Engaging with Educational Change: Voices of Practitioner Inquiry 9781474250849, 9781474250870, 9781474250856

Citation preview

Engaging with Educational Change

Also available from Bloomsbury Effective Action Research, Patrick J. M. Costello Inquiring in the Classroom, edited by Nick Mitchell Educational Research, Jerry Wellington

Engaging with Educational Change Voices of Practitioner Inquiry ALMA FLEET, KATEY DE GIOIA, CATHERINE PATTERSON with Sandra Cheeseman, Debra Clarke, Sheila Degotardi, Fay Hadley, Kate Highfield, Kate O’Brien, Franceyn O’Connor, Anthony Semann and Rod Soper Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square London WC1B 3DP UK

1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

www.bloomsbury.com BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2016 Paperback edition first published 2017 © Alma Fleet, Katey De Gioia, Catherine Patterson and Contributors 2016 Alma Fleet, Katey De Gioia, Catherine Patterson and Contributors have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Authors of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the author. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: HB: PB: ePDF: ePub:

978-1-4742-5084-9 978-1-4742-5083-2 978-1-4742-5085-6 978-1-4742-5086-3

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Fleet, Alma, author. | De Gioia, Katey, author. | Patterson, Catherine, author. Title: Engaging with educational change : voices of practitioner inquiry / Alma Fleet, Katey De Gioia and Catherine Patterson with Sandra Cheeseman, Debra Clarke, Katey De Gioia, Sheila Degotardi, Fay Hadley, Kate Highfield, Kate O'Brien, Franceyn O'Connor, Anthony Semann and Rod Soper. Description: London ; New York, NY : Bloomsbury Academic, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing, Plc, [2016] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016005923 | ISBN 9781474250849 (hb) | ISBN 9781474250863 (epub) | ISBN 9781474250856 (ePDF) Subjects: LCSH: Educational change–Australia. | Action research in education–Australia. | Teachers–In-service training–Australia. | Professional learning communities–Australia. | Early childhood education–Australia. | Education, Primary–Australia. Classification: LCC LA2102 .F54 2016 | DDC 370.994–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016005923 Typeset by Fakenham Prepress Solutions, Fakenham, Norfolk NR21 8NN

CONTENTS

List of figures  vii List of tables  viii List of contributors  ix Preface  xii Acknowledgements  xiii

PART ONE  Exploring practitioner inquiry 1 1 Landscapes of educational change  3 2 Principles of inquiry-based practice  17 3 Gathering and building on data  27

PART TWO  Illustrating inquiry initiatives 41 4 Redesigning pedagogy in the early years of primary school: An employer speaks  43 5 Stories from schools: When things go well  59 6 Stories from schools: When issues arise  75 7 Embracing the unexpected: Professional inquiry as a source of inspiration  89 8 Stories of pedagogical leadership: Collaborative professional learning  105 9 Sustaining practitioner inquiry projects: Frustrations and achievements  121

vi Contents

PART THREE  Critical reflections 131 10 Facilitating the facilitators: Working together for change  133 11 A system change process: Practitioner inquiry as a social practice  147 12 Professional learning through practitioner inquiry: Springboarding the future  161 Glossary  173 References  177 Index  189

LIST OF FIGURES

4.1 Practitioner inquiry cycle  48 4.2 Early Years Learning Hubs design  54 8.1 Collaborative professional learning ecological model  110 9.1 Action research cycle  129 11.1 Conceptual framework for the Early Years Project  149

LIST OF TABLES

4.1 The Early Learner: Position Paper  46 4.2 Early Years Learning Hub processes  54 12.1 Components of practitioner inquiry  167

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Sandra Cheeseman is a lecturer in social policy, management and leadership at the Institute of Early Childhood, Macquarie University. She brings to this role extensive experience as an early childhood teacher, director and senior manager. Currently undertaking doctoral studies, Sandra is investigating the influence of curriculum documents on the lives of infants in childcare settings. Debra Clarke has been employed as the CEO of UTS Child Care since 2004. Prior to this she worked as a teacher and director in long day care, as well as stints in local government and on secondment as a visiting teacher and lecturer. Debra acknowledges the passionate educators who took this journey into practitioner inquiry with her. Katey De Gioia is a senior lecturer at the Institute of Early Childhood, Macquarie University. She teaches in professional experience units at both undergraduate and postgraduate level. She  has worked extensively as an early childhood teacher, director in long day care and preschool settings, and as a transition from home to school facilitator for the NSW Department of Education and Training.  Katey’s research interests include transition-to-school and cultural diversity. Sheila Degotardi is an associate professor at the Institute of Early Childhood, Macquarie University. Her research falls into two connecting themes: the first is an interest in infant–toddler pedagogy, learning and development, and the second involves exploring how intersubjectivity, relationships and interpersonal relatedness are established in both child–child and adult–child interactions. Alma Fleet is an honorary associate professor at the Institute of Early Childhood, Macquarie University. Her work with Catherine Patterson and Janet Robertson has extended her understanding of pedagogical documentation as a component of educational change, particularly as influenced by work in Reggio Emilia, Italy. She has taught children across the early childhood range and now researches, publishes and pursues professional learning opportunities for educators.

x

List of contributors

Fay Hadley is a senior lecturer at the Institute of Early Childhood, Macquarie University, with a major focus on early childhood management and professional experience units. She has over twenty years of experience working in early childhood education in both the community and the private sector. Her current research interests relate to the investigation of relationships between families and early childhood staff in long day care settings. Kate Highfield has been a lecturer at the Institute of Early Childhood, Macquarie University, lecturing in Mathematics, Science and Technology since 2006. Prior to that, she was a classroom teacher for over ten years, teaching kindergarten to Year Six. Kate is interested particularly in young children’s use of technology in learning, problem solving and play. Kate presents at conferences, in schools and in online professional networks. Her community outreach focus is on effective technology integration for learning and problem solving. Kate O’Brien is currently Assistant Director: Teaching and Learning for the Archdiocese of Sydney. She has held several leadership positions in Catholic schools including principalship. Kate’s doctoral thesis, completed at the Australian Catholic University in 2009, investigated relationships between leadership and learning. Kate’s research interests have included investigations into school improvement programmes, leadership and learning, and the relationship of decision-making practices and ethics. Franceyn O’Connor is an experienced primary teacher, school principal, adviser in education and presently works as an Education Officer for the Catholic Education Office, Sydney. In partnership with Macquarie University, Franceyn has led a practitioner inquiry approach in over 100 primary schools, supporting teachers as they researched their own practice to improve the educational environment offered to students in the early years of primary school. Catherine Patterson is a senior lecturer teaching undergraduate and postgraduate students at the Institute of Early Childhood, Macquarie University. Her teaching responsibilities centre on facilitating the professional growth of student teachers in professional experience courses. Catherine’s research explores the realities of teaching and learning for early childhood practitioners. Her recent research has focused on teachers using practitioner inquiry to enhance the experience of children in the early years of school. Anthony Semann is a director at Semann & Slattery, a research and consulting firm based in Sydney. For the past fifteen years Anthony has worked as an educator, innovator and advocate with a broad range of



List of contributors

xi

government, non-government and private organizations. As a facilitator of over a thousand professional development programmes and in excess of thirty action research projects, Anthony has a keen interest in the ways that professional learning enables transformative practices across a range of sectors. Rod Soper was formerly adjunct researcher at Semann & Slattery, a research and consulting firm based in Sydney.  He has held a range of senior positions including Assistant Principal and Head of Early and Primary Years within the school system. Rod is currently Director of thinkers inq. His expertise and research interests include teacher education, critical and reflexive thinking, pedagogy and transformational learning environments. He has led and participated in a range of research projects and published in the areas of teaching, learning and leadership.

PREFACE

We invite readers to engage with the content in this book in ways that are personally relevant. While chapters later in the book may reference earlier chapters, it is not necessary to read the whole book in a linear fashion to appreciate the potentials of practitioner inquiry. Dipping in and out of the stories being shared should enable appreciation of the key principles and elements of practice associated with this empowering vehicle of professional growth. Alma, Katey and Catherine

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank: MM

all the educators who became engaged with practitioner inquiry projects and made this book possible

MM

our colleagues who were prepared to share accounts of their experiences to create the chapters for the book

MM

the editing team at Bloomsbury Press for their support and encouragement

MM

and our families for their ongoing enthusiasm and understanding of our work.

PART ONE

Exploring practitioner inquiry Entering this world of practitioner inquiry may be a new journey for you or you may be encountering a familiar way of being, of exploring professional practice. As editors, along with the other contributors to this book, we trust that you will find something of interest here, whether you are beginning this investigation or deepening existing understandings. To further those multiple goals (and audiences), we have constructed the book so that you are able to approach it in a number of ways. Some people might wish to dip into the examples of ways of working with practitioner inquiry in the second section, perhaps a chapter dealing with either the younger or older children, depending on particular interest or area of study, or a narrative from a particular sector – such as the successes and challenges explored in Chapters 5 and 6. Others may wish to start with this first section in order to be firmly situated in the language being used here, as illustrated through several examples and an overview of the following chapters, and then explore the key components of the process in Chapters 2 and 3 – the principles underlying these practices as well as the processes as revealed through the selection of a question for investigation, and the choices associated with the gathering of data to inform professional decision-making. There may also be leaders whose orientation may be more firmly placed in the final section, to establish the similarities or differences between the

2

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

approaches to practitioner inquiry in this publication and those offered elsewhere, perhaps relating to the reader’s personal professional experience (which, Connelly, Clandinin and He [1997] remind us, is the key to professional growth in any case). Regardless of the chosen entry point, it may be helpful for the reader to take advice from Sumsion et al. (2015), a large early childhood Australian research team who are considering the problematic nature of the evaluation of professional learning initiatives. In their terms, they suggest that: what is needed is a reconceptualisation of the relations between evaluation research and professional development. Rather than evaluation being something used to examine professional development, we are suggesting that the cultivation of an evaluative stance be embodied within professional development initiatives as a means of ensuring professional learning opportunities are differentiated to particular educational programmes and the educators within them and also as a means to facilitate change across programmes. (2015: 428) Their position evolves from thoughtful consideration of the existing literature and sits comfortably with the material offered here. The opening chapters in this section clearly encapsulate the holding of ‘an evaluative stance’, that is, the positioning of the educator as a thoughtful analyst of practice, committed to improvement through the culture of a workplace that fosters inquiry. If that is not the current situation in which you find yourself, the beginning may very well be the best place to begin.

