Brief Reflective Notes on the Leadership of E-Learning, Technology and Creative Services


Although, this department (ETC) has been a fixture of UF’s College of Education for a number of years, this year has been a year of optimization of services.  Throughout the past year, our department has coalesced into a very agile and forward-thinking group composed of five distinct sub-teams. These teams, usually not found clustered in one department, all work intimately to help our faculty to reinvent online education practice, implement new ways of teaching and learning; build engagement and support for alumni, current, and future students; create web designs that leverage learning, usability, and aesthetic design; and, support the building of collective efficacy and collaboration through internal marketing and awareness. The main pursuit of this office is to become leaders of instructional design for the university and the field of higher education.

Instructional Design for Online Learning in Higher Education

It is generally acknowledged that online educational experiences offered by most institutions of higher education do not reflect identified high-yield learning strategies (e.g., Hattie, 2009; Marzano, 2009), specific strategies (including frequent and specific feedback) for the online environment (Mandernach & Garrett, 2014; Mayer, 2015), or the teacher presence (Ragan, 2015) found in their analogous face-to-face counterparts (Berrett, 2016). A recent national survey conducted by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (2016) suggests the problem may rest in multiple areas, including the preparation of faculty and staff to create pedagogically sound digital learning opportunities. The report suggests, “high-impact educational practices are offered by many institutions, but rarely required.” Additionally, the findings indicate that approximately 36% of Chief Academic Officers report that “most of their current faculty members are using digital learning tools effectively in their courses.” This seems to ring true. Incidentally, the UF College of Education (CoE) has earned its first #1 ranking from U.S. News and World Report for our online graduate programs during my tenure. However, “faculty credentials and training” was still cited as an area of need in the scores that make up this ranking.

Our College of Education and its faculty have the greatest experience on campus in planning and implementing innovative pedagogical change in any context, including but not limited to online learning. This wellspring of expertise must inform future University of Florida endeavors in online education. Recent work in the area of multidisciplinary approaches to teacher preparation being offered online include the newly formed Center for Elementary Excellence in Teacher Preparation, the cross-department institution of teacher observation and mentoring through synchronous and annotated video solutions, cutting-edge research agenda (including the exploration of cognitive and social neuroscience methodologies and technologies) of Educational Technology faculty, video-based research conducted in SESPECS, and the digital outreach efforts to communities of learners led by our CoE-based centers. It is imperative that the teaching and learning research ecosystem fostered here at the College of Education is leveraged in support of the growing need for expanded online degree offerings and highly individualized learning environments.

Brief Notes re: Strategies in Redesigning ETC in 2015-2016

Communication and Collaboration

One of the main goals for this past year for ETC has been investing in relationships, connecting departments doing similar or complementary work, and supporting the improvement of all online activities. The first collaborations included the analysis and restructuring of hardware (servers) and the gap analysis of current websites. This massive undertaking (three months) was a change that could happen through collaboration with IT and wouldn’t necessarily impact the ETC staff directly. In effect, this change, and the rebuilding of the relationship between the two offices, allowed the instructional and cultural changes to happen more gradually. This direction allowed for the planning of slower change of “behaviors of people” in our department over time (Deutschman, 2005).

Relationships with key stakeholders of faculty, specifically department chairs, were revisited with renewed vigor and transparency. I led this charge, supported by our administration and instructional design. Additionally, the web design team leader assisted with the “soft sell” of our services, creating digital “profiles” for key department areas.

Employing Research-based Attributes of Highly Effective Online Learning

Our team has led the way for the implementation of attributes associated with effective online learning, backed by the understanding that designing online educational experiences founded in learner motivation and interest rely on shared contextual learning activities that promote the use of technology in service of creating authentic online collaboration and interaction (Sawyer, 2016) while supporting a personalized learning approach (U.S. Office of Educational Technology, 2016).

Specifically, we have worked to offer online learning opportunities that promote explicit articulation of student outcomes, the integration of assessments (formative and summative), learning designs promoting self-directed and collaborative learning, and implementing professional development strategies that assist faculty in embracing and utilizing technology effectively for teaching and learning (U.S. Office of Educational Technology, 2016).

