Page 56 - ALR2018 Handbook

Method

The study has a mixed method design were both electronic surveys and interviews was used.
A total of 464 principals responded to a survey containing 44 questions. Interviews with 20
principals was done after the first analyses of the surveys to get a qualitative understanding
of the responses. The surveys used a 6 grad Likert-scale together with some open-ended
questions. The interviews was about 1 hour each and all of them were recorded and
transcribed.

The analysis performed to create character groups is based on combining empirical data with
evaluations predicated on a holistic view and previous research, knowledge and experience.
By combine the results for those who responded with choices at the extreme end of the scale
and support active assessment and grading work (Group A), those who fell in the middle of
scale (Group B) and those who landed at the other end of the scale and reported that
assessment and grading do not constitute a priority task (Group C), then three entirely
different types of leadership emerge with respect to assessments and grading.

Results

Dividing the empirical results into three groups identifies different leadership styles that
exhibit qualitative differences. The interviews show that the principals’ rationales and ways of
thinking also differ, and exhibit many similarities to the way in which Timperley (2013)
categorizes differences in collegial learning.

It is evident throughout that the issues surrounding assessments and grading are complex,
and depend upon a greater whole. It can be difficult to distinguish between person and
function in matters pertaining to work initiatives and attitudes. There is one group of
principals, group A, that manages this work in a clear and enthusiastic manner. The principals
who belong to group A set high expectations in criticize and support teachers work since they
have a nuanced picture of what is going on.

56