The fundamental question in creating coding categories for an open-ended questionnaire is how to transform a complete transcript into manageable pieces of data. This paper describes the methodology involved in coding qualitative data derived from an evaluation of the Cognitive Approaches to School Leadership (CASL) program. The first task was to develop a suitable methodology for coding think-aloud data so as to analyze the ways in which respondents processed the problem case. The second major task was to apply the coding system and explore ways in which analysis might be conducted. The final model contained 4 functions and 10 operations, giving a 40-cell matrix. The data indicate that nonprincipals approach the problem on an entirely case-specific basis, and that principals are more likely to operate from a schema that allows them to define the problem faster and more comprehensively. The results provide an indication of a typical problem-processing pattern and its components. The four dominant behaviors used by principals in solving problems included conclusion/reasoning, problem/reasoning, detection/action, and attack/action. Five figures and eight tables are included. (Contains 14 references.) (LMI) ******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ******************************************************************************** U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office or Educational Research and Improvement EDUCA NAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it 0 Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL AS BEEN GRANTED BY TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) Thinking through an administrative problem: Processing differences between expert, average and true novice responses Patricia A. Allison, Dawn Demaerschalk and Derek J. Allison The University of Western Ontario Revised version of a paper presented as part of the symposium Clinical assessments of practical performance in school leadership: Findings from novice-expert studies of the elementary principalship. Session #41.22 at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association New York City, April 1996 This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada under grant #410-92-0329 BEST COPY AVAILABLE CASL Project Paper #AERA96 4.2, revised August 1996.
[1]
K. Leithwood,et al.
Expertise in Principals' Problem Solving
,
1989
.
[2]
D. Allison.
Problem Finding, Classification and Interpretation: In Search of a Theory of Administrative Problem Processing
,
1996
.
[3]
C. Kluckhohn.
2. VALUES AND VALUE-ORIENTATIONS IN THE THEORY OF ACTION: AN EXPLORATION IN DEFINITION AND CLASSIFICATION
,
1951
.
[4]
Rosanne Steinbach,et al.
Expert Problem Solving: Evidence from School and District Leaders
,
1994
.
[5]
D. Allison,et al.
Experience and Expertise in Administrative Problem Solving.
,
1991
.
[6]
D. Allison,et al.
Both Ends of a Telescope: Experience and Expertise in Principal Problem Solving
,
1993
.
[7]
Craig A. Kaplan,et al.
Foundations of cognitive science
,
1989
.
[8]
R. Weber.
Basic Content Analysis
,
1986
.