Teachers and Teaching

theory and practice

ISSN: 1354-0602 (Print) 1470-1278 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20

Teacher supervision and evaluation challenges:

Canadian perspectives on overall instructional
leadership

Jim Brandon, Trista Hollweck, James Kent Donlevy & Catherine Whalen

To cite this article: Jim Brandon, Trista Hollweck, James Kent Donlevy & Catherine Whalen (2018)
Teacher supervision and evaluation challenges: Canadian perspectives on overall instructional
leadership, Teachers and Teaching, 24:3, 263-280, DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2018.1425678

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2018.1425678

Published online: 30 Jan 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 195

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctat20
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 2018
VOL. 24, NO. 3, 263–280
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2018.1425678

Teacher supervision and evaluation challenges: Canadian

perspectives on overall instructional leadership
Jim Brandona, Trista Hollweckb, James Kent Donlevya and Catherine Whalenc
a
University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada; bUniversity of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; cUniversity of Northern British
Columbia, Prince George, Canada

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This inquiry focuses on the overall instructional leadership approaches Received 11 April 2017
used by exemplary principals in three high performing Canadian Accepted 5 January 2018
provinces to overcome three persistent obstacles to effective teacher KEYWORDS
supervision and evaluation: (a) the management challenge, (b) the Principalship; instructional
complexity challenge, and (c) the learning challenge. Analysis of leadership; supervision;
data collected from interviews, focus groups, observations, field evaluation
notes, documents, artifacts, and reflective research journals yielded
the following four assertions: (a) Shared, distributed, and collective
approaches to overall instructional leadership deepen and widen
impact. (b) Effective supervision and evaluation are part of a career-
long continuum of practice that fosters teacher growth while ensuring
quality teaching. (c) There are multiple learning pathways to effective
overall instructional leadership. (d) Policy contexts that place teacher
supervision and evaluation practice within a broader conception of
overall instructional leadership are beneficial.

At a time when principals across the industrialized world are called upon to provide effective
leadership that results in quality teaching and optimum learning for all students in their
schools (Barber, Whelan, & Clark, 2010; Brandon, Hanna, & Negropontes, 2015; Day et al.,
2011; Fullan, 2014; Louis, Leithwood, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2010a, 2010b; Pollock, Wang,
& Hauseman, 2015; Schleicher, 2015; Zepeda, 2017), it is also widely acknowledged that
the work of school leaders is increasingly complex and demanding (Canadian Association
of Principals, & Alberta Teachers’ Association [CAP], 2014; Le Fevre & Robinson, 2014;
Leithwood, Sun, & Pollock, 2017; Lortie, 2009; Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development [OECD], 2016; Pollock et al., 2015). Despite the intensification of their work,
generational turnover in their ranks, and a steady parade of external pressures, exemplary
principals in three high performing Canadian provinces continue to direct considerable
effort toward bolstering their practices as instructional leaders, engaging supervisors, and
evidence informed teacher evaluators.
We used the construct of overall instructional leadership (Brandon et al., 2015; Fullan,
2014) to illustrate five ways exemplary principals overcome three prominent and persistent
obstacles to effective teacher supervision and evaluation; (a) the management challenge,

CONTACT  Jim Brandon  jbrandon@ucalgary.ca

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
264   J. BRANDON ET AL.

(b) the complexity challenge, and (c) the learning challenge (Brandon, 2005, 2006, 2008;
Brandon et al., 2015). The illustrations of how principals are working to overcome these
obstacles are drawn from recent studies in the high performing Canadian provinces of
Alberta, British Columbia, and Quebec. Along with Ontario, these three provinces are
considered among the world’s top performing education systems by consistently scoring
well on international assessments such as the Program for International Student Assessment
(PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Studies (TIMSS) (Barber,
Whelan, & Clark, 2010; Coughlan, 2017; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Hargreaves & Shirley,
2012b, 2012a; Whelan, 2009). The five findings or illustrations of five ways that principals
have overcome the obstacles are based on our analysis of data collected from interviews,
focus groups, field notes, observations, documents, artifacts, and reflective research jour-
nals from these studies (Brandon, 2005; 2006, 2008; Brandon et al., 2015; Brandon, Saar, &
Friesen, 2016; Brandon, Saar, Friesen, Brown, & Yee, 2016; Couvier, Brandon, & Prasow,
2008; Hollweck, 2016).
Four assertions or analytic generalizations about the impact of overall instructional
leadership on overcoming the three obstacles were derived from the five findings based
on our reasoned judgment and assertational logic about the extent to which they may be
transferable to supervision and evaluation practice in other settings. The four assertions
or analytic generalizations are: (a) Shared, distributed, and collective approaches to overall
instructional leadership deepen and widen impact. (b) Effective supervision and evaluation
are part of a career-long continuum of practice that fosters teacher growth while ensuring
quality teaching. (c) There are multiple learning pathways to effective overall instructional
leadership. (d) Policy contexts that place teacher supervision and evaluation practice within
a broader conception of overall instructional leadership are beneficial. Each assertion is
cross-referenced to specific findings to make it easier to judge the assertion’s soundness as
an analytical generalization (Brinkman & Kvale, 2015, p. 297). As Stake (2006) cautioned:
‘It is not evidence for a court of law or geometric proof. It is persuasion, logical persuasion,
that the Assertion is credible’ (p. 41).
The paper is presented in five parts, beginning with an overview of the instrumental
case study research design and followed by a short summary of three persistent obstacles
to teacher supervision and evaluation; (a) the management challenge, (b) the complexity
challenge, and (c) the learning challenge (Brandon, 2005, 2006, 2008; Brandon et al., 2015).
Next, three conceptual foundations of overall instructional leadership are detailed. Five key
findings are then explained in three sub-sections each based on one of the supervision and
evaluation challenges. Discussion of four analytic generalizations that may serve others
wishing to strengthen overall instructional leadership concludes our paper.

