and andragogy. Specifically, adult learning theory suggests that
principals can increase their leadership influence by giving teachers greater autonomy in day-to-
day decisions that affect their practice. This study sought to reveal specific actions and behaviors
around which principals can engage adult learning on their campus. The interviews revealed the
following themes: (1) Principals continue to make many decisions for their teachers, (2)
Principals want to enact the concepts of a professional learning community (PLC) through peer
teaching, and (3) Budget constraints have changed principal outlook on professional
development opportunities.
Principals Continue to Make Many Decisions for Teachers
The principals in this study described various and detailed ways in which they make
decisions for teachers with regards to what is taught, how it is taught, and even how it is
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 70
measured. Although these principals’ actions at times included practices of andragogy, they
were mostly unaware of this. Had they been able to better understand what they were doing and
how it was affecting their staffs’ decisions to learn or not to learn, they could have created better
learning outcomes for their teachers. These principals seemed to be preoccupied with the
Political Frame and their ability to effectively “run” the school. Both appeared wary of their
teachers’ underlying intentions and did not seem to take the time to validate and acknowledge
the desires and concerns of the teachers about their own practice.
Both of these principals chose to be part of a larger district initiative with an external
consulting group aimed at enhancing teaching practice to improve student achievement rates.
Teachers were not part of the discussion and were not asked in what way these consultants might
best help them. Teachers were simply directed to be part of this initiative which included in-
service days and consultants in their classrooms. Here was a tricky yet viable opportunity for the
principals to straddle this initiative by working closely with the consultants to support the
teachers. These two principals opted to simply direct staff to attend and allow the consultants to
do the rest. At Principal Martinez’s school, Teacher Engle shared her displeasure with the way
these in-service days went with regards to principal behavior:
It’s really hard…when you look at your two leaders doing other things. Having texts and
e-mails going on when we are supposed to be learning together is quite distracting. So,
you’re trying to listen, you’re trying to learn something. All this conversation is coming
out that is unrelated to what’s going on, and that’s coming from your leaders…that’s…I
don’t like that. You want to say, if this is important, shouldn’t you be listening, too?
Should you be learning as well? And it trickles down to the kids. They look at us as role
models and we look at our leaders, and I think that’s the biggest challenge. It’s nothing
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 71
personal, but I think the principal has ADHD and…but, you know, and that’s hard, but, if
you are supposed to learn something and put 100% into this, you should put the same into
it as well, and it’s actually discouraging when they’re not doing it.
Principal behavior did not mirror the importance of their words, and teachers noticed. Further,
since this was a principal decision, the behavior of the leader was critical. Although the principal
made the decision to bring this external source of professional development onto campus and
demand that teachers come and hear the message, the principal was not behaving in a way that
supported learning and teachers such as Engle took notice. Principal Martinez was not aware of
the impact of her behavior on the staff. She considered the training to be successful in terms of
how teachers implemented what they learned, “The teachers took the (PD) and ran with it. They
have shown that they can implement something that will help them help students.” She did not
indicate, however, how she measured this implementation or whether she asked for feedback
from staff with regards to how they felt about the implementation of these new strategies. A best
practice that includes concepts of adult learning theory is to have regular conversations with staff
regarding new learning that is used in the classroom. However, neither staff nor principal
indicated that follow-up conversations occurred. Rather, the principal conducted a series of
walk-throughs that, to her, indicated that there was a “successful implementation” of the
strategies.
When asked if the teachers knew what their goal was around the implementation of the
new strategies learned from the external provider, Teacher Engle responded, “Well, we really did
not discuss that much. We talked about the importance of the new strategies and we learned
about how to use them in the classroom, but we did not learn about any goal.” It is critical for
learning to be tied to a goal. The principal did not share how she provided a goal for this
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 72
learning. By not providing this goal, a mismatch between the purpose of learning the new
strategies and why they were being implemented was established. Bolman and Deal (1997)
remind us of the importance of establishing organizational goals as the vehicle for moving the
organization forward. Adult learning theory clearly established that adults must have a choice in
their own learning in order for it to be relevant and effective. Thus, a principal must create goals
with staff in order to develop authentic learning opportunities around such goals.
Principals want to enact the concepts of a PLC through peer teaching. In
professional learning communities, teachers come together around common problems of practice
with a clear focus on searching for solutions through action. Fundamental to this searching is the
idea of continuing to learn and grow, in a collaborative stance, as a professional. Both principals
in this study attempted to create opportunities for teachers to learn from teachers through having
them present at staff meetings. Traditionally staff meetings have been a collection of
announcements and “meeting for the sake of meeting” which rarely included staff learning from
each other, let alone presented with learning opportunities. As Principal Martinez noted, “When
I arrived (at the school), there was a tradition of having staff meetings regularly. At these
meetings, people would chat and snicker while the principal would make announcements and the
staff would give input as to how we should do an assembly schedule, a field trip, things like that,
but we never met with PD in mind.”
Principal Martinez changed these meetings so that they include “down and dirty” pieces
of professional development that last approximately 15 minutes. The problem with these types of
learning experiences is that they hardly qualify as anything but more information. For
professional learning communities to take shape, there must be a deep commitment from all staff
with regards to the importance of these opportunities. When I asked her what type of follow-up
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 73
she planned for these brief experiences, she responded that she had not thought of this. Although
using these meetings as a place to learn could be a good practice, it did not pass the threshold of
experience necessary to qualify as such. These short meetings were too episodic and did not have
a learning focus attached to them. Staff members arrived at these meetings expecting the usual
litany of events and announcements and were not prepared to come to collaborate and learn.
Thus, there must be an expectation of learning and a culture of learning must be developed in
order for such learning to take place in this type of environment.
Likewise, Principal Sanchez talked about the need for teachers to learn the new strategies
from the external provider. In addition to the in-service days, he explained he was going about
ensuring that these new strategies were implemented by stating, “I talk to my teachers and ask
them what they need. But I do not really want them to tell me what they need, I want them to
think.” Similar to Principal Martinez, Principal Sanchez struck upon a solid idea to improve
learning of staff by having conversations with teachers about their learning of the new strategies.
However, he, too, did not move beyond a surface level of ensuring this learning is implemented.
Principal behaviors that support the professional development of teachers include
working with staff to deeper levels of implementation of new learning. For example, had
Principal Martinez created an expectation that the staff meetings would be a time dedicated to
learning, and had she worked to cultivate this environment of learning, then she could have
created outcomes with more impact on student achievement. Both principals ceded some of their
power as leaders by not following through at deeper levels of implementation of teacher learning
opportunities. Further, neither of the two was open to giving teachers much choice as to what and
how they would learn.

LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 74
Budget Constraints have Altered Principal Views on Professional Development
The current economic downturn, which began in 2008, took a massive toll on the district
in which Principal Martinez and Principal Sanchez work. Their schools lost significant amounts
of dollars, staffing, and resources. This altered these two principals’ view on how professional
development should be undertaken. Incumbent within this view is that professional development
requires deep pockets to be effective. Leadership need not look outward to create effective
learning opportunities. Yet Principal Sanchez, when asked what he does to support the
professional development of teachers, responded:
I know it’s…if you want to use the term PD loosely, I am not sending teachers to
trainings anymore. Now, it’s a very focused, specific attempt…when I got here, teachers
were asking me, “Can I go to this, can I go here?” They want to go, but the question
remains, when you come back, what is the need, what are you going to do with it? My
expectation is, when you come back, you train staff…and that kind of squashed that, but I
am going to ask you, “what’s the focus, what’s the need and how are you going to bring it
back and put it into place, and how are you going to teach others?” So it changed from
where we are not going and doing as much of that to a more focused approach in terms of
working with (the external provider).
Principal Sanchez here assumes that professional development is something to be obtained as a
commodity that comes with a price tag. Doing so undermines his own ability to develop
resources on his own campus. Further, it dismisses any expertise that his own staff undoubtedly
houses. Striking is the fact that Principal Sanchez expects professional development to “happen”
off-site by paying for it. Teachers who requested to leave school for a day of professional
learning were denied because the principal decided that, not only was it too costly, but it was not
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 75
worthwhile. From this stance, the principal is making decisions as to what learning “his” teachers
“need.” The irony here is that the economic crisis could have spurred on more authentic, site-
based learned amongst staff. However, in this case, it only further shut down learning
opportunities for teachers as the principal perceived these opportunities to not exist on his
campus.
Meanwhile Principal Martinez, who admitted that her budget had “money to attend
conferences” in it, did not “relinquish” these dollars to teacher requests. “Our seventh and eighth
grade math teachers used to attend this conference every year,” she explained, “but they would
come back and it was like ‘what did you learn, what did you do?’ and so I finally held them
accountable and made them come back and teach staff and then they asked not to go anymore.”
Again, this is a quid pro quo in which teachers are essentially held hostage by the principal’s
demand that they teach others. These teachers were not even asked if they would like to share
upon their return. They were simply told to do so. The principal couched these comments within
the discussion of her not having the funding she did in previous years.
Both principals held the perception that professional development was something to be
purchased externally. Their responses exhibited this perception and how it eliminated many
learning opportunities for staff. Had they considered the expertise that lay in their respective
school sites and had they conceived of utilizing this expertise, they would have greatly improved
professional development opportunities for their teachers. As teacher Finn responded, “I used to
go to more trainings to stay current. Now, we are told we cannot go because there is no budget. I
was a little disappointed by this decision because I like to go and learn new things and stay fresh.
I like to go and get reinvigorated and bring that back to my students.” How might these
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 76
principals capture this enthusiasm to learn and harnessed it into something more powerful right
at their own school site?
Discussion of Research Question Two
Principals wield significant power over the teachers with whom they work. Should they
choose to use this power from the Political Frame, they can control their school—right down to
the opportunities they grant or deny their teachers to learn. Should they choose to use this power
from the Human Resource Frame, they can unleash an even greater power of transformational
learning amongst staff. Based on these ideas, two findings from research question two were (1)
Leadership influence can increase by giving teachers more autonomy with their learning and (2)
Principals are making the majority of the decisions with regards to teacher learning.
The principals in this study, although working hard to run their schools, did not give their
teachers much autonomy to undertake new learning endeavors. At both schools, when teachers
approached their principals about attending external learning opportunities, their principals shut
them down. The importance of this shut down lies within the leadership approach: an exacting
science of the Political Frame. Had these principals operated from the Human Resource frame
and approached these teachers with support and a stance of shared inquiry, they could have
developed their teachers’ learning much further.
With regards to decision-making, these principals continue to work from a stance of
pedagogy as opposed to andragogy. By requiring teachers to attend an externally provided
initiative without their input and by holding absolute authority over how and when learning
opportunities will be available, these principals are putting teachers in the position of the student
as opposed to that of an adult learner. Both principals dismissed their teachers’ requests to learn
and, in so doing, only created feelings of distrust amongst their teachers.
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 77
Principals must realize that they can wield even more power through a shared leadership
that values the teachers’ input and in which a shared stance of inquiry is the norm. Creating
tension in the learning environment begins when our values, opinions, and desires to learn and
know are considered with depth and importance. Cultivating an environment where learning is
shared and where opportunities are considered is essential for leaders to influence professional
development of teachers.
Research Question Three: Leadership Approaches that Support Adult Learning
Research question three asked, “What leadership approach best supports adult learning
and professional development?” The purpose of this question was to understand models of
principal leadership that best support adult learning. This study sought to understand how a
school leader can best enact adult learning on a school campus. Implicit within this statement is
the substantial body of research which points to the critical role of the principal in shaping the
vision and learning outcomes for students as well as the adults working on the campus.
Principals and teachers were interviewed in a search for examples of practices that affect the
conditions for learning amongst the adults on campus. With the arrival of the new Common
Core State Standards, teachers must embark on their own learning journey as they consider the
complexities of implementing teaching and learning practices for 21
st
century learners.
Principals must recognize that, as adults, teachers are at various thresholds of their respective
journeys and that they will require different paths to arrive at a similar destination. Research
question three elicited two central themes. First, teachers are granted very limited decision-
making with regards to their own learning. Second, principals do not adequately understand the
strengths and weaknesses of their staff.

LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 78
Teachers are Granted Limited Decision-making with Regards to their Own Learning.
Both the principals in this study could, in many regards, be considered authoritarian in
how they managed their schools. The majority of the decisions around curriculum
implementation and assessment were not given to the teachers to decide by these principals.
Both Principals Martinez and Sanchez gave mandates to their teachers with regards to the when
of assessment and the how of curriculum delivery. In response to this, the teachers interviewed
voiced their frustrations over their perceptions of being constrained as to their ability to chart
their own course of action in their classrooms. Principal Martinez described a district-wide
writing initiative. All teachers attended training around the implementation of the Six Traits of
Writing over the course of three years. She considered how teachers “bemoaned” having to go
through this training and sympathized with them in regards to the training being “carried out
ineffectively” by the district. However, this is the principal’s perception of what it was that the
teachers were “crying about.” Teacher Engle responded to her principal’s suggestion by stating:
These training days were hard for us, but not because we didn’t like the information, but
because we did not feel supported when we came back to our school. Here we were with
all this information on writing and we were just supposed to start doing it in our
classrooms. What was the plan, where was the support for that?
Teacher Engle refutes Principal Martinez’s perception of teachers “crying” about “the way the
district” carried out the training. What Teacher Engle was complaining about was taking place
back at the school site, where the locus of control was tightly under Principal Martinez’s
leadership.
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 79
Principal Sanchez took what at first glance would be considered a different approach to
how he leads his school. He described frequent visits to teacher groups during their PLC times.
He did this informally, to see how they were progressing towards goals:
It’s just sitting down and dialoguing with them, “how’s it going, what do you need,” and
so this process opens up the lines of communication to see if they need professional
development or continuing support and what that looks like. “Do I need to sub you out to
go see this or …” and that’s all learning…but, to me, it’s the dialogue, it’s the
conversation. Because I need to hear from them. It’s how I get buy-in.
Distressing in this quote is how Principal Sanchez seems to use this time not to genuinely hear
out the teachers’ concerns and challenges, but rather to “get buy-in” to his vision or plan. Later
in the interview, he said this is his goal: to converse with staff in order to get them to understand
his vision better. Although he appears to be acting from the Human Frame, he is actually acting
from the Political Frame. His goal was not to help teachers learn and grow; it was to get them to
buy into his vision. A principal such as Sanchez hoping to gain support for his vision is not a bad
idea, but it should not be shrouded in a conversation that appears to be about adult learning
needs. Not surprisingly, one of the teachers interviewed from his school, Teacher X, picked up
on this nuance. She stated, “I am not always sure where he is coming from” when talking about
how he supports teachers in their attempts to learn. Teacher X is a veteran teacher who has seen
many principals at her school. She is at least 15 years older than Principal Sanchez. She does
not feel that he reached out to her in a way that honors her years of practice in the classroom.
This relationship highlights the need for a principal to place an emphasis on being present in
their conversation with staff. In this context, being present means a principal would listen with
an open mind to what the teacher says, without placing meaning underneath the conversation.
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 80
Although Principal Sanchez has good ideas in mind, they are misconstrued, and he undermines
his own potential by assuming he must engage in interpersonal conversations in order to set his
vision and “get buy in.” The scenario at each school is similar in that the principal is attempting
to control the environment to the point where s/he creates negative energy from the teachers.
These two principals have good intentions, but they placed a stranglehold on teachers’ ability to
act in a course they see fit for their classrooms. Rather than work with the teachers to discover
their needs with them, the teachers were either perceived to be bellyaching or lead astray.
Teacher Finn, a teacher at Principal Martinez’s school, supported Teacher Engle’s
sentiments with regards to feeling that the teachers at this school are under significant restrictions
as to how they are truly allowed to manage and construct their own instructional core. Teacher
Finn, a veteran of over thirty years in middle school classrooms, believes that Principal Martinez
is hard to read and is not very approachable. She feels that Principal Martinez has an agenda that
is not teacher friendly. “I just feel like she wants us to do whatever she wants…she never asks us
what we think.” When probed to ask why Teacher Finn felt this way, she responded that she
really wasn’t sure, other than she thought that Principal Martinez “spent an awful lot of time in
her office. And when she does come through my room, she will chuckle and say, ‘Just
checking.’ How am I supposed to interpret that?” Teacher Finn enjoys teaching her seventh
graders English Language Arts despite her current administrator. She continues to focus on her
students without worrying too much about Principal Martinez. However, the way most schools
are conceptualized, the principal plays an important role and the teachers by and large respect
and expect that role to be as such. In interviewing this teacher, it was apparent that she was a
very knowledgeable and intelligent teacher with much enthusiasm for her students and
dedication to her craft. Principal Martinez did not mention this teacher to me during our
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 81
interview. Part of giving teachers the authority to create their own learning path comes from
knowing one’s teachers and understanding the experience and resources they bring with them.
Principals must have an understanding of their teachers’ needs in order to learn how they
can best help them be successful by continuing to learn and grow both as professionals and as
people. This understanding needs to be created by developing a trusting, open environment
where teachers are encouraged to share in the vision-making process and are allowed to have
significant say in the design and execution of their own instructional core. Principals must be the
ones to create mutual trust with teachers so that a learning environment can evolve that allows
teachers and principals to work together towards learning goals for both students as well as
adults. Although Principal Sanchez talked about how he asks questions of his staff, he also
admitted that he engaged in this activity by leading questions that he wanted to ask in order to
elicit specific responses that will support his “buy-in.”
Principals do not Adequately Understand the Strengths and Weaknesses of their own Staff
Teachers do not require the oversight and guidance with their learning that children do.
Principals, many recalling their days in the classroom, often treat their staff members as though
they were still children. Enacting pedagogical practices with adults is not an effective means to
increase learning for teachers. First, however, principals must understand what their teachers’
needs are with regards to the learning that must take place in order to meet the demands of 21
st