CHAPTER ONE

Landscapes of educational change Introduction Practitioner inquiry has an important place in the landscape of educational change, particularly within the early childhood and primary education sectors in Australia. The concept of kick-starting educational change with this form of professional engagement as it is presented here, emerges alongside work by authors such as Fullan (1999, 2005) in Canada, Campbell (2003) in the UK and Groundwater-Smith and Mockler (2009) in Australia. It has become part of our professional toolkits through a range of ‘professional development’ experiences (see for example, Fleet and Patterson 2009), though this term in itself is less appropriate than the idea of personal growth through professional learning opportunities. The conception of an educator’s ‘development’ being strictly linear or in predictable stages is fading as recognition of the complexities of contextual variation is acknowledged more widely. It is more helpful to think in terms of people using these strategies as ‘change thinkers’, that is, people looking for opportunities to improve their own professional practice and, perhaps, to support others in their learning. This chapter introduces perspectives that the authors bring to exploring potentials and characteristics of practitioner inquiry as a powerful vehicle for educational change. It includes two small case studies – the first in an independent school in New South Wales, highlighting both the predictable and the unexpected characteristics of these strategies. Beginning with the vision of an executive leadership team (Patterson, McCauley and Fleet 2012), this engagement with educational change through practitioner inquiry unfolded over time. Within a context of accountability constraints, strengths-based processes were enacted in the school through continuity across several years of key personnel. The second mini-case concerns a system-wide development in South Australia that was instigated by a senior government policy officer who was working to enhance both the status and professional practice of staff in long day centres and associated

4

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

services across the state. These examples give a taste of the breadth of possibilities offered by well-supported cycles of evidence-based inquiry. They also introduce key elements of working with practitioner inquiry that reappear as cyclical refrains through diverse examples presented later in the book. This chapter concludes with an overview of content in the remaining chapters to assist readers in travelling within this particular landscape. Throughout the book, the preferred spelling of the focus topic is ‘inquiry’ rather than ‘enquiry’, although the original will be maintained in quotations, and either term is understandable (and therefore acceptable) in local contexts. Within chapters, authors generally incorporate definitions of terms with multiple definitions; readers may be assisted further by referring to the Glossary following the final chapter for clarification of terms with varied usage across geographical areas. Philosophically, the version of educational change envisioned here has multiple personae. It can be individually situated, small-group-led or systembased. Rather than being tied to or affected by political election cycles or whims of enforcement-oriented education departments, this construct of change (which may be initiated in either micro or macro contexts) is relevant to each participant, grounded in concepts of agency and empowerment, recognizing pressures of time and pragmatic workplaces, but offering cycles of hope, excitement and renewal. It also recognizes the prioritizing of dispositions as core components of curriculum in both prior-to-school and school settings, valuing such characteristics as persistence, resilience and curiosity in both children and educators. As Reed (2015) states: Practice-led inquiry appears to adopt certain acceptable norms associated with what is also called practice-led research or inquiry or practitioner led practice. They all represent a variable process, often situated within a particular context, modality and purpose. In most cases it is intended to aid children’s learning, enhance professional capability and influence quality. [These processes] can and should develop a reflective questioning approach on practice that is meaningful and can be recognised by those closely involved. The answers and responses to these questions are sought in a way which is ethical, has professional integrity, is academically rigorous and contributes to an understanding and possible refinement of personal and professional practice. These priorities enable the revisiting of the ‘progressive’ work of John Dewey, key educational thinker and innovator. Nelson (2015: 95) notes that: ‘Dewey’s work emphasizes that revising and developing new dispositions only happens during the process of inquiry: when we are faced with novel situations and problems that our prior ways of engaging cannot resolve, we develop new resources, new habits and, ultimately, new dispositions in our aims to resolve these problems or tasks.’ The processes of practitioner inquiry carry this development one step further, in that – for



Landscapes of educational change

5

example – persisting with the process in itself strengthens the disposition to persist and is rewarded through the (almost inevitable) progress with the challenges being tackled. Fundamentally, education is personal, while being dependent on both structural and affective factors. Margonis (2012: 7) wrote that: ‘The development of respectful relationships is a prerequisite to powerful educational events.’ Given this foundation, and ‘believing that it is the teacher’s role to discern patterns at play in educational events which are already in operation, and adapt educational interventions to those patterns’ (2012: 7), he reflected back to his suggestion of ‘a relational rewriting of Rousseau’s position’ and noted: ‘Instead of asking after the child’s nature and its place in the providential order, the teacher – from this perspective – should ask, ‘What can the students and myself be, given who we are?’ (Margonis 1998: 249). These perspectives resonate with philosophies underlying the structuring of practitioner inquiry initiatives. While there is an intention to collect and analyse data for patterns to assist in pedagogical decisionmaking, this goal benefits from a relationship-based context in which reflective practice positions educators alongside child/student learners. Margonis (2012: 8) also suggested that: ‘Instead of expecting one form of dialogue … educators would do well to invite broad and cacophonous forms of interaction into the classroom; a mix of conservative, artistic, comedic, and narrative patterns in the classroom gives a broader range of points of contact with students and clues them that a particular educational space offers many avenues of entry.’ This exhortation could apply equally to those educators and facilitators who are initiating and leading colleagues in practitioner inquiry initiatives: multiple forms of participation can engender rich possibilities. The corresponding implication of ‘safe educational space’ is an affective component of learning environments – for adults as well as children – which must not be overlooked. These intentions may, however, be threatened in a climate of measurement, funding concerns and politically driven agendas. In considering an accountability context, Mayo (2012: 44) wrote that: ‘Educational institutions seem less interested in what we take to be the deeper and more complicated questions that define education and are increasingly more interested in science–based measurements that only measure a thin range of what learning might mean (largely because that’s all that can be measured).’ In positioning this idea in the larger argument, Mayo continued: ‘Now, more than ever, thinking about how to build democratic societies that respect diversity and difference is crucial, not only to critique the kinds of educational reforms that are turning learning into test taking but also to reassert how the humanities and engagement with others enables political and educational development’ (2012: 44). These comments remind us that, in considering the arts and practices of practitioner inquiry, we are not only considering the pragmatics of institutions and implementation, but both the humanity of people involved and

6

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

the larger educational conversations of which these initiatives are a part. As Mayo states, even in a context of measurable accountability, broader objectives are worth pursuing: The forms of indirect communication and partial understandings that derive from interactions across differences may be helpful reminders that everything does not need to be clear and measurable in order to have a positive effect. Because as close as we may get to one another, we may not come to easy understandings or even enduring concord but at least we’re trying. (2012: 45) Therefore, part of the philosophical context in which practitioner inquiry unfolds has to do with perceptions of adults as learners and children as students, or, as expressed differently, in the way we ‘see’ students and ourselves. Educational philosophers also address this issue as follows: Seeing as an instant pedagogical act presupposes and differs from pedagogical reflection of what to focus on and how to see students. How we see someone, either for the first time or repeatedly, is always ahead of how we act. Thus, seeing as a way of interpreting the world is the beginning of action and reflection … How teachers see is related to who and how he or she is in the world, and to their relationships to their students. Likewise, how the student experiences being seen relates to his or her lived self and the relationship to the teacher. There seem to be ways of seeing students that are more pedagogically valuable to the persons being seen than others. (Saevi 2012: 29) Related to this philosophy is the work of Thayer-Bacon, whose 1991 doctoral thesis investigated critical thinking theory in the context of her experience as a Montessori informed elementary school teacher. She reported that: I was trying to understand why the children in my classroom scored so high on the annual proficiency exams I was required to give them, even though my curriculum did not match the public school curriculum for which the tests were designed. My hypothesis was that my students were using their critical thinking skills to reason out the most logical answer. Thus began my inquiry to try to understand what my students were learning and how they were learning it. (Thayer-Bacon 2012: 65) I position myself as a student and try to help my students see themselves as teachers. I truly hope to learn as much from my students as they learn from me. I try to create a classroom where students feel safe enough to risk sharing their views, and I encourage them to listen, attend, discuss, seek alternative ways to look at issues, critique, and offer solutions. I



Landscapes of educational change

7

consider us a democratic community of inquirers. We discuss ideas in small groups, large groups, and now on-line … (2012: 66) These perspectives encounter the nature of learning and the processes and transactions that surround the responsibilities of teachers and learners: the heart of education is the learner’s own work … Education is not what a teacher does to a student; it is what a student does to the world and through doing it, to herself. Teachers are managers and collaborators in this self-transforming work; they lead and help organise this work, but they are incapable of actually producing the change within the learner. (Sidorkin 2012: 96) Such philosophies are central to the versions of practitioner inquiry being illustrated here. It is important to acknowledge that, as with other fields of intellectual endeavour, the use of language and labelling of terms (such as ‘practitioner inquiry’) is unclear, contested, contradictory or merely confusing. Reason and Bradbury (2008: 1) referred to a ‘family of practices of living inquiry that aims … to link practice and ideas in the service of human flourishing’. They noted that this orientation ‘seeks to create participative communities of inquiry in which qualities of engagement, curiosity and question posing are brought to bear on significant practical issues’ (2008: 1). Practitioner inquiry is positioned, therefore, to sit under this umbrella of practices, traditionally referred to as ‘action research’. Following on from this explanation, Campbell and McNamara (2010) presented a review of the field of ‘practitioner research, inquiry and professional learning’, identifying overlapping concepts and blurred boundaries as they navigated varying interpretations of these concepts and their accompanying labels across the sector and professional literature. As part of this exploration they attempted to delineate the relationship between action research and practitioner inquiry. As they admitted, ‘This did not, however, result in the elucidation to which we aspired; there were too many overlaps and cross-cultural differences in usage’ (2010: 10). They concluded with key themes and recommendations for future work; this book is offered to further that conversation.

