School Leaders ’ Influences on Student Learning : The Four Paths
School Leaders ’ Influences on Student Learning : The Four Paths
复制标题
学校领导对学生学习的影响：四种路径
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
T. Strauss
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
K. Leithwood;S. Anderson;Blair Mascall;T. Strauss
本章基于教育领导力的两个基本假设。第一，这种领导是关于影响力的运用，第二，这种影响力对学生学习的影响大多是间接的。在这两个假设的前提下，我们利用最近的证据来描述四个不同的路径沿着的成功的领导实践的影响流，以改善学生的学习。如图1所示，这些是理性、情感、组织和家庭路径。每一条路径都由不同的变量组成，每一个变量都或多或少地直接影响学生的体验。这些变量可能包括与学校文化、教师的做法、教师的情绪状态或家长的态度有关的变量。选择这些变量中最有希望的变量并提高其地位，是打算改善学校学习的领导者面临的三大核心挑战之二。由于领导和其他方面的影响，每一条道路上的变量状况得到改善，学生的学校和课堂经验的质量得到丰富，从而增加了学习。由于只在沿着一条路径或一次只在一条路径上行使领导力影响力，很少能为学生带来明显的收益，因此，跨路径领导力影响力的调整是领导力的第三个挑战。本章接下来的四个部分将讨论变量的选择和改进，这是领导力的前两个挑战，每个部分都侧重于一条路径，并利用最近的研究结果，确定了每条路径上最强大的变量。这些变量中的一个或两个进行了更详细的探讨，他们对学生的影响的证据进行了总结，并领导的做法可能会影响他们的地位，在一个积极的方向进行了概述。第五部分讨论了领导力影响力在不同路径上的一致性。Hattie（2009）最近对荟萃分析进行了非常全面的综合，经常用于估计在四条路径中的三条路径上发现的选定变量对学生学习的影响;这些估计值被报告为效应量（或"d"）。我们并不是第一个提供不同的战略方向，以学校改进领导的概念化。例如，House（1981）区分了关于教育变革实施的技术、政治和文化视角，每种视角都有不同的变革推动者假设和动员和支持变革的策略。这一框架已被证明是描述和比较变革促进者的假设和战略，以动员和支持具体的教育变革举措的一种有用的方式（见Corbett & Rossman，1989; Rolheiser-Bennett &安德森，1991 - 1992; House & McQuillan，1998）。然而，应用该框架的学者并没有明确地将
This chapter rests on two fundamental assumptions about educational leadership. First, such leadership is about the exercise of influence and, second, the effects of such influence on student learning are mostly indirect. Premised on these two assumptions, we draw on recent evidence to describe four distinct paths along which the influence of successful leadership practices flow in order to improve student learning. As Figure 1 indicates, these are the Rational, Emotional, Organizational, and Family paths. Each path is populated by distinctly different sets of variables, each with a more or less direct impact on students’ experiences. Such variables might include those relating to school culture, teachers’ practices, teachers’ emotional states, or parents’ attitudes. Selecting the most promising of these variables and improving their status are two of the three central challenges facing leaders intending to improve learning in their schools. As the status of variables on each path improves, through influences from leaders and other sources, the quality of students’ school and classroom experiences are enriched, resulting in greater learning. Since exercising leadership influence along one path alone, or just one path at a time, has rarely resulted in demonstrable gains for students, alignment of leadership influence across paths is the third leadership challenge. Selection and improvement of variables, the first two leadership challenges, are addressed in the next four sections of this chapter, each section focuses on one path. Using the results of recent research, some of the most powerful variables located on each path are identified. One or two of these variables are explored in more detail; evidence of their impact on students is summarized, and leadership practices likely to influence their status in a positive direction are outlined. Alignment of leadership influence across paths is taken up in the fifth section. Hattie’s (2009) recent and remarkably comprehensive synthesis of meta-analyses is frequently used to estimate the impact on student learning of selected variables found on three of the four paths; these estimates are reported as effect sizes (or “d”). We are not the first to offer a conceptualization of varying strategic orientations to leadership for school improvement. House (1981), for example, distinguished technical, political, and cultural perspectives on the implementation of educational change, each characterized by differing change agent assumptions and strategies for mobilizing and supporting change. This framework has proven useful as a way of describing and comparing change facilitator assumptions and strategies for mobilizing and supporting specific educational change initiatives (see Corbett & Rossman, 1989; Rolheiser-Bennett & Anderson, 1991-1992; House & McQuillan, 1998). However, scholars applying the framework have not explicitly linked the