Session F3F

THE IDEA OF INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP IN ENGINEERINfG EDUCATION

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

THE SCHOOL EFFEC~VENESS RESEARCH MOVEMENT

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

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

' University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland

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

F3F-10

Session F3F
school based staff development, recognises that schools like other organisations are learning systems (13). The third characteristic relates to the architectural and social environment for learning, the fifth and sixth relate to teaching. It is not surprising, therefore, that in a period when much was written on the qualities of leadership that there should be a debate about both educational and instructional leadership (14). There is much confusion about the meanings of these two terms and often in the literature they overlap. Confusion is also created by the term 'instructional' which although broadly interpreted in the literature is often narrowly perceived and related to 'training'. Perceptions such as this prevent constructive debate. For the purpose of this discussion educational leadership is taken to be an overarching concept that corresponds to professional leadership which is at the beginning of list of characteristics affecting effectiveness. A key question in the higher education context is whether persons elected for posts to a short period of time (e.g. departmental chains) can be effective educational leaders as well as efficient administrators. (The same question is asked of school principals). Fitzmaurice (15) provided an operational definition of an instructional leader based on the literature thus:
1.
0

The instructional leader supports teachers in their efforts in classrooms by being available to offer advice, opinion, praise, judgement and encouragement to their work and the efforts of children. He/she might encourage the display of projects and provide a public area for this. He/she might check classroom workbooks or essays on classroom visits. The instructional leader is a reflective practitioner who continually seeks to improve the teaching/learning process in hislher class and throughout the school by constantly asking - what and how can we improve? He/she must also lead and train others in this process of reflection so that it becomes school-wide and automatic. It will be seen that an instructional leader requires a substantive knowledge base that is grounded in the educational sciences if helshe is to be the resource envisaged by the role. As has been pointed out the elements of such a knowledge base exist within engineering education but need to be developed (16). Within school systems there is a debate about who should be the instructional leader. Is that person necessarily the Principal of a school or can the function be delegated? Does the function involve personal staff-development as opposed to the provision of in-service training during school time. The idea of whole school development is receiving some interest. Can this be done by the schools instructional leader without the assistance of an outside facilitator. Such questions would have to be answered at the departmental level in universities. The particular question this paper seeks to pose is - Is there a role for an Educational/Instructional Leader in Engineering departments? It has also been argued that if teachers were trained properly there would be no need for instructional leaders since teachers, like medics, would have to keep at the fore front of their profession and continually evaluate their practice (17).

0
0

The instructional leader leads others in a process of change through school planning which involves: identification of instructional or curriculum areas that need change/improvement/innovation. preparation and planning processes that prepares the ground by pooling resources, selection through consensus and designing a plan. the implementation of the change in the classroom review and assessment The instructional leader energises and encourages others to focus on the two main concerns of schools - teaching and learning. This is used as the bottom line reference whenever there is controversy or indecision. The instructional leader uses reports, test results, feedback from parents, management, inspectors and pupils to identify areas for instructional improvement. The instructional leader provides resources from a variety of sources to support, maintain or initiate change, improvement and reflection. This may include reports, studies, articles, advice, teacher-centres, fellow professionals, support groups, inservice courses and new technology. The instructional leader speaks to and questions teachers about children, teaching, subject areas, problems, projects, concerns and difficulties in their teaching and classrooms. This can be done both formally and informally.

2.

3.

THE CASE FOR INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP IN

ENGINEEIUNG DEPARTMENTS
During the last thirty years a small number of papers have been published in engineering education journals which show that when the educational theories and methods they describe are implemented in engineering programmes improvements in student learning take place. Other papers show how, when these models are applied to the curriculum that substantial changes may have to be made if the curriculum is to be given greater coherence. Evaluations of assessment and examining techniques have shown that what is assessed is not necessarily that which is wanted to be assessed. Other reports show how a more detailed understanding of the psychological characteristics of the

4.

5.