The study
The primary purpose of this study was to illustrate and illuminate overall instructional
leadership approaches used by Canadian school principals to overcome three enduring
challenges to teacher supervision and evaluation. Three research questions guided our
investigation:
(1) In what ways have exemplary principals in three high performing Canadian prov-
inces overcome the management challenge to teacher supervision and evaluation?
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING: THEORY AND PRACTICE   265

(2) In what ways have exemplary principals in three high performing Canadian prov-
inces overcome the complexity challenge to teacher supervision and evaluation?
(3) In what ways have exemplary principals in three high performing Canadian
provinces overcome the learning challenge to effective teacher supervision and
evaluation?
An instrumental case study research design was used to address these research questions
(Brinkman & Kvale, 2015; Stake, 2005, 2006). A case study is an in-depth exploration of a
bounded system (e.g. activity, event, process, or individuals) based on extensive data col-
lection from multiple sources (Creswell, 2007). ‘Bounded means that the case is separated
for research in terms of time, place or some physical boundaries’ (Creswell, 2012, p. 465).
The phenomenon investigated within the bounded system of the Canadian school system
from 2000 through 2016 was overall instructional leadership approaches taken by exemplary
principals in three high performing Canadian provinces to overcome three specific challenges
to teacher supervision and evaluation.
Data collection and analysis were informed by case study methods (Creswell, 2012;
Merriam, 1998, 2009; Stake, 2005, 2006; Yin, 2009). The data generated through observa-
tions, qualitative interviews, focus groups, field notes, documents, artifacts, and reflective
research journals in a number of previously reported studies over a sixteen year period and
in three Canadian provinces allowed for a rich and in-depth exploration of the research
questions to provide insights into the more general issue of ways through school principals
utilize overall instructional leadership to overcome obstacles to effective teacher supervision
and evaluation (Brinkman & Kvale, 2015; Stake, 2005).
By relying the three research questions and the overall instructional leadership frame
described in the following two sections to guide data collection, analysis, and interpretation,
we followed the consistent advice of the key scholars who most influenced our methodolog-
ical choices (Brinkman & Kvale, 2015, Merriam, 1998, 2009; Stake, 2005, 2006; Yin, 2009).
Interview, and focus group data, field notes and documents were reviewed and analyzed
through iterative processes of reading, re-reading, theme development, and review. Analysis
was informed by the view that ‘coding is deep reflection about, and, thus, deep analysis and
interpretation of the data’s meanings’ (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014, p. 72).
In keeping with guidelines for case study analysis, reading, reviewing, and reflection
on notes from interviews, documents, along with other data sources generated tentative
and then revised themes (Brinkman & Kvale, 2015; Merriam, 1998, 2009; Stake, 2005,
2006). Subsequent readings looked for findings and descriptive details (Miles et al., 2014,
p. 86–104). By design, we undertook a number of deliberate strategies to provide assurance
that accurate information had been obtained and that interpretations were warranted. Stake
(2006) indicated that triangulation ‘has been generally considered a process of using multiple
perceptions to clarify meaning, but it is also verifying the repeatability of an observation
or interpretation’ (2006, p. 37).

Three persistent obstacles to effective teacher supervision and evaluation

Three enduring obstacles to effective teacher supervision and evaluation are briefly described
in this section: (a) the management challenge, (b) the complexity challenge, and (c) the
learning challenge. The following brief descriptions of these three supervision and evaluation
266   J. BRANDON ET AL.

challenges have been reported in four previous papers based on three separate studies
(Brandon, 2005, 2006, 2008; Brandon et al., 2015).

The management challenge

We have labeled the first obstacle the management challenge. Inadequate time to provide
instructional leadership and supervision is a consistently identified impediment by school
administrators (Brandon, 2006, 2008; Canadian Association of Principals, 2014; LeFevr, &
Robinson, 2014; Lortie, 2009; Marshall, 2013; Pollock et al., 2015). Time needed to attend
to such matters as budgeting, student and parent concerns, preparing reports, other bureau-
cratic requirements, and more immediate organizational tasks often take precedence over
working to support instruction. These management concerns are frequently cited as inhibi-
tors to having sufficient time to adequately provide supervisory or instructional leadership.

The complexity challenge

Issues associated with the interpersonal politics of teacher supervision, expectation ambigu-
ity for school administrators, along with the intellectual and interpersonal demands related
to understanding and supporting quality teaching and teacher growth contribute to the
second enduring obstacle to effective supervision and evaluation – the complexity challenge
(Brandon, 2005, 2006, 2008; Brandon et al., 2015; Darling-Hammond, 2012, 2013; LeFevre
& Robinson, 2014; Leithwood et al., 2017; OECD, 2016; Zepeda, 2017).
Relationship aspects of the challenge of complexity are illustrated in the following
comment:
Working with teachers is a complex, intense and humanistic endeavour. No matter how
well the policies and practices are laid out on paper, the inter-human dynamics of this work
are keys. Compassion, empathy and relationship development are at the centre. (Interview,
Superintendent F, in Brandon, 2005)
In the three high-performing provinces in which this study is set, most school leaders
seemed to be quite clear about their responsibilities in relation to routine teacher evaluations.
Evaluation practice – especially in the cases of beginning teachers – is deeply etched into
the regular pattern of administrative practice in most schools. In contrast, teacher super-
vision and instructional leadership are less clearly articulated and not as well integrated
into leadership practice in many settings. Non-routine teacher evaluation, such as in cases
where veteran teacher practice is slipping into the marginal range, is a recurring component
of the complexity challenge.

The learning challenge

The absence of ongoing attention to the development of instructional leadership knowledge
and skills has been a major obstacle to effective supervision and evaluation. Insufficient
attention has been devoted to the development of supervisory knowledge and skills in many
schools and districts we have studied, creating the learning challenge (Brandon, 2005, 2006,
2008). Attendance at conferences and one-shot presentations by headline speakers can be
stimulating, but the evidence is that much more in the way of ongoing support is needed
(Brandon et al., 2015; Darling-Hammond, 2010, 2012, 2013).
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING: THEORY AND PRACTICE   267

Overall instructional leadership

We argue that a broader conception of instructional leadership is a significant way to frame
more effective approaches to teacher supervision and evaluation. Much of the instructional
leadership and supervision literature focuses on what Fullan (2014) described as direct
instructional leadership – principal actions that directly impact instruction (Hallinger, 2003,
2005, 2011). In contrast, we aimed to better understand and illuminate what Fullan (2014)
called overall instructional leadership – the wider range of purposefully employed leadership
practices designed to positively impact teaching and learning in schools (Brandon et al.,
2015; Robinson, 2011; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). Overall instructional leadership in
relation to effective teacher supervision and evaluation, in our conception, is situated within
three interrelated strands of the school leadership research literature: (a) shared instruc-
tional leadership, (b) supervision as informed instructional support, and (c) evaluation as
multi-track evidence informed professional judgment.