Growing change in a school The first case study, which is offered as a springboard for the elements that are unpacked later, is a change initiative in a school. Told over a threeyear period, this process was initiated and enacted through the ‘change thinking’ vision of an executive leadership team (as reported in Patterson, McCauley and Fleet 2012). Having pursued some ‘in-house’ professional

8

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

learning activities, these change thinkers decided to approach one of the authors for advice on ways to move forward. They felt they had made some useful progress but had reached a plateau, which is typical after a period of focused thinking about newer ways of working. Plans were made at the end of one academic year to begin the process shortly after commencing the following school year with the Kindergarten teachers (first year of formal schooling) and the specialist teachers who worked with them (for example: music, physical education, information technology, learning support and library). After a four-month period of staff meetings, input from university facilitators, professional reflections and workshop activities, facilitation of the inquiry process began again with the Year 1 teachers, meeting occasionally with the Kindergarten teachers to support their ongoing personal questions of inquiry. An interest in the pedagogical practices and philosophies of educators in Reggio Emilia had intrigued some of the senior staff and others were beginning to explore this provocation. Professional reading was discussed and issues to do with classroom environments, learner agency and assessment approaches were shared. In most cases, teachers were given ‘relief’ time from the classroom in order to work together in the afternoon with the facilitators, with occasional further out-of-hours commitment to the project, often involving working with a project ‘buddy’, another member of staff who was also investigating some aspect of professional practice. An unexpected bonus appeared in the form of the involvement of the director of the associated preschool on-campus (catering for four-yearolds). She explained: ‘Practitioner inquiry really opened the door to a closer relationship between the preschool and the school. It’s valuable for me to understand what is happening in the school so that when parents ask me about the school, I can be clear about what actually happens in the classrooms.’ Within the preschool, the director and her staff had been building on principles emerging from Reggio Emilia. As some of the children of staff were also attending the preschool, the open narrative approaches to assessment (for example) were made visible and able to be considered for adaptation in the other grades. At the beginning of the project, this director was particularly interested in the children’s experience of transition to primary school. Following the collegial model advocated in the project, she worked with a teacher’s aide as her buddy and co-investigator. They took the opportunity to talk with colleagues (both in the preschool and in the first year of school) to gain understanding of their perspectives. She said: ‘I expected the children to focus on the resources like the computers and the construction materials available in the primary school, and while they were excited by the new equipment, we were surprised at how concerned they were about making friends and dealing with exclusion.’ Although she found it difficult to find time to work with her buddy, eventually they designed a transition-to-school programme that more accurately reflected and responded to the children’s interests and concerns.



Landscapes of educational change

9

Another unexpected element emerged when the second cycle of workshops began later in the year: the specialist teachers who had participated in the first cycle were encouraged to be continuing participants in the second round. These specialists were therefore able to act as ‘in-house’ facilitators for the ‘newcomers’, lending local knowledge and authenticity to the challenges being presented by the university facilitators. The new group of teachers who joined the project at this time could see the investigations unfolding from their colleagues with potentially unfamiliar processes mediated by their specialist colleagues. As a result, these newer participants were able to ‘ground’ some of the anxiety associated with the invitation to develop an individual question related to some aspect of their teaching. Teachers might, for example, hear examples of how sharing decisionmaking with the children and seeking their input in approaches to room organization or components of traditional topics (‘Families in our communities’) added student engagement and richness to the learning. Participants could share in the excitement of the information technology coordinator who was planning to work with the preschool director in the second half of the year to explore the children’s understanding of computer programs. Subsequently, they realized how seriously the children were being underestimated in this regard. In continuing to learn alongside the specialist teachers, newer participants listened to the Learning Support teacher share her journey with several troubled children who had ‘found their voices’ through strategies that empowered their participation. These examples illuminated a wide range of possibilities for the evolving inquiry projects. While input from the university facilitators was similar across cycles, possibilities for the survival of a change mystique rested in hands outside the regulatory gaze of the classroom – the specialist teachers. Their perseverance offered inspiration in climates of constraint. In addition, from their perspectives, a number of specialists commented on the positive aspects of being engaged with other teachers in a shared experience. One noted: ‘I feel as though I’ve used the sessions we have together to take the time and energy to refine and rethink my practice. That time we have together, that time where everyone shares, that’s something I haven’t had previously. And being able to work collaboratively with colleagues in terms of practitioner inquiry has been really valuable.’ Such positive reflections provided a balance to the inevitable anxieties that arise when practitioner inquiry is first introduced. A large wine and cheese-style celebration was held in the school hall at the end of the year. Formal presentations outlined the processes of practitioner inquiry and the benefits to participants. In addition, display stalls established around the walls enabled teachers to share their investigations, highlighting their inquiry questions, data collected, actions taken and resultant learning and activities with the children. Visitors were invited from other schools and the larger school community. Pride was palpable!

10

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

Although similar processes were followed in subsequent years, shifts in context changed the school focus over time. Due to pressures from a national testing programme, the arrival of a new principal with differing perceptions of accountability, and changed budget priorities, teacherbased inquiries were not seen to be as productive as initiatives focused more specifically on testable literacy and numeracy outcomes. Certainly some teachers had embedded a way of working through inquiry-informed practice, but the nature of the learning community was reshaped, and some core principles (see Chapter 2) were compromised.

Growing change in a sector Moving across age groups, institutional contexts and geographical regions, the story of the growth of practitioner inquiry as central to a state government-inspired initiative can be seen in the four-year evolution of this form of professional support in the Department of Education and Children’s Services (DECS) in South Australia. While the entire process is outside the scope of this brief overview, a few elements can be highlighted. Firstly, the pursuit of knowledge had energized a senior policy officer within DECS to pursue doctoral studies to assess the effectiveness of a new state curriculum framework (Winter 2003). An area of concern that emerged from her research related to the possibility of routinized adult/child relationships impacting on the well-being of infants and toddlers in children’s services across the state. There was particular awareness of ‘the mismatch between educators’ stated beliefs and observed practices’ (Winter 2005: 283), which, perhaps not surprisingly, is a common theme across the voices of employers and organizers of ‘professional development’ programmes. Winter (2005: 284) reported that ‘In this study, educators were rarely found to spend sustained time with children, interacting to establish secure attachments and co-construct understandings’. In response to these concerns, she invited one of the authors to lead an eighteen-month professional learning programme for fourteen South Australian childcare centres. This initiative was designed jointly to focus on cycles of practitioner inquiry, and to include input from a range of people and cycles of ‘homework’ for on-site reflection and analysis for educators working with the youngest children in the sector (see for example, Tregenza 2006): Practitioner research was chosen as the frame for this project as this strategy empowers participants through the gaining of both research skills and knowledge formation in a local context. It is powerful in that over time, a cycle of investigation is supported by facilitators to awaken participants with diverse backgrounds to the quality issues present in professional practice, and then to develop skills in addressing those concerns. (Fleet 2007: 6)



Landscapes of educational change

11

Similar processes had been used previously within the sector by Professor Glenda MacNaughton, who also supported educators to search for ‘a question’ to further their understanding of professional practice and underlying beliefs. There was thus fertile ground on which to build this project. The initiative unfolded over several years and expanded to include more DECS district curriculum leaders and colleagues from local vocational colleges as facilitators, providing support for people who were already on a path of professional growth as well as those who were yet to be inspired (Fleet and Winter 2004). ‘One of the selection criteria for being included in the project was commitment to frame a question that would lead educators to explore the quality of their relationships (intellectual and emotional) with children. An underlying assumption (based on recognised research) was that improved relationships would lead to improved wellbeing and involvement for children’ (Fleet 2007: 6). As a result of their engagement in cyclical project processes, educators reported (and gave visual examples of) improved outcomes for children and better relations between families and staff as a result of local investigations and professional learning. For example, with reference to its rethinking of the structure and practices in the nappy area, the Northeast Community Child Care Centre reported that as a result of their involvement in the project, families: ‘began to ask questions about our research, comment when we rearrange/change the area and see us as more professional’ (Fleet 2007: 10). The project included a range of formal assessments which reassured the Department that the financial investment was worthwhile. In addition, evaluation surveys of participants included items related to both content of the investigation and processes associated with practitioner inquiry. A report summary stated that: The 25 content-related responses included items like ‘I now see children’s behaviour as a communication tool and now ask myself “what is this child trying to tell me?”’ and ‘That we need to view the outdoors as an extension of the indoors and treat both with the same level of input and respect’. The 15 process-related responses included items like ‘The importance of reflecting continually on practices to improve as professionals’. There were also personal responses such as ‘I need to continue to extend my training in leadership skills’ and an insightful structural response: ‘A minimal two-year vocational course is inadequate time to learn what we need to know. It doesn’t allow enough time for practice or reflection’. (Fleet 2007: 13) Thoughtfulness and professional growth characterized the responses of participants. In addition, the model of ‘celebration’ used in several years of cycling through these processes inspired the format of the sharing celebration mentioned in the previous change story. The work was

12

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

distributed widely through CD/DVD formats as well as contributing to discussion of ways to implement a subsequent publication Reflect, Respect, Relate that was distributed to children’s services nationally by the federal government (Winter 2010). The way of working not only became embedded in the Department’s approaches to professional learning, but expanded the authors’ understanding of effective approaches to educational change across a ‘system’. Sustainability was a strong indicator of success.

