Exploring the Influences on Principal Behavior

REFERENCES

• Aslin, N. & DeArman, J. (1976). Adoption and abandonment of innovative practices in high schools. Educational Leadership, 33(8), 601–606.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baldridge, J. & Burnham, R. (1975). Organizational innovation: Individual, organizational, and environmental impacts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 165–176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berieter, C. (1986). The reading comprehension lesson: A commentary on Heap's ethnological analysis. Curriculum Inquiry, 16(1), 65–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berman, P. & McLaughlin, W. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change, Vol. VIII. Implementing and sustaining innovations. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Blumberg, A., & Greenfield, W. (1980). The effective principal. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Charters, W. Jr., & Pellegrin, R. (1972). Barriers to the innovation process: Four case studies of differentiated staffing, Educational Administration Quarterly, 9(4), 3–14.
   Google Scholar
• Clear, D. & Seager, R. (1971). The legitimacy of administrative influence as perceived by selected groups. Educational Administration Quarterly, VII (1), 46–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• deCharms, R. (1977). Pawn of origin? Enhancing motivation in disaffected youth. Educational Leadership, 34(6), 444–448.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dwyer, C. C. (1984). Forging successful schools: Realistic expectations for principals. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.
   Google Scholar
• Dwyer, D. C., Lee, G. V., Rowan, B., Bossert, St. T. (1983). Five Principals In Action: Perspectives on Instructional Management. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research & Development, March.
   Google Scholar
• Frederiksen, N. (1984). Implications of cognitive theory for instruction in problem solving, Review of Educational Research, 54, 3, 363–407.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fullan, M., Newton, E. (1986). Secondary School Principals As Facilitators of Instructional Change, Toronto, OISE, mimeo.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, G., Rutherford, W., & Griffin, T. (1982). Three change facilitator styles: Some indications and a proposed framework. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Hallinger, P., Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behaviour of principals, The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217–247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heap, J. L. (1986). Cultural logic and schema theory; a reply to Bereiter, Curriculum Inquiry, 16(1), 87–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson, L. I. (1975). Organizational structure and the adoption of educational innovations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, L. (1968). “Organizational climate”—Another dimension to the process of innovation. Educational Administration Quarterly, IV(3), 17–28.
   Google Scholar
• Keefe, J. W., Clarke, D.C., Nickerson, N.C. Jr., Valentine, J. (1981). The Middle Level Principalship, Volume II: The Effective Middle Level Principal. Reston, Virginia: The National Association of Secondary School Principals.
   Google Scholar
• Kunz, D. & Hoy, W. (1976). Leadership style of principals and the professional zone of acceptance of teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 12, (3).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D., Simon, H. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems, Science, 208, 1335–1342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leithwood, K. A. (Ed.) (1982). Studies in curriculum decision-making. Toronto: OISE Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leithwood, K. & Anderson, S. E. (1983). Evaluating policy implementation. Mimeo, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
   Google Scholar
• Leithwood, K. & Montgomery, D. (1982b). The role of the elementary school principal in program improvement. Review of Educational Research, 52(3), 309–339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leithwood, K. A. & Montgomery, D. J. (1984b). Methods used in developing and validating a profile of growth in principal effectiveness. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education. Guelph, June.
   Google Scholar
• Leithwood, K. A. & Montgomery, D. J. (1984). Obstacles preventing growth in principal effectiveness, Education & Urban Society, 17, 73–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leithwood, K. A. & Montgomery, D. J. (1986). Improving Principal Effectiveness: The Principal Profile., Toronto: OISE Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leithwood, K. A. & Montgomery, D. (1984). A longitudinal study of the implementation of Bill 82. Mimeo, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, W. J., Willower, D. J. (1981). The managerial behaviour of high school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 69–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miskel, C. (1977). Principals perceive effectiveness, innovation effort, and the school situation. Educational Administration Quarterly, XIII, (1), 31–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris, V. C., Crowson, R. & Porter-Gehrie, C. (1981). The urban principal: Descretionary decision-making in a large educational organization. Chicago: University of Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Parish, R. & Arends, R. (1983). Why innovative programs are discontinued. Educational Leadership, 40(4), 62–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter, P. (1980). Policy perspectives on the study of educational innovations. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2(4), 73–84.
   Google Scholar
• Reynolds, L. (1974). Reducing the unanticipated consequences of change. Administrators Notebook, XXII (4).
   Google Scholar
• Rutherford, W., Hall, G. & Newlove, B. (N.D.). Concerns principals have about facilitating change and their implications for training. Unpublished paper.
   Google Scholar
• Salley, C., McPherson, R. B., & Bachr, M. E. What principals do: A preliminary occupational analysis. In D. A. Erickson and T. L. Reller, The Principal in Metropolitan Schools. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan.
   Google Scholar
• Scriven, M. (1980). Prescriptive and descriptive approaches to problem solving. In D. T. Tama & F. Reif (Eds.), Problem Solving and Education: Issues in Teaching and Research. Hillsdale: N.J.: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• SPSS Inc. (1983). SSPS Users Guide. New York: McGraw Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. (1945). Administrative Behaviour: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. New York: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stephens, T. (1974). Innovative teaching practices: Their relation to system norms and rewards. Educational Administration Quarterly, X (1), 35–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trider, D. M. A. (1985). Factors influencing the policy implementation behaviour of principals. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
   Google Scholar
• Valentine, J., Clark, D. C., Nickerson, N. C. Jr., Keefe, J. W. (1981). The middle level principalship, Volume 1: A survey of middle level principals and programs. Reston, Virginia; The National Association of Secondary School Principals.
   Google Scholar
• Willower, D. J., & Smedley, S. R. (1981). Principals' pupil control behaviour and school robustness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Wolcott, H. F. (1978). The man in the principal's office. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
   Google Scholar