Learning Asset Production and Digital Asset Management

Early on in the transition, it was agreed that investment in high-quality videography and other learning material design was a priority in enhancing and/or redesigning the existing online courses, and we created a mobile video unit and a small studio. Furthermore, the investment in these resources would help other areas of the College of Education, including the Office for Alumni Affairs and News and Communications. The video and photography digital learning assets produced support three main areas of work:

  1. Research-based video observation for learning (e.g., teacher video self-reflection or leader preparation in observation practice to inform instructional improvement). This focus is supported by recent research in video-based teacher observation for reflection on practice (e.g., Gates Foundation, 2010; Stigler et al., 1999), in teacher preparation and professional development support (Guaden & Chalies, 2015), and evaluation (e.g., Kane, Wooten, Taylor & Tyler, 2011).
  2. Classroom video examples, lectures, and expert interviews as digital pedagogical support. The literature informing this work includes the measurement of student engagement in video-rich MOOCs (e.g., Guo, Kim, & Rubin, 2014), the examination of the impact of case-based video assets for instructional design (e.g., Gomez, Zottman, Fischer, & Schrader, 2010), and the review of the impact of teaching video used in professional development courses (Borko, Koellner, Jacobs, & Seago, 2011).
  3. Marketing and awareness video for external stakeholders of the College of Education (including alumni, partners, and legislators).

In addition to video, which has increasingly become vital to our work, our department has employed instructional, user-centric design principals to everything from websites to paper-based marketing material for programs. The team has built and maintains a digital asset management (DAM) system with photography and video archives that may be accessed by media and communications personnel throughout the college. Illustration, animation, graphic design, and branding were all employed to assist in redesigning the aesthetic look of courses, websites, ideas (e.g., STEM Hub and logic models for grant applications), and physical space (e.g., banners, posters).

Cultural Change

In the effort to improve the culture of the College of Education’s Office for E-Learning, Technology, and Creative Services (ETC), we have explicitly engaged in an initiative that has motivated the internal stakeholders of our office to revisit our commitment to improving and supporting online and hybrid instruction for all degree and certification programs. I have worked closely with each of our internal teams (instructional design, web design, creative media production, systems administration, and student support services) to establish attainable but rigorous goals and have provided opportunities to build processes to achieve their goals. We planned a retreat to revisit and explore our identity and better understand our mission, to interrogate our shared beliefs and values as a group, and to plan strategies to build and strengthen relationships across our college and the university (Wheatley, 2005).

Mark Dinsmore (Associate Director for Enterprise Systems) and I targeted staff to take on informal and unofficial but recognized leadership roles, mentoring and reinforcing goals and objectives daily within small groups. We instituted a weekly department huddle with a focus on shared “project-based” discussion. We also created an “on boarding” series of strategic meetings for all new programs and those being redesigned, including every facet of the department. This continuous project/program-based improvement model in group meetings and individual mentoring allowed all teams to engage in discussions.

Implementing Uniformity in Processes of Support and Production

All sub-departments of ETC have been assisted in documenting and codifying processes for production of digital learning assets, courses, websites, reports, etc. This work has been difficult but has provided uniformity to the stages of design and delivery of learning experiences for all courses and programs. Our team has worked to become cohesive and build on strengths associated with assisting faculty, students, and the College of Education.

Some Foci of the Department in 2015-2016

  • Creating innovative CoE course content production that includes video, photography, graphics, animation, software, etc.
  • Designing or optimizing online pedagogy, supported on researched best practices.
  • Refining of data analysis for strategic support for all departments.
  • Supporting faculty innovations, research, and outreach/communications.
  • Supporting student recruitment, alumni and student engagement, and success through effective web strategy (social media, web redesigns, graphic design, illustration, etc.) and student services.
  • Hosting and supporting infrastructure of products as diverse as web applications to large databases used in research or in testing.



Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2016). Recent trends in general education design, learning outcomes, and teaching approaches. Retieved on April 1, 2016 from

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2010). Measures of effective teaching (MET) project–Working with teachers to develop fair and reliable measures of effective teaching. Retrieved on December, 7, 2012  from

Berrett, D. (2016). Instructional design: Demand grows for a new breed of academic. The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 4, 2016.