Reflections on these provocations Sustainability is a core indicator of the success of inquiry initiatives alongside the achievement of the purposes for which they were initiated. This element is recognizable in the criteria proposed by Reason and Bradbury (2006) in relation to the broad field of action research. They addressed questions of validity and quality (constructs which do not necessarily sit comfortably together) in terms of considering questions of significance, of outcomes and practices, of plural ways of knowing and questions of relational practice, all as they affect and are affected by ‘questions of emergence and enduring consequences’ (2006: 12). Consideration of these questions will be illustrated through the examples that are explained throughout the book. Reflecting on the examples above reminds us that both cases were motivated by outside inspirations – the first from the educators of Reggio Emilia, Italy (Edwards, Gandini and Forman 1998, 2012), and the second by the work of Ferre Laevers (2006) from Belgium. Both examples also involved a visionary on-site leader as a change thinker who sought outside facilitators (in these examples, university colleagues) to support a creative initiative. In both cases, the inquiry process was brought into the equation by outside facilitators to scaffold the desired movement towards enriched and perhaps more thoughtful, effective or appropriate practices. In both cases, time and infrastructure support enabled educators to engage with, and think through, the possibilities being offered. Time must be recognized as a key component in these experiences. As Mayo (2012: 47) notes: Time to think, let alone time to read and time to communicate with others about reading and thinking, seems a luxury. Trying to encourage students and colleagues to make time when there simply isn’t time is a daunting task. Refiguring the times we have together into something like stolen moments for deep thinking becomes all the more important. But attempts to take time or make time are also punctuated by students who do want to know what this thinking has to do with them and what it will do for them specifically on Monday (a phrase I would like to outlaw but one that I also recognize is an indication that there is no time for luxuries



Landscapes of educational change

13

like thinking and only time for acting, these are the pressures we all work under in a system of accountability that does not account for education but rather replaces it). Therefore, these growth narratives are predicated on settings or systems with a nascent culture of curiosity, of professional openness to reflection, of willingness to engage in intellectual challenge, and a disposition to collaborate. In addition, as Fullan (1999: 80) stated: ‘You don’t just build collaborative cultures as a model or as an end in itself; your actions must be informed and driven by ideas that the development of learning communities specifically generates greater learning.’ A key case study reflecting these elements is threaded through several chapters in this book; it evolved through the relationship of the lead authors with the Catholic Education Office, Sydney. Some elements of this case study (Stake 1995; Yin 2003) will be introduced here. While members of the educational community from the Archdiocese of Sydney were investigating questions of interest to their own situation, the authors, who facilitated many aspects of the project, were asking questions related to factors that support and constrain educational change. A model was followed which pursued sustainability, encouraging schoolbased support as is demonstrated in Chapter 4. Schools were funded to send their teachers from the first years of school for a year of workshop support, and then others from each school were able to be involved in the second year when other support structures came into play, including increasing systemic facilitation. The purpose of pursuing the initiative in this manner was to continue to strengthen a foundation to evolve stronger practice, rather than leaving single cohorts to pursue innovation without systemic support or a role in nurturing newcomers. Existing research on educational change indicates that, once the centrality of the teacher is acknowledged, principals and systemic infrastructure are key to quality improvement. Subsequent chapters (e.g. Chapter 10) demonstrate how, in this case, the facilitation of change shifted from the outside (university) facilitators to the system-based educational leaders in a highly successful enactment of the principles of effective change. Employersupported change agents have the potential to shape sustainability in ways not possible to outside facilitators. Participants in the unfolding project (as explained in Chapter 4) were teachers and educational leaders from Catholic primary schools. Moving from small beginnings, the collaboration of the CEO (including Head Office officers, regional leaders and curriculum consultants) with the authors, actively involved over 100 schools through the participation of approximately 400 teachers and school leaders, therefore impacting on almost 10,000 children in seven years. The first schools to participate in 2007 were volunteers; by 2015 a system-wide adoption of the inquiry processes as professional practice engaged almost all of schools in the sector.

14

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

Foreshadowed in 2008 as part of this transition was the development of a ‘Next-door Neighbour’ element, in which schools were asked to encourage participation from teachers ‘down the hall’ from those who had participated in previous years. This strategy would enable children to move from one room to the next, engaging with teachers over time who had pursued related forms of professional development (Fleet, De Gioia and Patterson 2008). This intention reflected a move towards ‘corridors of practice’ as a sustainability strategy advocated by McLaughlin and Mitra (2001: 316), a strategy which contributes to continuity of experience for children and site stability in times of staff turnover. Data collected to support the understanding of these processes included the following: MM

Principals, consultants, advisers and other educational leaders were interviewed at the beginning and end of two years of the initiative, either individually, or in a focus group of people with similar roles in school leadership, curriculum support or policy development.

MM

Teachers in the first two years of the project contributed their workshop session task sheets and data collection processes to the larger study.

MM

Where appropriate, cyclical processes of NVivo (a qualitative computer program used to assist with analysing data) and document analysis generated thematic links that were followed over time (QSR International Pty Ltd 2011).

MM

Where possible, transcripts of interviews and in-progress data summaries were shared with participants for member checking and clarification.

Resultant findings informed future planning and reassured the CEO that the investment (in facilitators and ‘release time’ for participants) was well invested. Funding had been negotiated differentially over time, with funds coming from central and regional offices as circumstances warranted. This initiative demonstrates clearly that the existence of a critical mass of engaged practitioners working through practitioner inquiry contributes to creating effective learning communities. This and other examples are shared to encourage people who are in similar pursuit of authentic agentic educational change.

Looking forward This discussion sets the scene for the examples and critical reflection which follow. Incorporated within the next chapters are threads of empowerment



Landscapes of educational change

15

within change initiatives involving teacher decision-making. In discussing teacher development (and noting that some of his ideas may be contested), Nelson (2015: 95) concludes that: ‘Without a process of inquiry that invites them critically to examine and even challenge our disposition choices, we risk creating contexts in which [teachers] do not develop intelligent dispositions; instead they may develop rigid ones that help them develop habits of conformity.’ Certainly the examples presented here are constructed to challenge conformity. Presented as situated narratives, these initiatives reflect adaptive models of professional learning, similar to the characterization by Koellner and Jacobs (2015: 53) in which the innovations ‘are designed to be enacted within flexible parameters that can be modified according to the local context’. The flexibilities include duration of projects, numbers of participants, the content, resources and focus goals; a key characteristic, however, is the centrality of those goals to individual participants, sited within an institutional frame. While not referring to practitioner inquiry, but relevant here, these authors also highlighted the value in building on Lave and Wenger’s (1991) conceptualization of ‘situativity’ as a useful perspective for considering professional learning approaches. This reference to situated learning prioritizes the gaining and extending of learning through social engagement in personally and professionally relevant contexts, an orientation which relates well to teaching contexts that value the social construction of knowledge (Sawyer and Greeno 2009). This concept will be revisited later when overviewing the examples that follow. Having set the scene with examples of practice, Chapter 2 will now explore the principles of inquiry that can shape and inform an adult learning community as well as inspiring and provoking interactions with young learners. In Chapter 3, we consider issues associated with ‘data’: the defining of data, its collection, organization and usefulness in cyclical processes of practitioner inquiry. Creating and accessing information in an orderly way is an important component of the kinds of evidencebased practice being reported here; this need for systematic approaches to workplace investigations has been highlighted by Goodfellow and Hedges (2007). As has been foreshadowed, Chapter 4 is told from the perspective of a large educational employing authority who set themselves the task of embedding informed early childhood practice in the first years of school across a culturally diverse and geographically diffuse school system. Subsequently, Chapter 5 investigates the experience of employerfacilitated professional learning from the perspective of principals in two city schools who have been working with this approach to educational change for several years. They give examples of ways the initiative unfolded in each school as well as highlighting the personal philosophies they bring to the process. Chapter 6 has a similar starting point but stumbles along a less certain path. It tells of instances when the inspiration did not take wings and fly, when personalities, hierarchies and institutional pressures

16

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

constrained the possibilities being offered. Chapter 7 then shares a story of an inquiry project that attracted the educators in three long day children’s services in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) to revisit their practice through fresh eyes, with the help of outside facilitators. It begins with a mixture of grumbles and high expectations and ends with tangible personal and professional growth. Chapter 8 then offers another ‘prior-to-school’ story in which a team of educators worked together to improve their professional practice in a group of suburban childcare centres. Returning to the ACT, but lead by a different team, the following chapter (Chapter 9) reports on work unfolding over a five-year period with a large number of centres and educators. This sequence of projects also included cycles of workshops and scaffolded research investigations and foregrounded additional areas benefiting from focused investigation. Chapter 10 takes yet another perspective, that of facilitators assisting regional leaders within an organization to support educators in their efforts to understand and implement inquiry informed approaches to adult learning. In a bid to ensure the sustainability of a change initiative, university-based facilitators embarked on a process of support and provocation to enable an educational sector to develop and extend its own professional learning agenda. Chapter 11 explores the critical and complex nature of leadership within a systemic school-based change initiative. The final chapter highlights the threads that have evolved through this exploration of springboarding change across contexts, drawing on the expertise of change thinkers, the innovators who have seen the potential of an empowering learning frame and sought the complexity and rewards embedded in the inquiry landscape.