Shared instructional leadership

There is considerable evidence that supports the idea the instructional leadership is more
effective when it is shared among teachers and school leaders (Day et al., 2011; Hallam,
Smith, Hite, Hite, & Wilcox, 2015; Leithwood & Louis, 2012; Louis et al., 2010a, 2010b;
Szczesiul & Huizenga, 2014; Tschannen-Moran, 2016; Wahlstrom, Louis, Leithwood, &
Anderson, 2010a; Wiliam, 2016). Louis and Wahlstrom (2012) claimed ‘leadership prac-
tices targeted directly at improving instruction have significant effects on teachers’ working
relationships and indirectly on student achievement’ and that ‘when principals and teachers
share leadership, teachers’ working relationships are stronger and student achievement is
higher’ (p. 25). The effect occurs ‘largely because effective leadership strengthens profes-
sional community, a special environment within which teachers work together to improve
their practice and improve student learning’ (p. 25).
Leithwood and Louis (2012) focused on a few well-developed models of overall instruc-
tional leadership that posit a ‘set of responsibilities for principals that goes well beyond
observing and intervening in classrooms – responsibilities touching on vision, organi-
zational culture and the like’ (p. 6). This conception is in keeping with an earlier view by
Leithwood, Aitken, and Jantzi (2006) that instructional leadership has been mostly used as ‘a
slogan to focus administrators on their students’ progress’ (p. 6). A more detailed three-cat-
egory model is described in Hallinger’s (2003) review of the evidence on instructional
leadership: (a) defining the school’s mission, including framing and then communicating
the school’s goals; (b) managing the instructional program, including supervising and eval-
uating instruction, working with teachers in coordinating the curriculum and monitoring
student progress; and (c) promoting a positive school learning climate encompassing protect-
ing instructional time, promoting professional development, maintaining high visibility,
providing incentives for teachers, and providing incentives for learning.
Robinson et al.’s (2008) landmark meta-analysis of the available evidence linking school
leadership to student outcomes resulted in five broad and similar categories of leadership
practice that were elaborated in Robinson (2011): (a) establishing goals and expectations, (b)
resourcing strategically, (c) ensuring quality teaching, (d) leading teacher learning and devel-
opment, and (e) ensuring an orderly safe and caring environment. These five dimensions
268   J. BRANDON ET AL.

are inter-connected and work together with three leadership capacities to foster strong and
collaborative learning and teaching environments: (a) applying relevant knowledge, (b)
solving complex problems, and (c) building relational trust.
Wahlstrom (2012) grouped overall instructional leadership practices into two comple-
mentary categories: Instructional Ethos and Instructional Actions. School leader efforts in
the Instructional Ethos category aim to build a culture that supports continual professional
learning. ‘Principals whose teachers rate them high on Instructional Ethos emphasize the
value of research-based strategies and are able to apply them in the local setting’ (p. 68).
Wahlstrom found that setting a tone and developing a vision for student learning and
teacher growth is present in high-performing schools of all grade levels, K-12. The second
category– Instructional Actions – involves explicit engagement with individual teachers
about their own professional growth and is more evident in elementary schools than in
secondary settings.

Supervision as varied, informed instructional support

Wahlstrom’s notion of instructional actions includes direct observations and conversations
with teachers in classrooms and in team meetings. Similarly, a second feature of overall
instructional leadership is the three component research-based image of supervision as
varied, informed instructional support we have synthesized from both the seminal and the
more recent teacher supervision literature. Component one is the idea that teacher super-
vision should be varied. Both seminal and current literature support the contention that
supervision should differentiate according to the pedagogic styles, developmental stages
and learning needs evident in the community of professional practice (Brandon et al., 2016;
Glatthorn, 1997; Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 2017; Le Fevre & Robinson, 2014;
Marshall, 2013; Ozyildirim & Bilgin Aksu, 2016, Pajak, 2003; Robinson, 2011; Timperley,
2011; Zepeda, 2017).
The second main idea is that supervision should be informed by evidence gathered from
multiple sources – classroom observations, pedagogic dialog, artifacts – to both inform
supervisors about instruction and at the same time form the basis for deepening instruc-
tional leadership practice (Brandon et al., 2016; Glatthorn, 1997; Marshall, 2013; Marzano,
Frontier, & Livingston, 2011; Pajak, 2003; Robinson, 2011; Timperley, 2011). ‘If increased
instructional leadership is to make a difference to student outcomes, leaders’ practices
need to be informed by defensible and evidence-based understandings of how to improve
teaching and learning’ (Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015, p. 60). Glickman’s (1985) developmental
supervision is based on matching initial supervisory approaches with the teacher’s or the
group’s developmental levels, expertise and commitment (Glickman et al., 2017). Pajak
(2003) identified four options: collegial supervision (peer coaching and cognitive coaching),
self-directed supervision, informal supervision, and inquiry-based supervision or action
research. Zepeda’s (2017) instructional supervision model indicates that teachers should
be given opportunities to transfer information and to construct deeper understanding of
their own practices within a capacity-building learning community. Such supervision is a
reciprocal process that respects the differing developmental learning needs of novices and
veterans.
The third key idea in our conception of supervision as varied, informed instructional sup-
port is that the focus of supervision should be on instructional support that seeks to improve
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING: THEORY AND PRACTICE   269

learning, teaching and shared instructional leadership. The seminal study conducted by
Blase and Blase (1998) reported the now widely held view that ‘the facilitation of learning
and growth should be the number one responsibility of an educational leader’ (p. 14). This
consensus on the purpose of supervision is well supported in the literature (Blase & Blase,
1998, 2000; Brandon, 2006, 2008; Brandon et al., 2016; Glickman et al., 2017; Ozyildirim &
Bilgin Aksu, 2017; Pajak, 2003; Robinson, 2011; Sullivan & Glanz, 2013; Timperley, 2011;
Wiliam, 2016; Zepeda, 2017).