October 18 - 21,2000 Kansas City, MO 0-7803-6424-4/00/$10.00 02000 IEEE 30thASEEIIEEE Frontiers in Education Conference F3F-11

Sessicln F3F
student population can lead to improvements in the learning milieu. Yet for all that this body of knowledge seems to have had relatively little impact on the majority of engineering educators. Evidence of this is to be found in the 29 issues of the Frontiers in Education Conferences. The innovations and improvements to courses reported have mainly been concerned with subject specific techniques. Few are accompanied by evaluations that would be regarded by lawyers as "safe". Engineering education journals also reflect this state of affairs. There is no systematic attempt to provide training in educational research methods. This relies on a "trickle down" from those who write and talk about it at such conferences and give the occasional workshop. If it is correct that these educational theories and methods when applied to engineering do enhance learning then it matters that engineering educators at large should be conversant with them and be in an intellectual position to choose (or reject) from among them in their own practice. One way of achieving this goal in the absence of a general system of training is for the profession to encourage some of its members to acquire the knowledge required of instructional leaders so that it becomes more generally available throughout the profession. (assessment and instruction) as has been shown in the health professions (22). If, then, the instructional leader is required t o assist a department to develop a programme he/she will have to have a defensible epistemology. Equally hetshe will have a theory of learning. In either case this will embiace other theories knowledge and learning since faculty mcst be in a position to choose. An instructional leader would have had experience in the design, implementation and cvaluation (assessment) of programmes as well as the assessment of student learning. In this respect there is a valuablc literature in medical education (23). An analysis of the design process ind:.cates the importance of relating the techniques of instruction to the objectives of assessment. It also indicates the necd to relate the objectives of assessment to the entering characteristics of the students so that the instructional process and the methods of assessment can be related to the cognitive an,l personal development of the students. There are a iiumber of publications in the engineering literature that i h t r a t e these points (24). It is evident that an instructional leader would have to have a fluent knowledge of that literature.

TOWARD REEZEC~VE PRACTICE

If it is assumed that reflective practice is that which is something beyond what is usually associated w .th courses and their evaluation then the level of reflection that can be obtained, will, as with evaluation, depend on the knowledge base that a practitioner has. It is contended here that in order to reflect on educational practices the knowledge base has to be drawn from the art and science of i:ducational pedagogy. Within the last eighteen months, Cowan, an engineer, has demonstrated this point (25), and more recently with George in respect of formative evaluiition (26). From the arguments presented above it follows first, that instructional leaders will function at a high level of reflective awareness, and second that if a new culture of engineering education is to be developed that all practitioners should aspire to become instructione 1 leaders. This sketch of the knowledge base required for instructional leaders suggests that at this stage in the development of engineering education there is a substantial role for such persons if engineering curricular arc: to respond to the criticisms that have been made of them as well as to maintain and develop those curricular that have imaginatively responded to such criticisms. To achieve this goal it will be necessary to provide mechanisms through which those who aspire to i:istructional leadership can acquire the knowledge and skills required for the task. It is important that those who do should receive recognition for their achievements.

A KNOWLEDGE BASEFOR A N INSTRUCTIONAL

L E A D E F t
Clearly the knowledge base required by an instructional leader depends on the exact description of the role, and in turn the 'philosophy' that the instructional leader brings to that role. For example, if the role is to do with the improvement of instruction, then a philosophy might be derived from the view of Cross (18) that if teaching is to be taken seriously then college teachers will have to learn to treat their class rooms as laboratories for research. There are various ways of showing teachers how to accomplish this objective. Angelo and Cross (19) provide illustrations of fifty different classroom techniques for assessment. This might be regarded as a level one activity and it is at this level that most FIE workshops aim. Level two is that of classroom research. Cross and Steadman (20) have given examples of how this may be done and argue that a new paradigm for research in classroom settings is required. Heywood (21) has used a more traditional approach to classroom research that might find some empathy with engineering educators. It follows that an instructional leader would have to be schooled in the methods of quantatitive and qualitative research. The instructional leader would necessarily have to have a theory of knowledge since the paradigms of research derive from the investigator's perception of the nature of knowledge acquisition. This knowledge is equally important in the design of the curriculum as well as the practices that follow from it
0-7803-6424-4/00/%10.0002000 IEEE