CHAPTER TWO

Principles of inquiry-based practice Purpose: Why would you do this? Why does practitioner inquiry matter? Fullan (2011) writes about a ‘moral purpose’ which can be seen to intersect with socially just practices, insofar as the moral purpose of education concerns a deep belief that all children can succeed at school regardless of their backgrounds. As a result, a moral purpose represents a ‘social responsibility to others and the environment’ (Fullan 2002: 17), a belief actively supporting principles of social justice. From this perspective, pursuing an investigation of the principles and purposes of practitioner inquiry can be seen to be contributing to the strengthening of socially just practices in the education arena. When referring to key elements involved in pursuing educational change, the list could equate with benefits to be gained from change initiatives structured through practitioner inquiry. Characteristics which might top the list include: MM

promotion of collegial support and encouragement as envisioned in a learning community

MM

generation of locally-relevant knowledge

MM

empowerment of educators through choice of investigation focus

MM

increased professional confidence and competence.

As introduced in the previous chapter, practitioner inquiry (or inquiry-based practice) has emerged from the tradition of action research. It features a continuous spiral of input, action and reflection where ideas are explored in a variety of ways and subsequently revisited for increasing clarity, with locally contextualized data underpinning professional decision-making. This sequence enables the exploration of ideas over an extended period of time to promote depth of understanding and improve professional learning. Such an approach to educational change engages individuals in exploring

18

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

self-chosen areas of inquiry by framing a question of personal importance to investigate, in a professionally supported environment. Having framed the question (perhaps with the assistance of a facilitator or ‘buddy’ colleague), individuals collect data from an area of daily practice which they share with colleagues, then analyse and interpret to inform decision-making. If pursued in a context of a supportive learning culture (a critical caveat), this analysis contributes to an ongoing cycle of reflection and adaptation to enable professional engagement and improvement. Given this context, practitioner inquiry can be conceptualized both in terms of potential as a tool in educational change initiatives and simultaneously as a formative ingredient in a learning community. Each of these possibilities will be considered briefly below.

Practitioner inquiry as a component of educational change The use of practitioner inquiry as a key component of sustainable systemic change reflects an understanding of the characteristics of adult learning and systemic complexity, including the resistance of bureaucracies to institutional change. Practitioner inquiry includes the pursuit of agency and empowerment. This form of research has emerged from the tradition of action research (e.g. Mills 2013), acknowledgement of teachers as learners (Groundwater-Smith, Ewing and Le Cornu 2015) and the importance of the practitioner’s voice in engaged educational improvement (e.g. Fleer and Kennedy 2006; Hargreaves and Fullan 1998). With increased understanding of the limitations of single session professional development (Fleet and Patterson 2001), practitioner inquiry can strengthen the knowledgebuilding school or empowerment-oriented children’s service. A focus on collecting and analysing data about ordinary events and interactions can improve professionalism and staff engagement (Manning-Morton 2006). Similarly, research about systems in the act of supporting practitioner inquiry unfolds in a parallel process of data gathering and analysis related to the systemic context as a case study. In both the small-scale initiation of inquiry-based projects and large systemic-framed initiatives, there is recognition of a ‘provocation orientation’, that is, an open-minded pursuit of increased understanding as springboarded through the provocation of locally relevant inquiry questions. Initiatives in such contexts can be seen in terms of ‘capacity building’. Capacity building ‘involves policies, strategies, resources and actions designed to increase people’s collective power to move the system forward … Building capacity involves developing new knowledge, skills and competencies; new resources (time, ideas, materials), and new shared identity and motivation to work together for greater change’ (Fullan, Cuttress and



Principles of inquiry-based practice

19

Kilcher 2009: 10). These processes also energize individuals working with others embedded in a contextualized social process. The concept of capacity building implies a growth trajectory, an in-built component of sustainability which is of value to any group or organization invoking practitioner inquiry for long-term improvements. Nevertheless, while acknowledging that teachers are key, they cannot ‘improve’ through good intentions alone. Research clearly indicates ‘the limits of teacher-centric practices’, and the importance of a range of factors, including ‘a knowledgeable supportive principal’ (McLaughlin and Mitra 2001: 311) while ‘going to scale’ (2001: 314). Infrastructure and employer commitment are critical. ‘Going to scale requires support not only for sustaining existing practices, but for broadening the reach of reform at multiple levels of the system …’ (2001: 314–15).

Practitioner inquiry as a component of a learning community Simultaneously, the potential for the development of a learning community (Wenger 1998) leads to active engagement in issues of immediate concern. In this model, the facilitators create a situation where the ‘content’ being delivered is philosophically framed to connect with the participants’ concerns. This conceptualization of professional empowerment includes regular gatherings of staff from a number of sites, meetings with all staff in a setting, departmental staff teams or grade meetings, and small buddy groups. These opportunities for professional exchange support individual agency within sustainable organizational change. The processes depend on locally relevant data collection and analysis, enabling participants to grow as researchers of their own practice by working in collaborative teams. This resonates with Canadian (Levin 2007) and Australian research (Kemmis et al. 2012), in which schools are recognized as ecologies in complex political environments, dependent on support for creating respected sustainable learning communities. For example, the introduction of a ‘Nextdoor Neighbour’ programme can involve participating teachers and school leaders in mentoring other members of their local school community as part of a commitment to sustainability of the inquiry orientation (see Chapter 1). In a well-argued review of the literature at the time, Borko (2004: 7) noted that the development of learning communities to support teachers is complex and time-consuming, and that ‘challenging conversations about teaching’ have been identified as key to the success of such communities. Similar to approaches to professional learning described by Albrecht and Engel (2007), through talking, thinking, listening and reflecting, individuals access data from their own experience and co-construct knowledge. This approach is a form of capacity building that recognizes ‘emotional

20

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

geographies’ (Hargreaves 2001), that is, the affective components within each individual as well as around the participating group.

Principles Processes of practitioner inquiry have evolved in association with principles of adult learning and the history of (participatory) action research which, increasingly, is recognized as ‘action learning’ (Aubusson, Ewing and Hoban 2009). While these terms are ‘cousins’, they should not be used interchangeably. Similarly, it should be appreciated that there is not a definitive list of key principles and practices associated with practitioner inquiry as a change methodology, although the reader will note commonalities across contributing authors in this publication. Differences in cultural protocols and geographical contexts, power structures and philosophies, have profound impacts on the conceptualizations and implementations of inquiry-based change strategies. Nevertheless, for current purposes, it is helpful to state that practitioner inquiry has strong foundations in principles of adult learning including the following points: MM

Building on learner strengths provides stepping-stones for growth Adult learners, teachers and administrators bring considerable professional knowledge and practical experience to professional learning contexts. Building on these strengths, practitioner inquiry enables the adult learner to question, replace or reframe assumptions related to teaching and learning. Teachers reflect on ‘what they believe, the decisions they make, and the reasons underlying what they do’ (Stremmel 2012: 109). Practitioner inquiry empowers teachers to draw on their accumulated experiences, and question their professional practice through engagement in reflective discussions and self-directed learning. Rather than providing a one-approach-suits-all professional development experience, practitioner inquiry recognizes the power of self-directed learning for adult learners and enables teachers to systematically investigate their own practices.

MM

Embedding processes in social constructivism strengthens capacity and enables peer support Social constructivist theories are based on the belief that learners actively construct meaning for themselves by working with others to question, think critically and solve problems. Practitioner inquiry is ideally placed to provide participants with authentic, collaborative opportunities for this kind of shared problem-solving. When engaged in practitioner inquiry, time is allocated to discuss critical issues, share knowledge and experience, and reflect on pedagogical



Principles of inquiry-based practice

21

beliefs and practices. A practitioner-centred approach to professional growth emphasizes active and collaborative knowledge-construction that builds capacity to work together in a community of practice. Hopkins et al. (2011: 19) explain that ‘building capacity essentially involves building relationships, building trust and building community’ and there is ‘evidence to suggest that professional learning communities offer one way forward to reinvigorate and recommit individual schools and educators to the process of improvement’. While learning communities may offer a way forward, Fullan (2006a) warns that they run a risk of superficiality if participants are not engaged in deep learning. Therefore, it is important that practitioner inquiry projects are designed to develop collaborative cultures of inquiry with participants who are willing to question assumptions and prevalent practices. MM

Researching content related to their own practices engages participants in deep learning Engaging in relevant situationally-based investigations makes practitioner inquiry a meaningful professional growth opportunity for teachers and others in an educational setting. ‘The real value of engaging in teacher research at any level is that it may lead to rethinking and reconstructing what it means to be a teacher … and consequently the ways teachers relate to children and students’ (Stremmel 2012: 108). This is evident particularly in examples of practitioner inquiry conducted in childcare centres and preschools. Some staff in these contexts are paraprofessionals rather than university graduates, yet when involved in practitioner inquiry they are seen as educators with professional responsibilities who have a valued contribution to make in the learning community.   Through a process of self-reflection, teachers are able to deepen their professional knowledge and refine their skills. This engagement is supported by the highly personal nature of practitioner inquiry which encourages situated shifts in knowledge and practice. Glazer and Hannifin (2006: 186) note that professional learning for teachers needs to be ‘onsite, ongoing and just-in-time’. This characterizes an essential element of practitioner inquiry that enables teachers to develop a deep, rich understanding of their practice.