Multi-track teacher evaluation as evidence-based professional judgment

The third component of our overall instructional leadership frame is the research-based
image – multi-track evaluation as evidence-based professional judgment – is based on four sig-
nificant ideas that emanate from our review of the teacher evaluation literature (Danielson,
2012; Darling-Hammond, 2010, 2012, 2013; Darling-Hammond, Anrein-Beardsley, Haertel,
& Rothstein, 2012; Hallinger, Heck, & Murphy, 2014; Marzano, 2012; Marzano & Toth, 2013;
OECD, 2013, 2016). First, good teacher evaluation should provide a variety of options or
tracks that target the specific requirements of four groups: (a) beginning teachers, (b) expe-
rienced teachers, (c) teachers whose practice is marginal and requires assistance, and (d)
teachers whose practice is unacceptable due to incompetence or unsatisfactory commitment.
The first two tracks acknowledge that a very high percentage of teachers are committed and
successful professionals, who seek and benefit from helpful, evidence-informed feedback
and dialog (Brandon, 2005; Robinson, 2011; Timperley, 2011; Wiliam, 2016). The third and
fourth tracks recognize the need to address problematic teaching practice in two stages.
Track three provides a combination of further evaluation and support for those identified
as requiring more structured assistance. The fourth part of this multi-track approach is a
termination track. It provides policy direction for the fair, just and timely removal of the
incompetent or uncommitted.
Second, professional judgment aspect has three additional research-based features. (a)
Evaluation must be founded on a clear and coherent conception of exemplary teaching
practice based on current research. (b) Data from multiple sources need to be used to inform
the evaluator’s professional judgment. It is important to note that the professional judgment
aspect requires that the evaluator is a competent, trained professional who has been schooled
in evaluation practice. (c) Evidence-based judgment involves transparent, clearly understood
processes conducted in a constructive, professional, and sensitive manner within recognized
ethical, legal, and contractual guidelines. A number of recent studies support the notion
that professional approaches to teacher evaluation can both support teacher growth and
ensure quality teaching (Danielson, 2012; Darling-Hammond, 2010, 2012, 2013; Darling-
Hammond et al., 2012; Marzano, 2012; Marzano & Toth, 2013; OECD, 2013).
Third, a wealth of scholarship on the evaluation of beginning teachers supports the
notion that such assessments should be combined with mentoring and induction pro-
grams (Darling-Hammond, 2010, 2012, 2013; Darling-Hammond et al., 2012; Danielson
and McGreal’s (2000); Marzano, 2012; Marzano, Frontier, & Livingston, 2011;Marzano &
Toth, 2013 novice track involves several educators in both the mentoring and evaluation
functions. Darling-Hammond, Jaquith, & Hamilton (2012) provided similar views on the
importance of both supporting and evaluating novices.
270   J. BRANDON ET AL.

Fourth, the literature on evaluating experienced teachers with continuing contracts does
not reveal a clear consensus. Danielson (2001) indicated that in most districts ‘experi-
enced teachers are evaluated on a regular basis every second, third or fourth year' (p. 13).
In Sawyer’s (2001) differentiated system, successful teachers move into three-year post
probationary cycles. ‘Teachers who have been post probationary for five years can choose
self-directed growth options in their minor evaluation years’ (p. 46). Some jurisdictions
rely solely on the regular monitoring of the practices of experienced educators rather than
subscribing to cyclical evaluation. With this proviso in place, such teachers operate on what
Danielson and McGreal (2000) call the growth track through planned, ongoing profes-
sional learning. ‘In some districts, career teachers are never formally evaluated,’ commented
Danielson (2001), ‘once they have attained tenure, teachers engage only in self-assessment,
goal setting, and self-directed professional growth’ (p. 14). Wiliam (2016) suggests using
a formative assessment approach to evaluate teaching using three key processes: ‘the goal
for the teacher’s learning; his or her current level of performance; and the steps needed to
reach the goal’ (p.235).

Overcoming challenges to supervision and evaluation

This instrumental case study was designed to illuminate the overall instructional leader-
ship approaches undertaken by exemplary principals in three high performing Canadian
provinces to overcome three persistent obstacles to effective teacher supervision and evalu-
ation. Multi-source case study data were collected, coded and analyzed through two lenses
related to this research purpose: the three components of the overall instructional leadership
comprise the first lens. The three enduring obstacles to effective supervision and evaluation
constitute the second lens. We now provide descriptions of five key findings under three
subsection headings derived from these lenses: (a) overcoming the management challenge
in Alberta (b) overcoming the complexity challenge in British Columbia and Quebec, and
(c) overcoming the learning challenge in Alberta. Each subsection dwells on overall instruc-
tional leadership approaches to overcoming the specific challenge. Related findings are
presented along with evidence upon which each finding is based and references to related
research literature. This pattern was informed by Merriam’s (1998) advice to balance par-
ticular description (quotes from people and field notes), general description (tells readers
whether the comments are typical or unique), and interpretive commentary (provides the
framework for understanding) (p. 235).

Overcoming the management challenge in Alberta

Two quite different approaches to overcoming the management challenge are presented in
Findings One and Two. The first is based on a comprehensive study of exemplary Alberta
principals (Brandon, 2005, 2006, 2008).
Finding One: Exemplary instructional leaders use a variety of approaches to engage teachers in
the work of instructional improvement. These individuals demonstrate a passion for learning,
convey supervisory intentionality, lead reflective conversations, and sustain a learning culture.
Evidence supporting this finding was gathered through multiple sources in 16 of the
province’s 62 school districts, including interviews with 35 exemplary principals (nominated
by their superintendents), 26 superintendents, and 48 teachers along with observations over
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING: THEORY AND PRACTICE   271