century learners. Paramount to creating a learning organization is allowing people within the
organization to contribute knowledge that will lead to success.
Principal Martinez previously worked at a continuation school for elementary-aged
students. She explained to me how this school had a system of employing a question-and-answer
system for the students that was meant to reward positive behavior. The principal then described
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 82
how she uses this system with the adults on her campus. She described how, when a teacher asks
her for something, she responds with a question like, “Well, is that what you want to do? Explain
to me why you would want to do it this way?” The juvenile nature of these types of questions
pigeonholes teacher requests as something akin to a 12-year-old asking to be excused from a
class discussion. This behavior butts heads with the expectations of adult learning theory. As
Teacher Engle remarked:
I feel like sometimes she doesn’t understand where we are all going. She encourages me,
and I appreciate that, but I know she does not do this for everyone. I know she does not
speak this way with all of our teachers because, when we talk (the teachers), many of
them complain that they do not get the answers they want from her.
Principal Martinez does not cultivate her staff the way she does with Teacher Engle. Her
behavior then becomes a conditional set of actions given to some while limited to others.
Principal Martinez would be wise to get to know her staff better by working with them on their
goals instead of using an authoritarian approach that uses questions with an interrogating sense to
them to get staff “in line.” In order to create a learning organization, Principal Martinez would
be wise to treat all staff members the way she treats Teacher Engle. Teacher Engle’s comments
suggest that she, too, would feel more inclined to reciprocate her personal learning needs with
Principal Martinez if there were a greater understanding among all staff members about learning
and the aim of these learnings.
In discussing how he tries to have conversations with staff around professional
development, Principal Sanchez commented, “So you have to have the conversation that is not
personal, but it is about the program or the teaching. It is tough at this school.” Evidence is
unfolding that, although the conversation need not be deeply personal, it does need to take into
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 83
account the teacher as a person. Teacher Morelos considers Principal Sanchez to be a good
principal, but he also stated:
I like him, but I am not sure if he understands me. I appreciate what he is trying to do,
but I also feel like it is different for other teachers. Some of us get along with him while
others…well I don’t know if some of our teachers would get along with any principal.
It appears that teachers value being known as individuals on a personal level. This aligns with
the principles of andragogy: adults as autonomous learners with self-oriented goals that are about
their own path who are recognized as important individuals.
Critical for both these principals is to share their vision with staff. Sharing the vision for
Principals Martinez and Sanchez would begin by creating an open and trusting dialogue with
staff around learning opportunities and their practice. Both principals showed a trend toward
questioning teachers’ motives and reasons for their actions. Paramount to any vision is
developing a culture of commitment to the vision. The principals in this study could shape a
meaningful vision by creating space for teachers to lend their talents to the formation and
implementation of this integral element of any successful organization. School leaders must lead
in a way that fulfills their teams with deep satisfaction with regards to the goals that are to be
attained. The first step for leaders is to build relationships based on an open dialogue around the
work that their organization’s members do. In the case of this study, principals must create a
dialogue with teachers about what they do in the instructional core, every day, with their
students.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to examine school leadership and its effect on adult
learning and professional development opportunities. This chapter presented results of this study
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 84
regarding two principals’ knowledge, understanding, and practice of what they are doing to enact
ongoing professional learning for all adults on their campus. The data revealed three findings.
First, there is a mismatch between what principals knew of adult learning and how they
purported to use this knowledge with teachers. Second, principals do not adequately include
teachers in the decision-making process. Third, principals do not adequately understand the
strengths and weaknesses of their staff. Chapter Five presents suggestions based on these results
to improve adult learning and what principals can do to undertake these improvements.

LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 85
CHAPTER FIVE: STUDY FINDINGS
This study sought to understand the influence of leadership on adult learning on a school
campus, how a school leader enacts learning opportunities for staff, and how teachers respond to
these opportunities. Teachers are the single most influential factor in determining student
outcomes (Hanushek, 2003; Spillane 2002; Wright, Horn & Saunders, 1997). In order for
students to meet the demands of the 21
st
century, teachers must possess the increasingly
sophisticated content knowledge, pedagogical skills, and beliefs necessary to adequately affect
these outcomes (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Elmore, 2000; Heckman & Montera, 2009;
Resnick, 2003). Teachers’ continuous learning of new knowledge and classroom implementation
of new skills are fundamental to U.S. education reform (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Elmore,
2000). This study sought to uncover how principals meet the demands for increased teacher
professional growth as well as how they provide ongoing professional learning opportunities.
Schools and teachers are not equipped with the knowledge, skills, and ideologies
necessary to adequately respond to the demands of standards-based reform (Elmore, 2000). The
need to improve the quality of teaching, large-scale reforms and policy-based external