Borko, H., Koellner, K., Jacobs, J., & Seago, N. (2011). Using video representations of teaching in practice-based professional development programs. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43, 175-187.

Derry , S., Pea , R., Barron , B., Engle , R., Erickson , F., Goldman , R., Hall , R., Koschmann, T., Lemke , J., Sherin , M., & Sherin , B. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. Journal of the Learning Sciences , 19, 1–51.

Derry , S., Sherin , M., & Sherin , B. (2014). Multimedia learning with video. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 785–812). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Deutschman, A. (2005). Change or die. Fast Company, 94, 53-57.

Fullan, M. (2009). Turnaround leadership for higher education. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.

Goeze, A., Zottman, J. Schrader, J. & Fischer, F. (2010). Instructional support for case-based learning with digital videos: Fostering pre-service teachers’ acquisition of the competency to diagnose pedagogical situations. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE) International Conference 2010 (pp. 1098-1104). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible-learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.

Kane , T. J., Wooten , A. L., Taylor , E. S., & Tyler , J. H. (2011). Evaluating teacher effectiveness in Cincinnati public schools. EducationNext, 11(3).

Mandernach, B. J. & Garrett, J. (2014). Efficient and effective feedback in the online classroom. Magna Publications White Paper. Retrieved on March 28, 2016 from   

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Setting the record straight on “high-yield” strategies. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(1) 30-37.

Mayer, R. E. (2015). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd Edition). Cambridge University Press: New York, NY.

Ragan, L. (2012). Creating a Sense of Instructor Presence in the Online Classroom, Online Classroom, 12(10), 1-3.

Sawyer, K. (2016). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed.) Cambridge University Press: New York, NY.

U. S. Office of Educational Technology. (2016). Characteristics of future ready leadership: A research synthesis. Retrieved on April 2, 2016 from

Wheatley, M. (2005). Finding our way: Leadership for an uncertain time. Barrett-Koehler: San Francisco, CA.

Working References for my Proposal (with a photo of Cy Twombly’s Academy and another of me after reading all of these)



Twombly- “Academy”


Me, just after reading all of these.