time of seven exemplary principals (Brandon, 2006, 2008). It was noticeably evident that
these successful instructional leaders were passionate about teaching and learning. Several
spoke eloquently about their personal philosophies of teaching, learning and schooling.
Deliberate plans were developed and executed to keep them constantly informed of the
quality of teaching in their buildings. Such plans were primarily based on frequent infor-
mal visits to classrooms in combination with regular learning-focused interactions with
individual and groups of teachers. These administrators found ways of being in classrooms
that were viewed by teachers as supportive of and sensitive to teacher and student learning
needs. As one principal noted,
For me, the most important thing that I do as a principal is to help all of us focus on student
learning. When I came to this school professional development was a series of one-shot work-
shops. Now we try to stay with one or two areas of focus over the year. (Interview, Principal
J, in Brandon, 2005)
A second illustration of how Alberta principals strategically take on and overcome the
management challenge is based on a more recent examination of team leadership in three
schools in the Calgary Board of Education, a consistently high performing and Canada’s
third largest school district (Brandon et al., 2016a).
Finding Two: Principals, assistant principals, and learning leaders who work collaboratively and
systematically within pedagogical leadership teams effectively strengthen teaching and leader-
ship practices towards improved student success – engagement, achievement, and well-being.
The three schools we studied were each led by a group of 14 educational leaders who had
a strong, shared faith in the importance of team leadership and team learning grounded
in the literature by Senge (1990, 2000). The significance of the leadership group working
systematically as a team in their collective efforts to lead educator and student learning was
evident through our focus group conversations, classroom and team meeting observations,
as well as in the learning artifacts collected. At the center of this work are shared leadership
practices that sponsor changed pedagogies through ongoing cycles of leading and teaching
inquiry based on reflective consideration of evidence of impact on student and educator
learning. In these schools pedagogical leadership teams comprised of principals, assistant
principals, and learning leaders are sharpening their focus on scaffolding effective pedagogy.
Two claims from existing research were particularly well linked to the evidence we gath-
ered. First, Louis and Wahlstrom (2012) found that ‘leadership practices targeted directly
at improving instruction have significant effects on teachers’ working relationships and
indirectly on student achievement’ and that ‘when principals and teachers share leadership,
teachers’ working relationships are stronger and student achievement is higher’ (p. 25). The
effect occurs ‘largely because effective leadership strengthens professional community, a
special environment within which teachers work together to improve their practice and
improve student learning’ (p. 25). Similarly, Timperley (2011) underlined the importance
of professional learning community, which she described as a group of professionals com-
mitted to working together to learn about their practice for the purpose of improving
student learning. Significantly, it is important for educators in this arrangement to focus
on student learning through respectful, trusting relationships and collaborative inquiry for
deep learning based on evidence.
272   J. BRANDON ET AL.

Overcoming the complexity challenge in British Columbia and Quebec

The two findings described in this subsection illustrate practices that successfully navigate
the complex terrain of working with teachers at opposite ends of the experience contin-
uum in two high performing Canadian provinces. Finding three illuminates approaches to
overcoming the complexities of supporting already strong veteran teacher practice as told
from a teacher’s point of view by one of the authors of this study, who was a teacher at the
time in British Columbia.
Finding Three: Providing effective instructional support to strong veteran teachers involves the
establishment of reciprocal relationships based on trust and shared moral purpose to support
all students to do well.
As I look back over the span of my 24 years of teaching, the instructional leadership
of one of my principals stands out. The instructional support Sam provided significantly
enhanced my personal and professional growth through dialog, formal, and informal teacher
evaluations, spontaneous classroom visits and opportunities he provided for me to attend
professional development and learning sessions. He seemed to have the greatest impact on
me through our informal talks and discussions, classroom visits and conversations in his
office when I would pop by to seek assistance or just to say hello. When I first worked with
Sam, he was a vice principal.
When Sam became my principal in a different school setting, his role as the school
leader called for formal evaluations. In this instructional leadership role, he consistently
provided positive feedback as well as constructive criticism. The classroom visits were never
a problem nor was I concerned if he entered unannounced. My door was always open and
he was welcome to stop by anytime. This informal principal–teacher relationship provided
my students an opportunity to build connections with their principal in a different light
than they had grown accustomed to in past school experiences. Sam was visible throughout
the school, while remaining interactive with staff and students.
I spent most of my career teaching students who were not academically successful and
who had not experience a lot of support and understanding from teachers and administra-
tors. Sam gave me a wide range of latitude in terms of my teaching practice because I was
able to reach those students who found school success in small doses. He supported me
in my professional development in that he found resources and money to attend relevant
conferences and other professional development opportunities. Sam was a true leader who
believed in providing instructional leadership for the benefit of personal and professional
growth while creating a positive school climate. Sam was someone I could consult with
and share ideas in an open and honest manner that allowed for a trusting professional
teacher-principal relationship.
Sam’s supervisory approach is linked to a number of practices identified in the literature
(e.g. Brandon, 2006, 2008; Darling-Hammond, Jaquith, & Hamilton, 2012, Glickman et al.,
2017; Marzano, 2012; Marzano & Livingston, 2011;Marzano & Toth, 2013 ; Pajak, 2003;
Robinson, 2011; Sullivan & Glanz, 2013; Timperley, 2011; Zepeda, 2017).
Finding Four: Novice teachers benefit from ongoing support toward high, achievable, and
assessed expectations through both research informed induction and growth oriented super-
vision and evaluation.
Research informed teacher induction programs were described by a number of partici-
pants and outlined in several documents. In the province of Quebec mentoring programs
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING: THEORY AND PRACTICE   273

are funded to support the transition of beginning teachers into ongoing membership in the
profession. Such programs frequently offer intense late summer orientations, trained men-
tors and some opportunities to reflect and learn in beginning teacher cohorts. Documentary
evidence and school division participant comments indicated that to varying degrees the
programs feature visits to other classrooms and schools as well as the provision of modest
workload reductions. A complex challenge faced by leaders who offer supportive mentoring
or induction programs is the requirement of their district and school leaders to serve in dual
and sometimes conflicting roles of both providing support and ensuring quality through
their evaluations of beginning teachers.
Those who have managed to successfully bridge the two seemingly contradictory roles
in the Canadian province of Quebec do so by embracing the paradox of growth oriented
supervision and evaluation. The paradox is that evaluators need to ensure teaching qual-
ity while at the same time nurturing the growth of the new teachers with whom they are
working so that these novice professionals are better able to demonstrate the quality of
their pedagogy. In essence, this approach is very similar to the use of formative assessment
by classroom teachers as a means of ensuring that their students will perform well on
summative assessments.
Participants at all levels were consistent in the views that welcoming and learning
enriched school communities are vital to the successful teacher induction, professional
learning, and teacher retention. Though each component of a research informed teacher
induction program is an important contributor to initial teaching success, it is the beginning
teacher’s overall experience within a learning enriched school community that has the great-
est impact. Efforts in this direction are supported by evidence from several recent studies
(e.g. Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Couvier et al., 2008; Darling-Hammond, Jaquith, & Hamilton,
2012; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Hollweck, 2016; Louis & Wahlstrom, 2012; Robinson,
2011; Timperley, 2011; Wahlstrom, Louis, Leithwood, & Anderson, 2010a, 2010b).