accountability led to measures aimed at altering the character of classroom instruction in the
United States, with the results being mostly unsuccessful (Elmore, 2000; Kennedy, 2004).
Studies of professional development consistently point out the ineffectiveness of most programs
(Guskey, 2002; Kennedy, 1998). These programs largely mimic the factory model of teaching
developed over a century ago: place adults in a classroom with an instructor in front of the room
who imparts the knowledge students need to be successful (Guskey, 2002; Heckman & Montera,
2009). This model does not offer teachers the ongoing, sustainable learning opportunities
required to change the face of the instructional core (Elmore, 2000; Heckman & Montera, 2009;
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 86
Webster-Wright, 2009). Federal, state, and local policy initiatives do not support the type of
learning-centered and learner-centered schools that both educators and students need to thrive
and contribute to a global society (Darling-Hammond, 1997). For schools to improve, they must
create a culture of learning which supports and develops teachers’ “intrinsic motivation, self-
esteem, dignity, curiosity to learn [and the] joy in learning” embody many of the qualities
inherent in successful reform models (Darling-Hammond, 1995; Darling-Hammond, 1997;
Senge, 1990).
The purpose of this study was to examine school leadership and its effect on adult
learning and professional development opportunities. This study focused on aspects leadership
that positively or negatively affected the will and capacity of teachers to learn and the types of
PD that best enhance student outcomes. Educators need to understand how leadership that directs
the school is a critical influence on how they continue to learn and grow professionally and
personally. If we better understand the relationship between leadership, PD and adult learning,
then we can foster better environments in which adult learning can thrive. If adult learning can
thrive, then student opportunities to acquire the increasingly sophisticated skills demanded of a
21
st
century learner will also increase.
Using a critical qualitative approach (Merriam, 2002) based on the conceptualization of
andragogy put forth by Knowles and Mezirow, the research questions for this study are:
1. To what extent does principal leadership support and influence adult learning for
teachers?
2. To what extent does principal leadership support and influence professional
development for teachers?
3. What leadership approach best supports adult learning and professional development?
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 87
The Four Frames of Bolman and Deal (1997) served as a lens to explain leader dynamics
and their impact on adult learning and professional development. Bolman and Deal (1997)
combined years of research and various schools of thought into the development of their four
frames of leadership. These four frames, structural, human resource, political, and symbolic, can
be useful in understanding how a leader can best approach a situation. Effective leaders have
been shown to use any number of frames (Thompson, 2000). What is important is to understand
which frame works best for a specific situation. In the case of the present study, the frames were
used in relation to the research questions.
Discussion of Findings
The purpose of this study was to examine school leadership and its effect on adult
learning and professional development opportunities. Chapter four presented results of this
study on two principals’ knowledge, understanding, and practice of what they are doing to enact
ongoing professional learning for all adults on their campus. The data revealed three findings.
First, principals should operate from Bolman and Deal’s (1997) Human Resource Frame to have
an impact on adult learning. Second, principals do not adequately include teachers in the
decision-making process. Third, principals do not adequately know and understand the strengths
and weaknesses of their staff.
Principals Create More Impact using the Human Resource Frame
The principals under study purported to use concepts of andragogy—adult learning
theory—that were not perceived as effective by the teachers with whom they worked. Further,
these principals assumed they were using concepts of adult learning to foster teacher learning.
The teachers in the study did not see nor take part in any of the actions that the principals
purported to enact with the teachers. Bolman and Deal offer keen insight to this apparent
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 88
mismatch between principals and teachers through the Four Frames of Leadership. The data
suggested that both principals operated under a considerably strict Political Frame of Leadership
that did not allow them to understand the value of investing in people from another point of
view. For the adults in a school campus to thrive, they must continue to learn and grow.
Employees who continue to learn and grow are the heart of any organization that desires to
continue to improve (Senge, 1990; Heckman & Montera, 2009). One of the most essential
elements to promote this growth is a leader who perceives their members as important—not just
as “teachers”, but as people (Bolman & Deal, 1997). With regards to this study, principals, then,
must view their teachers and school employees similar to the way one hopes teachers view their
students: with a sincere belief and deep conviction that they are great people with an important
future. The principals in this study seemingly believed in their people but did not express this
belief in ways consistent with the Human Resource Frame. Instead, they leaned heavily upon
their Political Frame tendencies to try to move people towards new goals and new forms of
practice.
Learning-centered leadership puts the learner and the learning at the center of a
principal’s practice (Goldring et al, 2007; Heckman & Montera, 2009; Webster-Wright, 2009).
In this study, the learner is the teacher and the learning facilitator is the principal. Thus, the
principal can best facilitate this learning by creating Human Resource-framed work environment
where safety and belonging are established so that generative thought can be fostered (Bolman &
Deal, 2007). The extant literature concurs that adults learn best when they are in an environment
that appreciates them as people and gives them opportunity to develop and experiment with their
own ideas.

LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 89
Principals do not Adequately Include Teachers in the Decision-making Process
The data revealed that one way teachers feel valued is by being part of the decision-
making process in their school. The two principals under study did not do enough to include their
teachers in the decision-making at their schools. Organizations that strive to learn and grow—as
American public schools must do—value their members by involving them in critical aspects of
the organization (Senge, 1990). Adult learning is more likely to increase when adults see the
reason for their learning as directly linked to goals that are personally relevant to them (Knowles,
1978). Thus, principals must include teachers to help shape goals or decide a course of action.
Principals who do this will not only gain trust from their teachers, but they will also create a
tighter alignment of goals (Elmore, 2000; Reeves, 2008). A caring and trusting work
environment will better support a learning organization where members thrive and generative
ideas abound (Goldring et al, 2007; Senge, 1990).
Principals do not Adequately Know the Strengths and Weaknesses of their Staff
Key to affecting teacher learning is for teachers to be known by their leaders. In other
words, it is critical that principals have a significant understanding of what teachers are capable
of with regards to their strengths and weaknesses related to their teaching practice. The
principals in this study assumed many characteristics about their teachers that the teachers did
not agree with. This was specifically seen in terms of which teachers felt comfortable in front of
groups of peers and which teachers did not. The two principals in this study turned teachers off
to learning by insisting they come back and share what they had learned with colleagues. Rather
than develop a learning environment, this authoritarian approach only closed doors and
strengthened “egg crate” classrooms at the schools. This concept of understanding others was
relatively absent from the literature but was made abundantly clear by Bolman and Deal (1997).
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 90
They argued that leaders who seek to change what is known inside the system must support the
appetite for new knowledge by having a keen understanding of their organization members.
Limitations
The greatest potential impact to this study’s limitations was its scope. It covered only
two schools and had a small sample of teachers at each school. While this allowed for delving
deeper into each interviewee’s responses and, thus, gain greater insights from those involved in
the study, more voices would have provided a robust view of teacher perceptions and principal
practices. This type of sample was selected, however, because it is worthwhile to be able to have
ample interview data included into the results.
Implications for Practice
The findings of this study yield two important implications for principal practice. First,
principals must operate from a Human Resource frame in order to effectively provide adult
learning opportunities. Second, principals must create space for adults working on their campus
to learn and grow. The data revealed that teachers will reach out to administrators who give them
opportunities to do so—especially when acting through a Human Resource frame which
implicitly values interpersonal relationships. The sections below explain both of these
implications in detail and give an example of how they can be implemented practically.
Operate from a Human Resource Frame
In order to more effectively provide adult learning opportunities, principals should
operate from the Human Resource frame. Knowledge of how to operate from this frame aligns
closely with how to best enact adult learning theory. This frame operates with the understanding
that there is genuine interest in the person around which the learning is to occur. In this case, the
learners are teachers (indeed, all adults) on a school campus. The locus of the learning is the
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 91
teacher. Teachers must be given the space to learn and not merely “granted” opportunities to
learn (Webster-Wright, 2009). This means that principals who want to truly guide teacher
learning must operate from a place of trust and respect in which the teacher is an equal educator
(Elmore, 2000). As Elmore (2000) notes, teachers who are asked to do something new (i.e.,
employ new ways of practice) must be given reciprocal amounts of time to make sense of and
incorporate these new elements into their practice. The implication for principals is that they
must respond to the learning needs of their teachers with reciprocal accountability—by giving
teachers this cherished time and space to think, reflect, and generate new ideas (Cochran-Smith
& Lytle, 2009; Elmore, 2000).
To implement this concept, principals must give teachers time to dialogue, plan, think,
and share together. Gathering teachers in a welcoming place such as a meeting room on campus
and allowing them a day to “sub out” is a great start. It is important that this type of day be held
on campus, start promptly at the beginning of the contractual day, and not finish, likewise, until
the teacher day is over. In order to reciprocate the accountability, the principal must provide
guidelines as well as expectations for the day; the teachers can set their own goals. The principal
must, then, request that there are outcomes at the end of the day. Ensuring there are outcomes at
the end of the day is an example of reciprocal accountability (Elmore, 2000).
The results from Chapter Four suggest that teachers responded with disappointment that
their essential well-intentioned administrators had closed down opportunities for authentic
learning. The underlying suggestion is that teachers do seek out their leaders with regards to their
own learning. Thus, the leader must continue to create the conditions for this learning to occur.
Knowledge of andragogy and operating from the Human Resource frame can increase the
likelihood that adult learning will grow on a school site.
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 92
Create Space
Principals must create space for adults working on their campus to learn and grow. For
many in today’s schools, this approach is commonly referred to as a professional learning
community. However, the findings of this study suggest we must go beyond the mere structure
of a learning community approach for principals to affect the learning and growth of the adults
on their campus. Principals must create this space by developing a culture of trust and
intellectual inquisition (Bolman & Deal, 1997; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Elmore, 2000).
The beginning of developing this culture is for the principal to understand and know the
strengths and weaknesses of each staff member. Taking the time to get to know the people
whom the administrator will “lead” is critical to the success of the organization (Knowles, 1978;
Mezirow, 1991; Reeves, 2008; Webster-Wright, 2009). An example of how this can be
accomplished is through Compelling Conversations (Piercy, 2007). These conversations require
substitutes to roam around campus relieving teachers so they can have a one-on-one conversation
with the principal. The conversation should entail pointed questions about the teacher’s goals for
the year as well as how they plan to achieve these goals. The principal should offer support and
helps strategize these goals. Based on the data the principal collects from these conversations, a
needs assessment can be created to help the principal support the goals of teachers. This is
another example of a reciprocal approach where the principal’s actions support the mutually
agreed-upon goals of the teachers.
Future Research
Research moving forward from this study must focus on the interpersonal human
relationships that exist on a school campus and the continuously evolving needs of the teacher
practitioners on campus. We must continue to uncover how school leaders can best support the
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 93
learning outcomes of their teachers in order to affect the learning outcomes of students. Much
evidence exists that suggests that more knowledgeable teachers beget more knowledgeable
students (Darling-Hammond, 2009; Elmore, 1996; Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development [OECD], 2008). Developing strong and knowledgeable teachers is, however, a
complex task (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Helsing et al, 2008). Continuing to investigate
models of leadership that link Bolman and Deal’s (1997) work with special attention to the
knowledge implicit in the Human Resource frame would yield salient themes. Research should
link adult learning theory to human capital investment anchored in Elmore’s (1996, 2000)
“Instructional Core.”
The work of Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009) created a path to continue studying the
learning needs of teachers through close dialogue with and understanding of what it means to be
a classroom practitioner. Rather than assume that teachers are simply experts of technical
knowledge, ready to receive help on implementing a new plan or system, we must view them as
deliberative, intellectual people who want to theorize about and make sense of new ideas and
plans as well (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). Principals are poised to be the catalysts for
helping teachers reach new heights as individuals as well as practitioners; research in this
direction can focus this meaningful endeavor.
Conclusions
Fundamental to preparing students to meet the demands of the 21
st
century are the
classroom practitioners and the principals who guide and support them. American schools
continue to lag behind global counterparts, many of whom require much more knowledge and
professional development of their teachers, yet this study illustrated that it is not enough to
merely up the ante on the quantity of professional development teachers receive. Rather,
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 94
principals must act as a lynchpin between ongoing learning opportunities that fit teachers’ needs
and the demands of a 21
st
century curriculum that will more fully realize the democratic ideal of
education in the United States.
There is no shortage of pre-packaged curriculum ready to be implemented in classrooms
by installing technical knowledge into teachers. This study argued that doing so misses a key
component of ensuring better student outcomes. We must continue to research how to best meet
the needs of teacher practitioners who go into classrooms every day with the intention of
teaching students the critical skills and concepts they will need to navigate an increasingly
sophisticated global marketplace. Further studies on how adult learning can become
operationalized throughout America’s K-12 campuses must be explored as a next step to
improving practice and fostering authentic change. Teachers who understand how they learn,
who take a stance of inquiry toward their practice, and who employ elements of action research
around problems of practice will correlate to improved student outcomes.
Finally, principals play a vital role in ensuring that teachers have the opportunities
necessary to continue to grow both professional and personally. School leaders must not only
encourage staff to be curious and act upon their curious nature. They must sustain this desire to
know and learn through development of a culture that values learning as the core of why they
exist. The consequences of ignoring this call for further research will signify another missed
opportunity for American Education reform. We must continue to strengthen the link between
principal actions and behaviors and their effects on a school culture that acts as a true learning
organization.

LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 95
References
Blase, J. (2001). Empowering teachers: What successful principals do. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Blase, J. J. (1987). Dimensions of effective school leadership: The teacher’s
perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 24(4), 589-610.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers’ perspectives on how
principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational
Administration, 38(2), 130-141.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Brookfield, S. (1984). Self-directed adult learning: A critical paradigm. Adult Education
Quarterly, 35(2), 59-71.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher
learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 249-305.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2001). Beyond certainty: Taking an inquiry stance on
practice. Teachers Caught in the Action: Professional Development that Matters, 45-58.
Cohen, J., McCabe, L., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy,
practice, and teacher education. The Teachers College Record, 111(1), 180-213.
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Dall’Alba, G., & Sandberg, J. (2006). Unveiling professional development: A critical review of
stage models. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 383-412.
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 96
Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Professional development schools: Schools for developing a
profession. ERIC.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. the
Jossey-Bass education series. ERIC.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters, what leaders can
do. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 6-13.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Teaching for
Intelligence, 2, 91-100.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2007). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What
teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession. Washington, DC: National Staff
Development Council.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development:
Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.
Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of
professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal
study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.
Drago-Severson, E. (2012). New opportunities for principal leadership: Shaping school climates
for enhanced teacher development. Teachers College Record, 114(3), 1-44.
Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational
Review, 66(1), 1-27.
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 97
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: Albert
Shanker Institute.
Elmore, R. F. (2003). A plea for strong practice. Educational Leadership, 61(3), 6-11.
Feuer, M. J., Towne, L., & Shavelson, R. J. (2002). Scientific culture and educational
research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 4-14.
Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Ansell, E., & Behrend, J. (1998). Understanding
teachers' self-sustaining, generative change in the context of professional
development1. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 67-80.
Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership Sage.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change Routledge.
Gardner, D. P. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: The National Commission on
Excellence in Education, US Department of Education.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of
teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational
Researcher, 15(5), 5-12.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching:
Theory and Practice, 8(3), 381-391.
Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development. Phi Delta
Kappan, 90(7), 495-500.
Hallinger, P. (1992). The evolving role of American principals: From managerial to instructional
to transformational leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3).
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 98
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and
transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329-352.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and
transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329-352.
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that
refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221-239.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: A
review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1),
5-44.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school
effectiveness: 1980 ‐1995 ∗. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157-191.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of
principals. The Elementary School Journal, 217-247.
Hanushek, E. A. (2003). The failure of Input ‐based schooling policies. The Economic
Journal, 113(485), F64-F98.
Hanushek, E. A. (2003). The importance of school quality. Our Schools and our Future: Are we
Still at Risk, 141-173.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 metanalyses related to achievement.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters... a lot. Magazine of History, 61-63.
Heckman, P., & Montera, V. (2009). School reform: The flatworm in a flat world: From entropy
to renewal through indigenous invention. The Teachers College Record, 111(5), 1328-
1351.
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 99
Hoerr, T. R. (2005). The art of school leadership. ERIC.
Hursh, D. (2005). The growth of high ‐stakes testing in the USA: Accountability, markets and the
decline in educational equality. British Educational Research Journal, 31(5), 605-622.
Kennedy, A. (2005). Models of continuing professional development: A framework for
analysis. Journal of in-Service Education, 31(2), 235-250.
Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., Honig, M. I., Plecki, M. L., & Portin, B. S. (2010). Learning-
focused leadership and leadership support: Meaning and practice in urban
systems. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy–University of
Washington.
Knowles, M., Holton III, E., & Swanson, R. (1998). The adult learner: The definitive classic in
adult education and human resource management. Houston, TX: Gulf.
Knowles, M. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston, TX: Gulf.
Knowles, M. S. (1968). Andragogy, not pedagogy. Adult Leadership, 16(10), 350-352.
LaPoint, M., Meyerson, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Preparing and supporting principals
for effective leadership: Early findings from Stanford’s school leadership study. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school
leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27-42.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational
conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational
Administration, 38(2), 112-129.
Loucks-Horsley, S. (1998). The role of teaching and learning in systemic reform: A focus on
professional development. Science Educator, 7(1), 1-6.
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 100
Louis, K. S. (2006). Changing the culture of schools: Professional community, organizational
learning, and trust. Journal of School Leadership, 16(5), 477.
Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and
analysis. City, ST: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Education
Quarterly, 32(1), 3-24.
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 1997(74), 5-12.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress.
The Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series. ERIC.
Murphy, J. (2005). Unpacking the foundations of ISLLC standards and addressing concerns in
the academic community. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 154-191.
Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2007). Leadership for learning: A
research-based model and taxonomy of behaviors 1. School Leadership and
Management, 27(2), 179-201.
Newton, X. A., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., & Thomas, E. (2010). Value-added modeling
of teacher effectiveness: An exploration of stability across models and
contexts. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(23), n23.
Newton, X. A., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., & Thomas, E. (2010). Value-added modeling
of teacher effectiveness: An exploration of stability across models and
contexts. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(23), n23.
Northouse, P. G. (2012). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative research. Wiley Online Library.
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 101
Reeves, D. B. (2006). Leading to change: Preventing 1,000 failures. Educational
Leadership, 64(3), 88-89.
Reeves, D. B. (2006). The learning leader: How to focus school improvement for better
results. ERIC.
Reischmann, J. & Brown, Jr., M. (Eds.). (2008). Comparative adult education 2008: Experiences
and examples. A publication of the International Society for Comparative Adult
Education, 1983.
Resnick, L. B. (2003). Reforms, research and variability: A reply to Lois Weiner. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 11(28), n28.
Resnick, L. B., & Hall, M. W. (2000). Principles of learning for effort-based
education. Principles of Learning: Study Tools for Educators (CD-ROM), Version, 3
Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P., & Horn, S. P. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on
student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 11(1), 57-67.
Senge, P. M. (1990). the fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New
York: Publisher.
Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (2004). What drives scientific research in education. American
Psychological Society, 17(4), 27-30.
Slayton, J., & Mathis, J. (2010). Building the leaders we need: The role of presence, learning
conditions, and andragogy in developing leaders who can change the face of public pre-K
through 12 education. Advances in Educational Administration, 11, 23-45.
Spillane, J. P. (2009). Managing to lead: Reframing school leadership and management. Phi
Delta Kappan, 91(3), 70-73.
LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 102
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice:
A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 23-28.
Spillane, J. P., & Louis, K. S. (2002). School improvement processes and practices: Professional
learning for building instructional capacity. Yearbook of the National Society for the
Study of Education, 101(1), 83-104.
Strizek, G. A., Pittsonberger, J. L., Riordan, K. E., Lyter, D. M., & Orlofsky, G. F. (2006).
Characteristics of schools, districts, teachers, principals, and school libraries in the United
States: 2003-04 schools and staffing survey. ED TAB. NCES 2006-313. Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Superfine, B. M. (2005). The politics of accountability: The rise and fall of goals 2000. American
Journal of Education, 112(1), 10-43.
Thompson, M. D. (2000). Gender, leadership orientation, and effectiveness: Testing the
theoretical models of Bolman & deal and Quinn. Sex Roles, 42(11-12), 969-992.
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding
authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702-739.
Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional
knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional
development. Review of Research in Education, 173-209.

LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 103

Appendix A
Principal Interview Protocol
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern
California’s Rossier School of Education. I am studying the influence of school leadership on
teacher learning and professional development. The purpose of this interview is to gain a better
understanding of what school leaders know about how adults learn, the importance of
professional development, and how school leaders can use their influence to promote the
learning and professional development of their staff members. The information gathered from
this interview will be analyzed as part of a qualitative study. This interview should take about 45
minutes. May I record this interview? Do you have any questions for me before we begin?

Questions
A. Biographic Information
1. Could you tell me a little bit about your background in education and how you
came to your current position?
2. How long have you been the principal of this school?

B. Leadership Knowledge of adult Learning
1. Are you familiar with the adult learning theory or the term andragogy?
2. What are the effective elements of adult learning?
3. What do you consider to be your role in the ongoing learning of your teachers?
4. How do you promote ongoing teacher learning at your school?

C. Leadership influence of adult learning and professional development
1. How do you enact professional development for teachers at your school?
2. In what ways has professional development changed since you have been
principal? What has contributed to this change?

D. Leadership approaches that support adult learning
1. In what ways has professional development changed since you have been
principal? What has contributed to this change?
2. How do you foster the continued growth and development of your teachers?

Thank you for your time.

LEADERSHIP AND ADULT LEARNING ON CAMPUS 104
Appendix B
Teacher Interview Protocol
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern
California’s Rossier School of Education. I am studying the influence of school leadership on
teacher learning and professional development. The purpose of this interview is to gain a better
understanding of what school leaders know about how adults learn, the importance of
professional development, and how school leaders can use their influence to promote the
learning and professional development of their staff members. The information gathered from
this interview will be analyzed as part of a qualitative study. This interview should take about 45
minutes. May I record this interview? Do you have any questions for me before we begin?

Questions
A. Biographic Information
1. Could you tell me a little bit about your background in education and how you
came to your current position?
2. Durfee/Arroyo/Cal Poly/Pt. Loma
3. How long have you been in your current position as teacher at this school?

B. Leadership Knowledge of adult Learning
1. How often do you have opportunities to engage in professional learning?
2. Structures impede. District PD days=manageable chunks. EL Coach gives
support.
3. Describe a recent learning experience and how it impacted you. DII
4. How does your principal support your ongoing professional learning? Very
Supportive

C. Leadership influence of adult learning and professional development
1. Do you feel that your own learning is enhanced by the leadership of your school?
No…modeling.
2. Is professional development of teachers a priority at your school? 50%
divided…some teachers doing research/looking into new strategies.

D. Leadership approaches that support adult learning
1. How does your principal foster your continued growth as a professional? She
encourages me. She pushes me to go further…don’t see it as a school. Teachers have learned
to .
2. Does your principal support your efforts to grow and learn (i.e. attend conferences,
take classes, attend workshops, try new practices, and support risk-taking)?
Definitely. Kids first.
3. What have you learned from your principal about your practice as a teacher?
OCD Type A

Thank you for your time.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to discover how school site principals can have an impact on the learning of adults working in schools. One of the fundamental elements of U.S. education reform rests on teachers’ constant and ongoing learning of new knowledge and ideologies and implementation of new skills and strategies. The contemporary global marketplace places a greater demand than ever before on schools to produce a highly‐skilled workforce. Principals and teachers must work together to meet these demands. In order to meet these demands, teachers must continue to learn new knowledge and skills and employ them as part of their daily practice. This study employed a critical qualitative approach (Merriam, 2002) utilizing Bolman and Deal (1997) as a lens through which to examine school leadership and its influence on professional development and teacher learning. Two principals and four teachers were interviewed on various and separate occasions. These interviews elicited much data about how principals can have an impact on the learning of all adults working in their schools. ❧ Findings emerged from this study that can assist other principals better understand how they can increase and enhance adult learning at their school. Principals must have an understanding of what adult learning is, how it is different from teaching children, and how they can enact the tenets of adult learning at their school. Further, principals must share the decision‐making responsibility for ongoing learning opportunities with their teachers and the staff. Sharing this responsibility invites teachers to seek out what they want to know to improve as opposed to what an external source suggests for improvement. Finally, principals will create more opportunities to learn for all adults working in the school when they operate from Bolman and Deal’s (1997) Human Resource Frame.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The leadership skills, knowledge, and training required of high school principals to effectively evaluate classroom teachers

PDF

Effective leadership practices used by middle school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

Superintendents increase student achievement by selecting effective principals

PDF

Teacher management style: its impact on teacher-student relationships and leadership development

PDF

A case study of promising leadership practices employed by principals of Knowledge Is Power Program Los Angeles (KIPP LA) charter school to improve student achievement

PDF

The effect of globalization and multinational corporations on primary and secondary schools in Costa Rica: implications for educational, political, and corporate leaders

PDF

A case study on the impact of globalization and multinational corporations on the development of 21st-century skills and educational leadership

PDF

The characteristics of high schools that have successfully implemented Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

PDF

Charter school leadership

PDF

Comparative study of the networked principal vs. the isolated principal

PDF

The impact of globalization and multinational corporations on higher education in Costa Rica and implications for educational leaders

PDF

Should it say or should it go: how successful superintendents build, shift, and transform district culture in an age of increasing accountability

PDF

Effects of Masters in governance training and school board leadership

PDF

The secondary school principal's role as instructional leader in teacher professional development

PDF

Teacher discourse and practice: the role of discourse in grade-level meetings for teacher learning and changes in practice

PDF

The impact of globalization on the development of educational policy, 21st century learning, and education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in Costa Rican schools

PDF

Instructional leadership: the practices employed by elementary school principals to lead the Common Core State Standards and 21st century learning skills

PDF

The role of globalization, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics project‐based learning, and the national science and technology fair mandate in creating 21st‐century-ready students i...

PDF

Teachers in continuation high schools: attributes of new teachers and veteran teachers in urban continuation high schools

PDF

The impact of globalization, economics, and educational policy on the development of 21st-century skills and education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in Costa Rican schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Zamarripa, Geoffrey G. (author)

Core Title Creating transformational learning opportunities for teachers: how leadership affects adult learning on a school campus

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/15/2014

Defense Date 05/22/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag adult learning,K-12 leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor García, Pedro Enrique (committee chair), Baca, Reynaldo R. (committee member), Escalante, Michael F. (committee member)

Creator Email gzamarripa@emcsd.org,monicageoff@msn.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-439860

Unique identifier UC11287808

Identifier etd-ZamarripaG-2680.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-439860 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ZamarripaG-2680.pdf

Dmrecord 439860

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Zamarripa, Geoffrey G.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA