Talk:Instructional leadership

Hi, Yeseul! It seems that you have really well developed and organized article! I really like your outline. Here are some of my comments: The first sentence of your first paragraph, summary paragraph. - I think it was mentioned in the class that general rule or unsound rule of Wikipedia was not to include citation in the very first sentence of your summary paragraph, but to write it in your own words. One more suggestion regarding your first paragraph is to add some more information about the concept because it seems that by reading your summary paragraph the reader, who is unaware of the topic should grasp the overall idea behind your topic. You can add some main features of "Instructional Leadership"

I think you have really good paragraph about "History of Instructional Leadership"

These are my first comments regarding your draft. I'll be putting some more later. Regards, Dauren Dauren (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yeseul -

You have such a great draft here! I only have few comments. In the sentence in the first paragraph, "This body of research revealed that the personality characteristics..." I would add something to the effect of the four main or four driving characteristics because I would assume there is more than just these.

In the second paragraph you said, "..principal's heroic role." I 100% understand what you are saying but I wonder if you need to elaborate or reword this so it doesn't come off as being biased or just your perception. Maybe it's also possible to site this source if you got the wording through a specific document.

Under 'Perspectives' the first sentence you should change furthered to further. In that first paragraph in the same section - I REALLY like that you talk about the different viewpoints but I am wondering if you can make them each their own paragraph - I just get bogged down in the information and think it would be easier if I could see it really explicitly stated in different parts.

Overall I think you went really in-depth with the topic. I think it's great! Do you happen to know if there is one characteristic set that people in schools follow or believe more than others? Schmittkr17 (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Instructional LEadership
Hi Yeseul,

This is a strong draft here, good work! I liked reading it. There are a few grammatical errors that can be changed, but I like the overall structure of the draft. My only two suggestions are: can you write more about instructional leadership in the leading section. maybe mention a few characteristics here, before you explain them later in the paragraph. And second, that if you link out to various forms of leadership we have, your article will get more views and will be more aligned to Wikipedia.

Thanks! Trawat (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I like this draft overall. I think it's largely clear and very well referenced. I'm not an expert in this area but I think you've done a good job with the research. I've made some edits and I wanted to leave a few comments. I'll have a few more comments in a bit, but this looks like fairly good work! Thank you. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Take a look at "However, the accountability movement of the 21th century sheds new light on instructional leadership, since this paradigm puts more emphasis on the learning outcomes for students" I'm not sure this give any information to the reader. I think we're trying to show that leadership models have proliferated since the 90s but the accountability movement may cause a return to this model because it is effective. But there's no indication of the empirical effectiveness (yet. The empirical study is mentioned below, but a hypothetical reader hasn't gotten there). And there's no distinction between adoption in schools and research in schools of education.
 * Also watch out for lines like this: "These findings can be generalized since the sample was randomly assigned and it includes all school levels from elementary to secondary schools." Reading the abstract it looks like this was a survey. The coverage (secondary and elementary) is helpful and the randomization is necessary, but they're not things that make this research stand out among others as especially generalizable.