Overcoming the learning challenge in Alberta

Until recently, the absence of ongoing attention to instructional leadership training has
been a major obstacle to effective supervision and evaluation. Insufficient attention has
been devoted to the development of supervisory knowledge and skills in many schools and
districts we have studied (Brandon, 2005, 2006, 2008). While attendance at conferences and
one-shot presentations by headline speakers can be stimulating; our research indicates that
a number of ongoing, collaborative, and context-based strategies seem to be having greater
impact (Brandonet al., 2015; Brandon, Saar, & Friesen, 2016).
Finding Five: An increasing number of school and district leaders are being provided with
ongoing, research informed, professional learning to support their efforts to become more
effective overall instructional leaders.
The variety of approaches to leadership learning observed in our study of six high per-
forming school districts support the view that there is no one best way to become a more
competent instructional leader. Evidence this effect was collected through 23 focus groups
and 16 individual interviews by Brandon et al. (2015). In total, 114 educational leaders
participated in this study: 53 principals, 33 central office leaders, and 28 superintendency
team leaders. A number of strategies are being employed to support principals as leaders
of professional learning. A range of organizational structures that enable collaboration,
274   J. BRANDON ET AL.

leadership learning, and communities of practice are being implemented. In one large
urban setting, routine administrative meetings have been replaced by monthly leadership
learning sessions wherein principals and assistant principals share evidence of teacher and
student learning with colleagues. Feedback on this evidence is both solicited and given in
preparation for further evidence gathering related to anticipated leadership impacts on
teaching and learning (Brandon et al., 2015).
In Canadian Rockies School Division, a small, learning-focused rural district, design-
based professional learning and collaborative inquiry mobilized shared instructional lead-
ership to advance pedagogical practices in a uniquely reciprocal manner as reported by
Brandon et al. (2016). Leaders supported teacher learning through reflective questioning
based on classroom evidence. They also enhanced their leadership practice by deepening
their understanding of specific research informed teaching through collective consideration
of the same classroom evidence by two of their leadership peers who observed and provided
feedback to the principal through reflective questioning based on their interactions with
the teachers in pre and post visit conversations. Such shared knowledge building cycles
provided a mechanism for six principals and four vice-principals to work with each other,
two superintendents and more than 20 teachers to strengthen their comfort, confidence,
and competence in leading evidence informed conversations. In so doing their visibility and
vulnerability in classroom settings enhanced their credibility in the eyes of participating
teachers.
Finding Five draws attention to the multiplicity of ways that aspiring, novice, and expe-
rienced leaders are being supporting in their efforts to become more accomplished overall
instructional leaders to better scaffold teaching directed toward improved student success.
This work is supported by a number of studies (for instance, Anderson & Louis, 2012;
Barber et al., 2010; Kaser & Halbert, 2017; Leithwood, 2012; Louis, Leithwood, Anderson, &
Wahlstrom, 2010a; Louis & Wahlstrom, 2012; Robinson, 2011; Timperley, 2011; Wahlstrom
et al., 2010a, 2010b).

Concluding thoughts
The primary purpose of this investigation was to illustrate and illuminate overall instruc-
tional leadership approaches used by Canadian school principals to overcome three endur-
ing challenges to teacher supervision and evaluation. Five findings and the evidence to
support them emerged from our thematic analysis informed by Brinkman and Kvale (2015),
Merriam (1998, 2009), Stake (2005, 2006) and Yin (2009). Insights from additional analysis
of and reflection on these key findings have in turn been developed into the four assertions
presented here. These four analytical generalizations about the impact of overall instruc-
tional leadership are based on reasoned judgment and assertational logic about the extent
to which they may be transferable to supervision and evaluation practice in other settings.
Stake (2006) observed that case studies such as this are frequently used as a step toward
theory, justifying ‘the study of the particular as serving grand explanation not so much in
a statistical sense but in a conceptual sense' (p. 8). Each assertion is cross-referenced to
specific findings in the text below with the intent of making it easier to judge the assertion’s
soundness as an analytical generalization (Brinkman & Kvale, 2015, p. 297). As Stake (2006)
cautioned: ‘It is not evidence for a court of law or geometric proof. It is persuasion, logical
persuasion, that the Assertion is credible’ (p. 41).
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING: THEORY AND PRACTICE   275

Assertion one

Shared, distributed, and collective approaches to overall instructional leadership deepen and
widen impact.
Assertion One is based on the data from multiple sources that led to Findings Two and
Five and detailed in the previous section. This evidence adds to the increasingly definitive
research about the benefits of collective, shared, and distributed leadership. At a time of
significant social turbulence and generational turnover in the principalship, it is vitally
important that these collaborative orientations guide leadership practice to optimize learn-
ing for all students in our schools. Many principals increasingly see their work as part of
instructional or pedagogical leadership teams within and beyond their schools.

Assertion two

Effective supervision and evaluation are part of a career-long continuum of practice that fosters
teacher growth while ensuring quality teaching.
Further analysis of the evidence that generated Findings One, Three, and Four in the
preceding section led to Assertion Two. Participants at all levels were consistent in the views
that welcoming and learning enriched school communities are vital to ongoing professional
learning for both novice and veteran educators. Though each component of a research
informed teacher induction program is an important contributor to initial teaching success,
it is the beginning teacher’s overall experience within the larger school and district profes-
sional community that has the greatest impact. Similarly, informed instructional support
and growth focused teacher evaluation can be significant contributors to teacher learning
through all career stages. Professional relationships based on mutual respect, and openness
within a collaborative culture, promote growth and ensure quality teaching.

Assertion three

There are multiple learning pathways to effective overall instructional leadership.

Evidence related to Findings Two and Five make it clear that a variety of leadership
development pathways are available to serve the professional learning needs of aspiring and
current leaders. Leadership learning programs in many contexts are increasingly based on
research. Programs that aim to develop overall instructional leadership through sustained,
job embedded, and evidence-based approaches are increasingly in evidence . While attend-
ance at conferences and one-shot presentations by headline speakers can be stimulating;
ongoing, collaborative, and context-based approaches have greater impact.

Assertion four

Policy contexts that place teacher supervision and evaluation practice within a broader con-
ception of overall instructional leadership are beneficial.
All five of the findings presented in the previous section support Assertion Four and run
parallel to recent examinations of highly successful and learning focused school districts
276   J. BRANDON ET AL.