  • Abbate, F. J. (2010). Education leadership in a culture of compliance. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(6), 35-37.
  • Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003) Context and leadership: An examination of the nine factor full range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261-295.
  • Aspin, D. N. (1996). Education and the concept of knowledge: Implications for the curriculum and leadership. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 91-134). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). The multifactor leadership questionnaire: Third edition manual and sampler set. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden.
  • Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441-463.
  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Worth Publishers.           
  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review. 84, p.191-215.
  • Barnett, D. (2004). School leadership preparation programs: Are they preparing tomorrow’s leaders?. Education. 125, 121-129.
  • Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.
  • Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
  • Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Bentley, K. (2011). An investigation of the self-perceived principal leadership styles in an era of accountability. (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing. (3482394)
  • Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2004). Handbook of instructional leadership. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 349–378. DOI: 10.1177/0013161X99353003
  • Blase, J. (1987). Dimensions of effective school leadership: The teacher’s perspective. American Educational Research Journal. Vol.24, No.4 (Winter, 1987). pp. 589-610.
  • Brackins, L. (2012) Examining principals espoused beliefs and actions. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing. (3532343)
  • Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2003). Becoming a principal: Role conception, initial socialization, role-identity transformation, and purposeful engagement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(4), 468–503.
  • Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership [Kindle Edition]. Open Road Media. Retrieved from
  • Catano, N., & Stronge, J. H. (2007). What do we expect of school principals? congruence between principal evaluation and performance standards. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(4), 379-399.
  • Childers, G. L. (2013). Principals’ perceptions of successful leadership. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. (1205)
  • Chenowith, K., & Theokas, C. (2012) Leading for learning. American Educator, 36(3), 24-33.
  • Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
  • Corcoran, S. P., Schwartz, A. E., & Weinstein, M. (2012). Training your own: The impact of New York City’s Aspiring Principals Program on student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(2), 232–253.
  • Cotton, K., & Savard, W. (1980). The principal as instructional leader: Research on school effectiveness project topic summary report. Paper prepared for the Alaska State Department of Education, Office of Planning and Research, by the Northwest Regional Laboratory, Portland, OR.
  • Council of Chief State School Officers (2008) Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium 2008: Standards For School Leaders.
  • Council of Chief State School Officers (1996) Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium: Standards For School Leaders. Retrieved June 21, 2006 from
  • Creswell, J. (2009) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods designs. Third edition. Thousand oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Culross, R. (2011). Preparation for principalship: The perception of principals on their own preparation for the position. (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing. (3473861)
  • Daresh, J. C., & Playko, M. A. (1994). Aspiring and practicing principals’ perceptions of critical skills for beginning leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 32(3), 33-45.
  • Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr. M. T., & Cohen, C. (2007). Preparing School Leaders for a Changing World: Lessons from Exemplary Leadership Development Programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.
  • Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. . (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  • Donmoyer, R., Yennie-Donmoyer, J., Galloway, F. (2012). The search for connections across principal preparation, principal performance, and student achievement in an exemplary principal preparation program. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 7(1), 5-43. DOI: 10.1177/1942775112440631
  • Ellis, M. Y. (2012). Novice principals’ perceptions of effective leadership practices and their principal preparation programs. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing. (3529200)
  • Elmore, R. F. (2004) School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Elmore, R. F. (2000) Building a new structure for school leadership. Retrieved August 27, 2013, from
  • Eshbach, E. C. (2008). The symbiotic relationship between new principals and the climate of the schools in which they lead. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing. (3303016)
  • Espinoza, S. (2013). The effects of principal’s transformational leadership behaviors on teacher leadership development and teacher self efficacy. (Doctoral dissertation), Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing. (3565648)
  • Estapa, A. L. (2009). The relationship between the transformational leadership characteristics of principals, as perceived by teachers, and student achievement on standardized tests. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing. (3378413)
  • Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2003). Transformational leadership effects on teacher commitment and effort toward school reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(3), 228-256 (29).
  • Goldring, E., Cravens, X. C., Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., & Carson, B. (2008, March). The Evaluation of principals: What and how do states and districts assess leadership? Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, New York. Retrieved from
  • Griffith, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(3), 333-356.
  • Grissom, J. A., Loeb, S., & Master, B. (2013). Effective instructional time use for school leaders: Longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. Educational Researcher, 42 (8), 433-444.
  • Gupton, S. L. (2003). The instructional leadership toolbox: A handbook for improving practice. Thousand Oaks, CA.
  • Gulbin, K. M. (2008). Transformational leadership: Is it a factor for improving student achievement in high poverty secondary schools in Pennsylvania? (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing. (3303551)
  • 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., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the Instructional Management Behavior of Principals. The Elementary School Journal. Vol. 86, No. 2, pp. 217-247.
  • Hallinger, P., Murphy, J., Well, M., Mesa, R. P., & Mitman, A. (1983). Identifying the specific practices, behaviors for principals. NASSP Bulletin, 67(463), 83–91.
  • Hannigan, P. W. (2008). A study of the principalship: Performance indicators of leadership standards and the work of principals. (Doctoral dissertation), Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing. (3324332)
  • Hardman, B. K. (2011). Teacher’s perceptions of their principal’s leadership style and the effects on student achievement in improving and non-improving schools. Doctoral dissertation. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing. (3482829)
  • Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Hipp, K. A. (1996). Teacher efficacy: Influence of principal leadership behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association 1996. ERIC: ED396409
  • Huff, A. E. (2011). Principals’ perceptions of readiness for their evolving roles in high-stakes environments. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing. (3491833)
  • Horn-Turpin, F. (2009). A study examining the effects of transformational leadership behaviors on the factors of teaching efficacy, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment as perceived by special education teachers. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
  • Ibarra, L. A. (2008). Transforming a school culture: Examining the leadership behaviors of successful principals. (Doctoral dissertation), Available from Proquest, UMI Dissertations Publishing. (3315044)
  • Kaplan, L., & Nunnery, J. (2005). Principal quality: A Virginia study connecting Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Standards with student achievement. NASSP Bulletin.
  • Kirby, P., Paradise., L.V., & King, M. (1992). Extraordinary leaders in education: Understanding transformational leadership. Journal of Educational Research, (85)5, 303-311.
  • Keys, M. R. (2010). The relationship between transformational leadership behaviors of middle school principals, the development of learning communities, and student achievement in rural middle schools in the Mississippi Delta. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing. (3407427)
  • Klar, H. W., & Brewer, C. (2013). Successful leadership in high-needs schools: An examination of core leadership practices enacted in challenging contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20(5).
  • Knapp, T. R. (1978) Canonical correlation analysis: A general parametric significance-testing system. Psychological Bulletin. 85(2), 410-416.
  • Jackson, B. L., & Kelley, C. (2000). Exceptional and innovative programs in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, (19)1.
  • Johnson, Jr., J. F., & Uline, C. L. (2005). Preparing Educational Leaders to Close Achievement Gaps. Theory into Practice. 44, 45-52.
  • Lambert, L. (1998). Building leadership capacity in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Lanier, K. (2009). Principal instructional leadership: How does it influence an elementary science program amidst contradictory messages of reform and change? (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing. (3374010)
  • Lapointe, M., Meyerson, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). School leadership study developing successful principals preparing and supporting principals for effective leadership : Early findings from Stanford’ s school leadership study. Retrieved on August 29, 2013 from
  • Larsen, T. J. (1984). Identification of instructional leadership behaviors and the impact of their implementation on academic achievement. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing. (8508956)
  • Leece P., Bhandari M., Sprague S., Swiontkowski, M .F., Schemitsch, E. H.,Tornetta, P., III, Devereaux, P. J., & Guyatt, G. H. (2004). Internet versus mailed questionnaires: A randomized comparison (2). Journal of Medical Internet Research 6(3), e38.
  • Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 387-423. DOI: 10.1177/0013161X11436268
  • Leithwood, K., Seashore-Louis, K., Anderson, & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. Learning From Leadership Project, The Wallace Foundation.
  • Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership & Management, 28(1), 27–42.
  • Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 496–528. DOI: 10.1177/0013161X08321501
  • Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
  • Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (1997). Explaining variation in teachers’ perceptions of principals’ leadership: A replication. Journal of Educational Administration. 35(4), 312-324.
  • Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning, commissioned by the Wallace Foundation and produced by the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement at the University of Minnesota and the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the Universioty of Toronto.
  • Louis, K. S., Dretzke, B., & Wahlstrom, K. (2010). How does leadership affect student achievement? Results from a national US survey. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(3), 315-336. DOI: 10.1080/09243453.2010.486586
  • Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, G., & Silvasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A metaanalytic review. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 385-426.
  • Martinez, D. R. (2009). Leadership behaviors of school prinicipals in Puerto Rico: Does transformational leadership equate with school success? (Doctoral dissertation).             Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (3391608)
  • Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • McGough, D. J. (2003). Leaders as learners: an inquiry into the formation and transformation of principals’ professional perspectives. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 449-471.