MM

Acknowledging particular sociopolitical contexts increases likelihood of relevance Practitioner inquiry works within a context of external pressures and internal tensions. All examples presented in this book operated within particular sociopolitical contexts – as do all attempts at educational change. Some examples show a strong influence of external factors, such as government policies or the priorities of the employing authority. Internal tensions tend to be seen at

22

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

the local level, such as a lack of support from the principal, or a misunderstanding between teachers in the same school. Inquirybased critical examinations of practice can lead to teachers being stressed as they may feel de-skilled when taking up new professional behaviours. Tensions may arise when having to work with colleagues who don’t want to change or are unwilling to examine their teaching practices. Practitioner inquiry, however, recognizes the influence of political and social agendas while validating professional knowledge and skills. MM

Including recursive cycles of investigation and analysis provides time for learners to enter a cycle at personally meaningful points Not all participants are able to engage with practitioner inquiry in the same way at particular times in their professional lives. Rather, they engage in diverse ways depending on a range of professional and personal elements. For example, Schnellert, Butler and Higginson (2008: 745) found that the teachers in their collaborative study ‘followed unique, sometimes circuitous, paths as they engaged in cycles of inquiry and action’. Fortunately, the recursive nature of practitioner inquiry caters for individual differences by providing multiple opportunities for participants to engage with inquiry and reflection. While it is important to recognize that ‘being reflective and inquiring is a fragile stance’ (Rust 2007: 105), the collaborative nature of practitioner inquiry can nurture and encourage tentative or uncertain participants.   The cyclic nature of practitioner inquiry has another advantage when consideration is given to the goal of deeper learning for professional growth. Deeper learning ‘typically requires repeated cycles of engagement’, but, unfortunately, many professional learning opportunities for teachers ‘do not allow for multiple cycles of learning’ (Timperley et al. 2007: 8). Too many examples of professional development rely on single workshop sessions with few opportunities for participants to take responsibility for their own learning. The recursive cycles of investigation and analysis associated with practitioner inquiry, however, provide a framework for continuous improvement and potential for complex and more thoughtful engagement with areas of investigation. Participants are expected to explore new ideas and share their thoughts and ideas for change and improvement with others. Revisiting earlier efforts with supportive colleagues also encourages the thoughtful reflection that may be missing from more technocratic, linear approaches to professional learning.

MM

Persistence with challenging processes is enhanced when situated within trusting supportive relationships Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009: 142) explain that practitioner



Principles of inquiry-based practice

23

inquiry communities ‘often involve joint participation by teachers, researchers, school leaders and others who are differently positioned from one another and who bring distinctive kinds of knowledge and experiences to bear on the collective enterprise. The key, however, is that all participants in these groups … function as fellow learners and researchers.’ This sense of joint endeavour is a fundamental characteristic of practitioner inquiry. It uses a collaborative approach to help create a culture of professional growth in which ‘teachers learn to accept differences of opinion, articulate their thoughts and plan constructive action to improve teaching and learning’ (Abramson 2012: 156).   While working with colleagues to refine and clarify ideas may include confrontation, counterproductive behaviours are not acceptable. High-trust relationships will not develop when cynicism or discontent are evident in groups. There is the potential for tensions to arise when practitioners reveal deeply held personal and professional beliefs. Stoll (2010: 479) explores the value of trusting and respectful relationships, and explains that ‘without a climate of trust and respect, people don’t feel safe to take the risks associated with collaboration, open dialogue and opening up their practice to potential scrutiny by others’. On the other hand, a culture that ‘encourages collegial learning in an atmosphere of mutual trust, respect and risk taking’ enhances engagement and persistence in professional learning (Hoban et al. 2005: 117). This list makes it abundantly clear that inquiry-based initiatives are more likely to succeed when they recognize the importance of the ‘emotional geographies’ as explored by Hargreaves (2001), as well as accommodating pragmatic concerns and intellectual imperatives. Infrastructure support from an employer or system is also necessary as a reflection of commitment and acknowledgement that time must be provided for teachers to step back from daily responsibilities and consider professional practice within a scaffolded investigative frame. Participants in site-based inquiry projects could be forgiven for thinking, ‘How am I supposed to fit all this into my busy day?’ People scaffolding the development of inquiry approaches need to be sensitive to these concerns and actively work with educators to provide identified time to learn about practitioner inquiry principles and practices and then to negotiate ways to embed the components into workpractices in professionally equitable ways.

24

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

Practices In framing principles to be useful for those considering the adoption or refinement of these ways of working, it is useful to highlight specific practices associated with practitioner inquiry. The following overview presents practical advice for educators who are investigating their own inquiry projects or as part of teams or systems working in these ways. It describes the inquiry cycle in terms of steps which are generally followed in developing and following through with an inquiry project, and elements which contribute to more successful and satisfying outcomes.

So how does it ‘work’? A broad overview of the shape of inquiry-based initiatives would most likely include: MM

an introduction and overview, including inspiration and sharing of processes

MM

guidance regarding approaches to forming and re-forming a focus question of inquiry

MM

encouragement in being open-minded and persistent

MM

strategies useful for data collection

MM

approaches to collaborative analysis in a supportive team

MM

time for trialling and reflecting on adaptations of existing practices

MM

venues for celebrating the learning and achievement

MM

starting the cycle over again, building on learning from previous cycles

MM

showcasing the project to affirm participants, inspire colleagues and offer encouragement to new participants.

The model of practitioner inquiry chosen to scaffold the initiatives reported in this book has several key ingredients including the use of a spiralling format in which ideas are introduced in a variety of ways and subsequently revisited for increasing clarity. This enables the introduction of ideas over an extended period of time to promote depth of understanding, both within and across settings. It also enables potentially confronting ideas to percolate, as the process can be as challenging for site-based facilitators and leaders as it is for teachers. In addition, the practitioner inquiry model highlights strengths of participants while engaging in relevant situationallybased content, enabling peer support through paired investigations.



Principles of inquiry-based practice

25

‘Buddy groups’ of practitioners working together generate a learning culture within a staff team. A valuable spin-off of these strategies relates to what McLaughlin and Mitra (2001: 316) refer to as ‘corridors of practice’ in that children benefit from a sequence of teachers who have engaged with similar professional learning opportunities. These sequential (person to person and room to room) movements of professional learning activities not only engage more adults over time, but contribute to creating energized site cultures and contexts for children to experience continuity of learning. These findings lead credence to the ‘Next-door Neighbour’ programme concept that has been introduced previously (see Chapter 1). This concept may in fact refer to the person working in the classroom next door, but it may also be metaphorical, in that the next person to be invited into the workshops associated with learning practitioner inquiry practices may not be a grade partner from across the hall or a room leader from another physical section of the building, but someone who is a ‘professional neighbour’ with whom the children will be interacting at some point in the future. This model of professional growth includes a continuous spiral of input, action and reflection, as a large group, in staff teams, and at classroom/ site level. One of the selection criteria for being included in large inquiry projects is commitment from participants to frame a question exploring their educational practices with children. The underlying assumption is that when teachers refine their practice in terms of principles of appropriate early childhood practice, there will be improved well-being, engagement and educational outcomes for children. Participants gather and analyse data to investigate issues of concern, plan initiatives and maintain professional reflective journals, in a cyclical investigative process. For example, teachers will analyse and report on such things as: What concerns do I have about my practice? What data do we have and what questions does this information help to illuminate? What evidence can be reported as a result of this inquiry? What might I do next? Local facilitation, paired investigations and team support enables these efforts to proceed with a strong likelihood of success as well as intellectual depth, professional complexity and emotional commitment.  Large group sessions provide opportunities for sharing ideas and for participants to become more involved in and supported through their investigations, including input from facilitators or critical friends. The sharing sessions are key for: MM

establishing membership of a professional learning community

MM

overcoming classroom/site isolation

MM

offering knowledge and skills related to professional inquiry and data analysis

MM

providing time for grappling with issues of professional practice

26

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE MM

encouraging professional reflection and critique

MM

sharing inspiration from examples of excellence.

Each large group session enables inquiry teams to report on progress. Data from each participant is shared to encourage analysis of patterns and local decision-making. Informal baseline data collection is accompanied by analytic reflection, proposals for change initiatives, and an ongoing spiral of data collection and further reflection. Ownership of an inquiry question by an individual does not presume isolation, but foreshadows a collective of empowered individuals with a belief in the social construction of knowledge. The ‘group’ has the potential of evolving into a critical mass of people who can create a local culture and effect sustainable inquiry.