(Brandon et al. 2013; Brandon et al., 2015). Overall instructional leadership flourishes when
district leadership teams create favorable conditions in four key areas: (a) a widely shared
district wide on student success – learning, engagement, and well-being, (b) working inten-
sively with schools to provide all students with instructional approaches that are intellec-
tually, academically, and socially engaging, and (c) expecting and supporting instructional
leadership at the both the district and school levels, and (d) utilizing the research informed
approaches to professional learning.
These four analytical generalizations about overall instructional leadership were formed
through reasoned judgments and assertational logic about the extent to which the study’s
findings may apply to teacher supervision and evaluation policy and practice in other set-
tings. Case studies aim to be generalizable to theoretical propositions and not to populations
or universes as in statistical generalization (Yin, 2009, p. 15). Since ‘most fields informed by
the social sciences have imperfect evidence available to inform their practices, judgments
are rightly based on the best available evidence, along with the practical wisdom of those
actually working in the field’ (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom, 2004, p. 9). Our
four assertions are offered to support Canadian school leaders in their overall instructional
leadership efforts to foster quality teaching and optimum learning for all students in their
own school contexts.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Jim Brandon is the associate dean of Professional and Community Engagement in the Werklund
School of Education at the University of Calgary. As an associate professor in Educational Leadership,
Policy, and Governance, his research interests include quality teaching, instructional leadership,
supervision, and evaluation of teachers, principals, and superintendents.
Trista Hollweck is a PhD candidate in the faculty of Education at the University of Ottawa. Her
research interests include teacher mentoring, coaching and induction, teacher evaluation, educational
change and restorative justice.
James Kent Donlevy is a lawyer and an associate professor in the Werklund School of Education, at
the University of Calgary.
Catherine Whalen is an assistant professor in the School of Education at the University of Northern
British Columbia. Her research interests include multidisciplinary leadership, teacher education,
novice teacher needs, mentorship, and student well-being.

References
Anderson, S., & Louis, K. S. (2012). The district difference: A new perspective on the local challenges
for improvement. In K.Leithwood& K.Seashore Louis(Eds.), Linking Leadership to student learning
(pp. 181–202). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barber, M., Whelan, F., & Clark, M. (2010). Capturing the leadership premium: How the world’s top
school systems are building capacity for the future. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/
clientservice/social_sector/our_practices/education/knowledge_highlights/~/media/Reports/
SSO/schoolleadership_final.ashx
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING: THEORY AND PRACTICE   277

Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1998). Handbook of instructional leadership: How really good principals promote
teaching and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership. Journal of Educational Administration,
38(2), 130–141. doi:10.1108/09578230010320082
Brandon, J. (2005). A standards-based assessment of Alberta’s teacher growth, supervision and evaluation
policy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Calgary.
Brandon, J. (2006, April). Engaging supervision: Exemplary principals at work. Paper presented at the
American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
Brandon, J. (2008, April). Images emerging in practice: Variations of informed instructional support.
Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New York,
NY.
Brandon, J., Hanna, P., Morrow, R., Rhyason, K., & Schmold, S. (2013). The Alberta framework for
school system success. Edmonton, AB, Canada: Henday Publishing.
Brandon, J., Hanna, P., & Negropontes, D. (2015, November). Superintendents who lead learning:
Lessons from six highly successful school systems. Report prepared for the College of Alberta School
Superintendents, Edmonton, AB.
Brandon, J., Saar, C., & Friesen, S. (2016). NEIL leading and learning cycles. In M. A. Takeuchi, A. P.
Preciado Babb, & J. Lock (Eds.), Proceedings of the IDEAS: Designing for Innovation (pp. 141–151).
Calgary: University of Calgary.
Brandon, J., Saar, C., Friesen, S., Brown, B., & Yee, D. (2016). Pedagogical leadership teams: Magnifying
and spreading impact. In M. A. Takeuchi, A. P. Preciado Babb, & J. Lock (Eds.), Proceedings of the
IDEAS: Designing for innovation (pp. 152–161). Calgary, Canada: University of Calgary.
Brinkman, S., & Kvale, S. (2015). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing.
Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York, NY:
Russell Sage.
Canadian Association of Principals. (2014). The future of the principalship in Canada: A national
research study. Edmonton, AB: The Alberta Teachers’ Association. Retrieved from http://www.
teachers.ab.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/ATA/Publications/Research/The%20Future%20of%20
the%20Principalship%20in%20Canada.pdf.
Coughlan, S. (2017, August 2). How Canada became and education superpower. BBC News. Retrieved
from http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40708421
Couvier, S., Brandon, J., & Prasow, C. (2008). Inhabiting a welcoming new landscape: A first year
teacher’s voyage of discovery. Journal of Educational Thought, 42(3), 261–276. Retrieved from
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40708421
Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among fire approaches (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Danielson, C. (2001). New trends in teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership, 58(5), 12–15.
Danielson, C. (2012, April). It’s your evaluation: Collaborating to improve teacher practice. The
Education Digest, 77(8), 22–27.
Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation: To enhance professional practices.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010, May). Recognizing and developing effective teaching: What policy makers
should know and do (Partnership for Teaching Quality Policy Brief). (to be emailed).
Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Creating a comprehensive system for evaluating and supporting effective
teaching. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Getting teacher evaluation right: What really matters for effectiveness
and improvement. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., Anrein-Beardsley, A., Haertel, E., & Rothstein, R. (2012, March). Evaluating
teacher evaluation. The Phi Delta Kappan, 23(6), 8–15. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/
stable/41497541
278   J. BRANDON ET AL.