  • Mertens, D.M. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. 2nd edition. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.
  • Morris, M. B. (2011). Teacher and principal beliefs about principal leadership behavior. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing.(3477176)
  • Moshavl, D., Brown, F. W., & Dodd, N. G. (2003). Leader self-awareness and its relationship to subordinate attitudes and performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(7/8), 407-419.
  • Muenjohn, N., & Armstrong, A. (2008). Evaluating the structural validity of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ): Capturing the leadership factors of transformational-transactional leadership. Contemporary Management Review, 4(1), 3-14.
  • Mulford, W., Silins, H., & Leithwood, K. (2004). Educational leadership for organizational learning and improved student outcomes. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Murgel, J. C. (2011). Preparing transformational school leaders: An investigation into leadership style. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing. (3478338)
  • Murphy, J., & Shipman, N. (1998). The interstate school leaders licensure consortium: A standards-based approach to strengthening educational leadership. Paper presented at the annual meeting American Educational Research Association 1998.
  • Nelson, A. L. (2012). The relationship between middle school teachers’ perceptions of     principals’ transformational leadership practices, teachers’ sense of efficacy and     student achievement. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI     Dissertations Publishing. (3530736)
  • Nettles, S. M., & Herrington, C. (2007). Revisiting the importance of the direct effects of school leadership on student achievement: The implications for school improvement policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(4), 724–736.
  • Piccolo, R.F., & Colquitt, J.A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 327-340.
  • Onorato, M. (2011) A study of the relationship between principals’ self-reported degree of transformational leadership and students’ mathematics and reading achievement. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertation Publishing. (3510865)
  • Orr, M. T., & Orphanos, S. (2011). How graduate-level preparation influences the effectiveness of school leaders: A comparison of the outcomes of exemplary and conventional leadership preparation programs for principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47, 18-70.
  • Perez, L. G., Uline, C. L., Johnson, J. F., James-Ward, C., & Basom, M. R. (2010). Foregrounding Fieldwork in Leadership Preparation: The Transformative Capacity of Authentic Inquiry. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(1),     217–257.
  • Pounder, D. G. (1995). Theory to practice in administrator preparation: An evaluation study. Journal of School Leadership, 5, 151-162.
  • Pounder, D. G. (2010). Leader preparation special issue: Implications for policy, practice, and research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(1), 258–267.
  • Pugh, R.C., & Hu, Y. (1991). Use and interpretation of canonical correlation analyses in Journal of Educational Research articles: 1978-1989. Journal of Educational Research, 84(3), 147-152.
  • Robinson, D. L. (2007). An evaluation of the preparation of assistant principals for instructional leadership. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing. (3361411)
  • Sebring, P.B., & Bryk, A.S. (2000). School leadership and the bottom line in Chicago. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(6), 440-443.
  • Shipps, D., & White, M. (2009). A new politics of the principalship? Accountability driven change in New York City. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(3), 350–373.
  • Silins, H. (1994). The relationship between transformational and transactional leadership and school improvement outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(3), 272-298.
  • Harris, A., & Spillane, J. (2008). Distributed leadership through the looking glass. Management in Education, 22(1), 31-34.
  • Tschannen-Moran, M. & Gareis, C. (2005, November). Cultivating principals’ sense of efficacy: Supports that matter. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration.
  • Tschannen-Moran, M. & Gareis, C. (2004). Principals’ sense of efficacy: Assessing a promising construct. Journal of Educational Administration, 42, 573-585.
  • Tschannen-Moran, M. & Barr, M. (2004). Fostering student achievement: The relationship between collective teacher efficacy and student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3, 187 – 207.
  • Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
  • Thomas, Judith L. Jones (2005). The impact of aspiring leaders programs on school culture, student achievement, and teacher professional development. Unpublished dissertation. Morgan State University, Maryland.
  • Thompson, B. (1984). Canonical correlation analysis: Uses and interpretation.
  • Tofallis, C. (1999). Model building with multiple dependent variables and constraints. The Statistician, 48(3), 371-378.
  • Toor, S., & Ofori, G. (2009). Ethical Leadership: Examining the Relationships with Full Range Leadership Model, Employee Outcomes, and Organizational Culture. Journal Of Business Ethics, 90(4), 533-547.
  • Tucker, B., & Russell, R. F. (2004). The influence of the transformational leader. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(4), 103-111.
  • Unruh, A. L. (2011). The readiness of middle school assistant principals to become principals. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing. (DP19518)
  • Wahlstrom, K. L., Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. the informed educator series. Educational Research Service. 1001 North Fairfax Street Suite 500, Alexandria, VA 22314. Retrieved from
  • Werner, P. M. (2007). Elementary school principals’ perceptions of factors that should be included in principal preparation programs. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing. (3290010)
  • West, M. R., & Peterson, P. E. (2003). The politics and practice of accountability. In M. West & P. Peterson (Eds.), No child left behind? The politics and practice of accountability (1 ed.). Brookings Institution Press.
  • Xu, Z. X. (2010). The relationship between principal’s perceived leadership behaviors and teachers’ perceptions. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing. (3468993)