Conclusion Goodfellow and Hedges (2007: 188) state that practitioner inquiry is ‘seen to be potentially transformative in its capacity to lead to better understandings and improved practices’. It empowers participants through the gaining of both research skills and knowledge formation in a local context. It is powerful in that, over time, a cycle of investigation supported by colleagues or facilitators can awaken participants to the quality issues present in professional practice, and then develop skills in addressing those concerns. Furthermore, it has the potential to develop educational leaders able to effectively sustain educational change. The narratives in the following chapters bear testimony to this brave aspiration. In her Presidential address to the American Educational Research Association, Borko (2004: 3) summarized the literature at that time, saying that ‘the professional development currently available to teachers is woefully inadequate’. In countering this discouraging perspective, much has been written about the power of collaborative research in teachers’ professional development (Gordon 2008), including situations involving university-based educators (e.g. Logue 2006) and those focusing on centrebased educators (e.g. Randell 2006). Teacher education is not just the purview of pre-service teacher education; support for ongoing professional learning is a prime responsibility of employers and systemic providers. The work reported in this book highlights collaborative studies with a focus on embedded cycles of practitioner inquiry as a vehicle for systemic improvement that can assist those seeking to support teachers and strengthen change initiatives through practitioner inquiry-based movements. In the following chapter, we move on to the foundational route of data in these processes.

CHAPTER THREE

Gathering and building on data Introduction Professional learning or development has focused historically on an outside educator or professional development facilitator providing a topic and strategies to address a particular point, then sending educators away to implement the practice. This might be called an ‘I will show you, you will do’ approach. Practitioner inquiry does not work in this way, and for some, this is a challenge. Having previously relied on the provision of professional learning and directed strategies, teachers may feel isolated in their work. For others, being involved in this process is described as renewing, invigorating – albeit a ‘little bit scary’, but they embrace the challenge and identify the increased professional and personal growth they feel. A key component of practitioner inquiry – data gathering – can be particularly confronting. This step is a process of determining relevant information to collect in order to address a problem (Creswell 2013). However, there are many complexities associated with data gathering including: What is it that I am seeking information for? What proves to be the ‘best’ type of data to gather? What should it look like? For many teachers, the problem of understanding what is deemed to be ‘data’ proves to be a stumbling block. In order to discuss data gathering, though, it is necessary to take a step back in the practitioner inquiry cycle and consider the role of ‘questions’. Through practitioner inquiry, teachers are encouraged to be working towards answering a question they have generated, relevant to their current situation; therefore the types of data they need to generate will differ according to the focus question. For the data gathering to be successful, a sound question is essential. Consequently, this chapter delves into question formation as well as data gathering, drawing on the experiences of teachers participating in the Catholic Education Office Early Years Project (See Chapter 4).

28

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

The question to be researched Before deciding on potential changes, the development of the ‘question’ is imperative in the practitioner inquiry process. The question enables the participant to identify the focus of the inquiry and begin to unravel why this area is of importance. In order to gather data to understand how to address a problem, an understanding of ‘the problem’ is critical. Whilst the notion of developing a question around an area of concern may seem quite straightforward, for some teachers this proves to be a difficult task. Based on the experience of teachers in the Catholic Education Office (CEO), issues relating to the selection of questions generally fell into the following categories: MM

I am not solely responsible for my professional learning: Ownership of the problem proved to be a challenge for some teachers whereby questions were focused on what others around them would be doing rather than on their responsibility for their own learning.

MM

I want to do it all: These questions are broad and all encompassing. The difficulty centred on identifying what problem is to be addressed and narrowing the question into an achievable project.

MM

My principal set my question: Dictatorship is occasionally taken as leadership by a small group of principals. They determine the question that will be addressed by teachers, usually established by results from nationwide testing programmes relating to numeracy and literacy.

MM

What is my question … now? Questions often evolve over time and go through transformations along the way, sometimes due to the data gathered and sometimes as a result of receiving data that did not target the particular intent.

MM

I am on track and excited about my question: Participants who feel comfortable with their question are aware of what they need to consider and how to frame this into a meaningful question which could be explored in the timeframe of a year.

Examples will be given from the Early Years Project to illustrate the diversity of thinking involved in each of these perspectives around question formation.

I am not solely responsible for my professional learning For some teachers, there was difficulty with wording questions to identify connection and ownership to the task at hand. For example:



Gathering and building on data MM

How does technology help to assist student learning?

MM

How can we plan an environment where children can take risks, feel safe and confident, and utilize rich language?

MM

What does an e-learning classroom look like?

MM

How do we effectively teach listening skills to improve student behaviour?

29

While these are certainly important educational questions, they are difficult to position for an individual teacher researching in his or her own classroom, library or other learning environment. Interestingly, the notion of technology and question formation without ownership came through on many occasions. Perhaps this could reflect the teachers’ understanding of, and apprehension in using, technology which resulted in them feeling less connected to what they were endeavouring to do. For many teachers, a discussion around this issue resulted in a reframed question, such as beginning the inquiry with ‘What strategies could I offer to …’ or ‘What technology can I use to assist students with learning …’. Nevertheless, there were sometimes instances where teachers became defensive about any potential change. An example of this situation involved a kindergarten teacher who had been working for many years in a school with two kindergarten classrooms. She was reluctant to be involved in the project and explained that she was there because her principal had ‘made her’ attend. Her initial question centred on allowing children more choice in the kindergarten classroom: Facilitator: So, tell me about your question … can you rework this so you have ownership? Teacher: No, it won’t work. I can’t do this on my own. It shouldn’t be just me. I can’t make decisions for all of kindergarten, that’s not how it works. Facilitator: Let’s think about this further, what can you control to give children choice in your classroom? Let’s begin to look at options for that. Groundwater-Smith et al. (2013) identify the need to understand and selfassess our personal knowledge of our teaching practice in order to be the ‘inventors of our own professional learning’. For this particular teacher, developing the question with a focus on ownership was initially met with resistance. Her sense of self as a teacher was potentially up for scrutiny, and consequently she felt threatened. Over time, this reluctant participant benefited greatly from sitting with colleagues from a number of schools to listen to discussions and share questions in the development stage. Critical reflection of self and shared conversations with colleagues enabled professional dialogues which were rewarding and led to an increased sense of

30

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

understanding. This situation was also identified in a study by Hulme and Cracknell (2010), who discuss the formation of ‘undecided’ or ‘third’ spaces which can be used with professionals from varied backgrounds to critically reflect in order to develop new knowledge.

I want to do it all Teachers whose questions were grouped within this category were attempting to take on too much or were not sure of the specific problem they wished to address. Examples of these questions included: MM

How do I explore student choice across the curriculum?

MM

How can I engage the children in more meaningful learning?

MM

How do we create a stimulating and dynamic learning environment for English as second language learners incorporating indoor and outdoor areas?

For some of these teachers, the initial stages of data gathering (explored later in this chapter) helped refine the question to focus on their area of interest and need. For others, ongoing discussions with critical friends proved to enable reflection and refinement of the problem they needed to address. Many of the people whose questions were initially assigned to this category went through many iterations of their main idea to determine the important focus and were then likely to move into the following category.

My principal set my question Over the lifetime of the project, it became apparent that perceived success for teachers was tied to the question that was posed. Teachers who had choice over their question and felt it related directly to what was happening in the classroom were likely to be engaged and excited about the process. They could identify outcomes based on their data gathering. However, disempowerment became a common theme in a school where the principal took control of question setting. This is explored further in Chapter 6.

What is my question … now? Reflective practice enables teachers to make sense of their actions and intentions (Henderson et al. 2012). It involves a process of critical awareness of actions and intentions, involving attentiveness in the moment and taking into consideration the views of self and others (Nolan and Sim 2011; Parnell 2012).



Gathering and building on data

31

Questions are not static. For many teachers, this process of forming and reforming questions was a powerful part of their progress throughout their experience. These teachers drew on their data gathering and reflection of their teaching to guide their questions. As one teacher in her second year of involvement with the practitioner inquiry initiative stated: ‘I’m considering something related to birth order and development of responsibility.’ She felt there was a relationship between a child’s order in the family and the acceptance of responsibility for personal actions and learning but she was unclear how to phrase a question that might guide her research. Whilst ‘responsibility’ was a key indicator of where the question may be focused, the teacher wanted to take more time to think further about how her question would unfold. She was also unsure if there was a relationship between the two elements, but was relying on her instincts as a teacher having worked with siblings in her class in the last few years. She seemed to be pondering if children who were the first born (or the only child) in their families were less likely to take responsibility in the classroom than others. Finding a way to state her question effectively was part of the learning process for her.

I am on track and excited about my question For the majority of teachers, being asked to determine or identify a ‘niggle’, ‘concern’ or ‘ongoing worry’ did not prove too difficult. For these participants, the formation of the question was a task that proved to be straightforward. They were able to articulate their concerns and construct a question accordingly. For instance: MM

How can I make science lessons more engaging?

MM

How can I engage boys in the classroom?

MM

How can I develop students’ questioning skills in order to develop higher order thinking?

Teachers are very aware of their personal strengths and weaknesses. What is interesting in working with these teachers was that there was a level of discomfort in then determining the process to move forward to change. The teachers were conditioned into professional development whereby they ‘picked’ a seminar, workshop or conference based on their identified or perceived weakness and then were ‘told’ or ‘worked through’ how to address this concern. Their engagement in practitioner inquiry and subsequent question development provided a new framework within which to view professional learning. For some, it was confronting and for others, sheer exuberance. Data gathering processes cannot commence until questions are determined. Taking ownership of the question also assists with accepting the

32

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

problem at hand, knowing the classroom, students and area of greatest concern for exploration. Engaging with a question that is specific and able to be measured and/or evaluated will assist with understanding the methods to employ for gathering data as explored below.