Darling-Hammond, L., Jaquith, A., Hamilton, M. (2012). Creating a comprehensive system for
evaluating and supporting effective teaching. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity
Policy in Education (SCOPE). Retrieved from https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/
publications/creating-comprehensive-system-evaluating-and-supporting-effective-teaching.pdf
Day, C., Sammons, P., Leithwood, K., Harris, A., Hopkins, D., Gu, Q., … Ahtaridou, E. (2011). Successful
school leadership: Linking with learning and achievement. London: McGraw-Hill Education.
Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Glatthorn, A. (1997). Differentiated supervision. Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Glickman. (1985). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2017). Supervision and instructional leadership:
A developmental approach (10th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Hallam, P. R., Smith, H. R., Hite, J. M., Hite, S. J., & Wilcox, B. R. (2015). Trust and collaboration in
PLC teams. NASSP Bulletin, 99(3), 193–216. Retrieved from http://bul.sagepub.com.ezproxy.lib.
ucalgary.ca/content/99/3/193.full.pdf+html
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), 221–39. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.
net/profile/Philip_Hallinger/publication/228633330_Instructional_Leadership_and_the_School_
Principal_A_Passing_Fancy_that_Refuses_to_Fade_Away/links/54cd5e540cf24601c08d6215.pdf
Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research.
Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125–142. Retrieved from https://doi.
org/10.1108/09578231111116699
Hallinger, P., Heck, R., & Murphy, J. (2014). Teacher evaluation and school improvement: An analysis
of the evidence. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26(1), 5–28.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2012a). The global fourth way: The quest for educational excellence.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2012b). The international quest for educational excellence: Understanding
Canada’s high performance. Education Canada, 52, 10–13.
Hollweck, T. (2016, May). Coaching and mentoring communities of practice: Unpacking the terminology
in a Canadian context. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of Canadian Society for the
Study of Education, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Kaser, L., & Halbert, J. (2017). The spiral playbook: Leading with an inquiring mindset in school systems
and schools. Canada: C21 Canada.
Le Fevre, D. M., & Robinson, V. M. (2014). The interpersonal challenges of instructional leadership:
Principals’ effectiveness in conversations about performance issues. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 51(1), 58–95. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/doi/
full/10.1177/0013161X13518218
Leithwood, K. (2012). Core practices: The four essential components of the leader’s repertoire. In
K. Leithwood & K. Seashore Louis (Eds.), Linking Leadership to student learning (pp. 57–67). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leithwood ,K., & Jantzi ,D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership research. Paper
presented at American Educational Research Association, Montreal, PQ.
Leithwood, K., & Louis, K. S. (Eds.). (2012). Linking leadership to student learning. San Francisco,
CA: Wiley.
Leithwood, K., Sun, J., & Pollock, K. (Eds.). (2017). How school leaders contribute to student success:
The four paths framework. Dordrecht: Springer International Press.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How leadership
influences student learning. New York: The Wallace Foundation. http://www.wallacefoundation.
org/knowledge-center/Documents/How-Leadership-Influences-Student-Learning.pdf
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING: THEORY AND PRACTICE   279

Lortie, D. (2009). School principal. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2010a). Learning from leadership:
Investigating the links to improved student learning. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.
Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2010b). Key findings: Learning from
leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. New York, NY: The Wallace
Foundation.
Louis, K. S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2012). Shared and instructional leadership: When principals and
teachers successful lead together. In K. Leithwood & K. Seashore Louis (Eds.), Linking leadership
to student learning (pp. 25–41). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Marshall, K. (2013). Rethinking teacher supervision and evaluation: How to work smart, build
collaboration, and close the achievement gap. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Marzano, R. (2012, November). The two purposes of teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership,
70(3), 14–19. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/nov12/
vol70/num03/The-Two-Purposes-of-Teacher-Evaluation.aspx
Marzano, R., Frontier, T., & Livingston, D. (2011). Effective supervision: Supporting the art and science
of teaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: ACSD.
Marzano, R., & Toth, M. (2013). Teacher evaluation that makes a difference: A new model for teacher
growth and student achievement. Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M., Huberman, A., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis. A methods sourcebook.
Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
OECD. (2013). Teachers for the 21st century: Using evaluation to improve teaching. Paris: Author. Retrieved
from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/teachers-for-the-21st-century_9789264193864-en
OECD. (2016). School leadership for learning: Insights from TALIS 2013. Paris: Author.
doi:10.1787/9789264258341-en
Ozyildirim, G., & Bilgin Aksu, M. (2016, March). An investigation on developmental supervision
model: Supervisors’ and administrators’ opinions and teachers’ expectations. International Journal
of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 6(3), 125–146. https://doi.org/10.6007/
IJARBSS/v6-i3/2055
Pajak, E. (2003). Honoring diverse teaching styles: A guide for supervisors. Alexandra, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Pollock, K., Wang, F., & Hauseman, D. C. (2015). Complexity and volume: An inquiry into factors
that drive principals’ work. Societies, 5, 537–565. doi:10.3390/soc5020537
Robinson, V. (2011). Student-centred leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Robinson, V. J. M., Lloyd, C., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes:
An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly,
44(5), 635–674.
Sawyer, L. (2001). Revamping a teacher evaluation system. Educational Leadership, 58(5), 44–47.
Schleicher, A. (2015). Schools for 21st-century learners: Strong leaders, confident teachers, innovative
approaches. Paris, FR: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Retrieved from
http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/education/schools-for-21st-century-
learners_9789264231191-en
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY:
Doubleday.
Senge, P. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline field book for educators, parents, and everyone
who cares about education. New York, NY: Crown Business Publications. Retrieved from http://
jte.sagepub.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/content/62/4/339.full.pdf+html
Stake, R. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage handbook of
qualitative case research (3rd ed.). (pp. 443–466). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
Stake, R. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
280   J. BRANDON ET AL.

Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2013). Supervision that improves teaching: Strategies and techniques. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Szczesiul, S., & Huizenga, J. (2014). The burden of leadership: Exploring the principal’s role in teacher
collaboration. Improving Schools, 17(2), 176–191. Retrieved from http://imp.sagepub.com.ezproxy.
lib.ucalgary.ca/content/17/2/176.full.pdf+html
Timperley, H. (2011). Realizing the power of professional learning. London: Open University Press.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2016). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey Bass.
Wahlstrom, K. (2012). An up-close view of instructional leadership: A grounded analysis. In K.
Leithwood & K. Seashore Louis (Eds.), Linking leadership to student learning (pp. 68–86). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wahlstrom, K., Louis ,K. S., Leithwood, K.,  & Anderson, S. (2010a). Executive summary of the
research findings from Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning.
New York: The Wallace Foundation.
Wahlstrom, K., Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., & Anderson, S. (2010b). A synthesis of implications for
policy and practice from learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning.
New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.
Whelan, F. (2009). Lessons learned: How good policies produce better schools. London: MPG Books.
Wiliam, D. (2016). Leadership for teacher learning: Creating a culture where all teachers improve so
that all students succeed. West Palm Beach: Learning Sciences International.
Yin, R. (2009). Case study research. Design and methods. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
Zepeda, S. J. (2017). Instructional supervision: Applying tools and concepts (4th ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.