Educational leadership and pupil achievement in primary education

Educational leadership can be defined as the ability of a principal to initiate school improvement, to create a learning-oriented educational climate, and to stimulate and supervise teachers in such a way that the latter may execute their tasks as effectively as possible. In 1989, 1993, and 1998, teacher perceptions of educational leadership of principals in Dutch elementary education were evaluated by means of a Rasch-scale. It turned out that the educational leadership of Dutch principals has grown considerably. In both 1989 and 1993 the effect of educational leadership on pupil achievement was investigated. While in 1989 no significant relationship was found, the results of 1993 show a significant relationship between educational leadership and average pupil achievement over 3 successive years corrected for school environment.     

Knowing and teaching science: the constructivist paradox

This paper addresses the parallel between the changes in students' and teachers' learning advocated by constructivist science educators. It begins with a summary of the epistemology of constructivism and uses a vignette drawn from a set of case studies to explore the impact of a constructivist science in‐service programme on an experienced and formal elementary science teacher. Judged by constructivist standards, the teacher described in the vignette makes very little progress. The irony of applying a constructivist critique to his work, however, is that it fails to treat the teachers' imperfect knowledge of teaching with the same respect as constructivists treat students' imperfect learning of science. The remainder of the paper explores this constructivist paradox, and suggests that‐like students' knowledge of science‐teachers' knowledge of constructivist science teaching is likely to grow through slow and gradual re‐formation of their established understanding of classroom theory and practice.     

Television: The performance of nonresident students in the “economics U$A” telecourse

Abstract

Correspondence study represents the first and most persistent distance education format in American universities. Later called independent study, it enabled universities to disseminate instruction far beyond their campuses. Yet, national‐level leadership provided by the National University Continuing Education Association (NUEA) and its divisions has been relatively restrained. In contrast, leadership in the private correspondence school sector has been assertive, and sometimes even aggressive. The NUEA and its members shunned this approach, choosing instead to lead by persuasion and example. The NUEA developed standards of practice concerned primarily with replicating on‐campus teaching styles and values, rather than the promotion of distance education. With the abolition of its division structure, the NUEA's successor, the University Continuing Education Association (UCEA), has opted out of a leadership role in independent study. This paper concludes that the NUEA's initial attempt at leadership in distance education— while reasoned and principled—contained flaws that made failure inevitable.     

Divergent production in gifted adolescents using timed vs. untimed stimuli with creative prompting

Although creativity and expertise are related, they are nonetheless very different things. Expertise does not usually require creativity, but creativity generally does require a certain level of expertise. There are similarities in the relationships of both expertise and creativity to domains, however. Research has shown that just as expertise in one domain does not predict expertise in other, unrelated domains, creativity in one domain does not predict creativity in other, unrelated domains. People may be expert, and people may be creative, in many domains, or they may be expert, or creative, in few domains or none at all, and one cannot simply transfer expertise, or creativity, from one domain to another, unrelated domain. The domain specificity of creativity matters crucially for creativity training, creativity assessment, creativity research, and creativity theory. The domain specificity of creativity also means that interdisciplinary thinking, interdisciplinary collaboration, and interdisciplinary creativity are even more important than one would assume if creativity were domain general.