October 18 21,2000 Kansas City, MO 30thASEEAEEE Frontiers in Education Conference

F3F-12

Session F3F
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper was inspired by conversations I had with Barbara Olds, Dick Culver, Larry Shuman and Charlie Yokomoto at FIE 1999. Prospects for Teacher Education in Europe Free University of Amsterdam. ATEE. Amsterdam. Higgs, J. and A. Titchen (1995) Propositional, Professional and Personal, Knowledge in Clinical Reasoning in J. Higgs and M. Jones (Ed) Clinical Reasoning in the Health Professions. ButterworthIHeinemann, Oxford, For Example Kean, D.E. et a1 (1998) - Curriculum Development: for medical Education. A Six Step Approach.. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. For Example - Felder, R.M., Forrest, K.D., Baker-Wad, L., Dietz, E.J., and P. Mohr (1993). A Longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention. I Success and failure in the introductory course. Journal of Engineering Education, 82, (I), 15-2 1, and subsequent papers. Fordyce, D. (1992). The nature of student learning in engineering. International Journal of Technology and Design Education . 2, (3), 22-40. Pavelich, M.J. and W.S. Moore. (1996) Measuring the effect of experiential education using the Perry model. Journal of Engineering Education , 85, (4), 287-292. Woods, D.R. et a1 (1997) Developing Problem Solving Skills: The MacMaster problem solvingprogram. Joumalof Engineering Education,86, (2), 75-92. Cowan, J. (1998) On Becoming an Innovative University Teacher. Open University Press, Buckingham. George, J., and J. Cowan (1999). A Handbook of Techniques for Formative Evaluation. Kogan Page, London.

REFERENCES

Colman, J.S. et al. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. Equality of Education Opportunity, US Government Printing Office, Washington. Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P and J. Ouston (1979) Fifteen Thousand Hours: Secondary Schools and their Effects on Children. Open Books. London. Goodlad, J. (1984). A Place called School: Prospects for the Future. McGraw Hill, New York. Jencks, C. et al. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effects of family and schooling in America. Basic Books, New York. Sammons, P., Hillman, J. and P. Mortimore (1995) Key characteristics of Effective Schools. A Review of School Effectiveness Research. Institute of Education, University of London, London. Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., and S. Thomas (1995). School Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 1, (3), 3 15-352 See ref. 5. See ref. 5. Sammons, P (1994), Findings from school effectiveness research. Some applications for improving the quality of schools in P. Ribbins and E. Burridge (eds) Improving Education: the issue of quality: Cassell, London. ibid Carter, G. and J. Heywood (1992) The value added performance of electrical engineering students in a British University. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 2 (I), 4-15 Heywood, J. (2000). Assessment in Higher Educationaf student learning, teaching, programmes and institutions. Jessica Kingsley, London. Senge, P. (1990) . The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation. Doubleday, New York. e.g. Sergiovanni, T.J. (1990) Value-Added Leadership: How to get extra-ordinary Performance in Schools. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York Fitzmaurice, J. (1997) M.St. Thesis, University of Dublin. Heywood, J. (1995) Toward the Improvement of Quality in Engineering Education. Proceedings FIE 2a3.8 - 2a3.13 Howie, J.G.R. (1989) Research in General Practice T d Edition. Chapman and Hall, London. Cross, K. P. (1986) Taking Teaching Seriously. A Proposal to Improve Teaching. AAHE Bulletin. September 9-15 Angelo, T and K.P. Cross (1993) Classroom Assessment Techniques. 2"d Edition. Jossey Bass, San Francisco. Cross, K.P. and M. Steadman (1996) ClassroomResearch. Jossey Bass, San Francisco Heywood, J. (1992) Student Teachers as Researchers of Instruction in J.H.C. Vonk and H.J. von Helden New October 18 21,2000 Kansas City, MO 0-7803-6424-4/00/$10.00 0 2000 IEEE 30thASEELEEE Frontiers in Education Conference F3F-13