Data gathering In order to move forward with the practitioner inquiry process, it is imperative to be informed about the reasons behind the choice of question as well as determining the data which will address the question. Data gathering – a critical ongoing component of the process – involves the collection and measurement of information. As Campbell and McNamara (2010: 20) reported, ‘practitioner research and inquiry involves the teacher in systemic investigation and the gathering and synthesising of knowledge, whether practical or theoretical’. Data can be ‘original’, where it is devised and collected specifically for purpose, but it can also be school and/or system wide data that can be drawn on to inform the question of concern. Teachers new to, or building on, existing experiences with practitioner inquiry have very different preconceptions of data gathering in terms of purpose and use. Sometimes this may be due to language choice, for instance, data may be viewed in terms of research or school/system/statewide driven data used to report on strengths and weaknesses of schools. An example of this is the Australian National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), which reports literacy and numeracy skills developed through the school curriculum (for further information see: http://www.nap.edu.au/naplan/naplan.html). This data is taken very seriously in schools and the larger community, but may not be the most useful form of data for practitioner inquiry. Whilst NAPLAN and similar standardized assessment data may be used to inform the question being developed, teachers will need to move beyond this when collecting their baseline data. This is because baseline data is reliant on context specific information that pertains to the question. Data which is locally generated will be more meaningful to analyse and specific to the predicament at hand. Standardized data does have a place in practitioner inquiry, but should not be the only data used at any point throughout the process. For example, a teacher might respond to an area of concern in standardized testing by asking him/herself a question about how the children (or a child, or a group of children) are interpreting the task which is causing concern on the formal assessment. Identification of slippage in understanding would then give him/her a basis for offering the children other interpretations or examples to help them understand the expected task. In their investigations, teachers used myriad processes for gathering data. For example, some teachers chose to develop an interview with



Gathering and building on data

33

a series of questions to target their data. Others used children’s work samples, testing measures or checklists of information they were gathering for cross-purposes. Those who had completed more cycles of practitioner inquiry through previous opportunities for engagement became increasingly selective in their data-gathering processes. It was possible to see their growth and development in targeting data sources that would be useful and beneficial for their specific inquiries. They were also more able to be critical of their data-gathering processes in terms of the response to their question. For example, one teacher was determined to understand the relationships between particular children in order to improve the social climate of her classroom. She had been involved in practitioner inquiry for one year when taking on this question. She chose interviewing children as her data-gathering tool. She talked with the children about their relationships with others with whom she had witnessed ongoing conflict but was surprised and a little baffled when none of the children identified any issues at all. She decided to video the classroom activities, ensuring it captured the children in conflict, then, armed with this, had the children watch with her as she questioned them about the conflict. This proved to be much more successful in terms of providing data to consider further. With this stimulus, the children were able to articulate their involvement and reasoning. Reflecting on the status quo can be problematic. Teachers being introduced to practitioner inquiry are quick to want to solve their ‘problem’. As a means of analysing and understanding the focus area, the role of critical reflection in association with data-gathering needs to be strongly emphasized. Explicit discussion pertaining to this process was fundamental in the CEO project: You can feel the excitement in the room today; it is palpable! Whilst this is the third year we have commenced the process with a group of new teachers I am always fascinated by the level of engagement and the sense of permission to really try to solve problems. Having learnt from past experiences, however, the level of excitement to change needs to be tempered with a level of restraint which I’m hoping we are better at articulating this time. The participants need to be clear on what they perceive as concerns in their classroom rather than pushing forward and making changes – they won’t be able to see growth and change if they don’t collect [baseline] data. (Researcher notes 2010) Baseline data provides the groundwork from which teachers are able to make sense of their problem. Listening to the process for practitioner inquiry, becoming absorbed in this and wanting to make changes instantaneously removes a critical step, making it difficult to show the difference between what is currently happening and what happens after change takes place. Participants learn that the gathering of data can be accomplished in

34

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

the same manner using similar tools at different times, although there are key points at which this needs to take place: 1 Once the question is established, data needs to be gathered to

determine if the focus of the question will address the problem. When analysed, findings should show a direct relationship to the question posed. At this point, it may be necessary to refine or reword the question. 2 When a change has been made and some time has lapsed: determining the impact of the change can occur from analysis of data gathered. 3 If further change is made, then the two points above need to be taken into consideration again.

Dealing with data gathering There is no one right way to gather data during practitioner inquiry. The essence is in gathering information or measuring outcomes that are going to be meaningful in responding to the question. Teachers found many ways to collect data. There were obvious differences in understanding of data by teachers in their first year of practitioner inquiry, to those more experienced with the process. First year participants experienced an overwhelming necessity to collect masses of information and then attempted to make sense of this. Teachers involved for a longer period of time tended to be more discerning in their choices of data gathering and were then able to share their lessons learnt. Perhaps what did become clear when conducting practitioner inquiry with the large cohort of teachers from the CEO were the concerns surrounding data, the collection, collation and methods for analysis. Over the life of the authors’ involvement in the project, a common statement (from at least twenty per cent of the teachers) was reflected by one teacher at a workshop evening after being involved in the project for three months, who said, ‘I have data … it’s stored in my head’. Such teachers probably would have been at a table with their colleagues and co-workers who had a myriad of artefacts to share and discuss in detail. Reasons for their ‘in my head approach’ to data gathering could be deemed to fit into three key areas: 1 Time. The above statement was usually followed by ‘I did not

have time to record my data, but I remember what I was looking for’. Time is a common factor which, when used as an excuse, impedes teachers in their daily practices. It may be a result of a lack of commitment to the process or disinterest in involvement (in some instances throughout this project, there were teachers



Gathering and building on data

35

identified by principals to take part, rather than a self-nomination system). Local organizational processes may also not have been very facilitative. 2 Misunderstanding of the importance of hard data. For some teachers it was not clear what the purpose of the data would be or how it would be meaningful to them. Teachers who presented hard data were able to discuss it and talk through their analysis more succinctly and justify their statements by referring back to collected data which was meaningful to their conversation at the time. These teachers voiced a greater understanding of their data and, through analysis, knew where they planned to proceed next in the process. 3 Lack of self-conviction. Interestingly, this was more common than anticipated and took some time to establish as the reason for the lack of data during workshops. It was usually coupled with a vague or broadly defined question that did not garner ownership. Reflective practice, however, relies on developing a deep understanding of the problem and deliberating on actions. Interrogation of data enables the participant to actively engage and notice patterns in what they are seeing (Gillanders, Mason and Ritchie 2011). This is a necessary stage in the process that is missed when data is held in the head.

Children’s voices as data Children’s voices are a valuable component of evaluation research and classroom regeneration. Through listening to children’s voices we are able to construct knowledge that informs our thinking (Clark and Moss 2011). The voice of children provides insights and acknowledges the valuable contribution they make to the learning community. For some teachers, listening to children’s voices and conversations with other critical friends – fellow teachers or family members – proved to be a challenge. Teachers identified issues of children ‘saying what they thought the teacher wanted to hear’, which was not helpful for this purpose, or being faced with critiques of their own teaching, which was unexpected. These light bulb moments offered critical points for rethinking data gathering processes, and were often seen as the impetus for change. One such event occurred when a teacher asked the children to respond to questions about how they felt about writing tasks in class: I couldn’t help it, when I started looking at the responses from the children I started crying. Mohammed had pressed and coloured so hard over the sad face in black pencil that there was a hole in the paper. It

36

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

showed me how he felt, loud and clear, I felt I had somehow failed him and needed to rethink my approach to teaching EAL/D [English as a second language or dialect] children. Her change in the classroom was to offer children alternative ways to represent their learning. Some children chose to demonstrate this through drama. The teacher also noted a renewed confidence for these children with writing when testing pressures had been relaxed. This was only one of multiple examples of voices of children having a powerful impact on teachers. Silenced voices were also evident as investigations unfolded. One teacher in her first year of practitioner inquiry brought to the sessions copious notes and drafts of floor plans of her classroom. She spent the entire session engaged with colleagues explaining the data she had gathered in an attempt to answer her question, ‘How can I make the book corner a space where children want to read?’ They pored over the maps and made suggestions for trialling the new design and the best way to consider furniture placement. She diligently turned up to each session armed with this data and constantly with a look of puzzlement as to why nothing in her classroom had changed even though she had analysed her data, discussed her plans and then implemented changes. When presenting her data to a new group of colleagues at one of the evening workshops, a brave voice spoke up, ‘Have you asked the children what they might like?’ Although confronting, this contribution enabled her to rethink her approach to data collection, and consequently to generating potential changes to her focus area of the room. It is not unusual for children in the classroom to become conditioned into thinking that they should respond to please. As described earlier in this chapter, one teacher’s question addressed children’s social skills and friendship groups as she was concerned about the number of arguments and incidents that occurred during the day. She chose video interviews to collect data from children asking them to identify whom they liked to sit with or didn’t like to sit with or work with. None of the children responded negatively about their fellow classmates. The teacher knew this was not the truth. She had witnessed and been told about repeated issues with particular children. She chose two additional methods for collecting data – a sociogram to map the children’s interactions with others in the classroom and playground, and a classroom map where she let each of the children decide seating arrangements for the class. These processes provided a much clearer picture of the relationships with the classroom. The teacher realized that triangulation of data was an important part of the data gathering process. The need for multiple sources of data was consequently highlighted for other teachers in sharing during cross-school meetings. When provided with opportunities for focused contributions, children also provide insights into learning that can often be missed in the everyday busyness of the classroom. For example, two kindergarten teachers had



Gathering and building on data

37

been inspired by recent conference presentations and they wanted to explore levels of literacy engagement in their kindergarten classrooms through the use of hands-on experiences. At the time, the literacy block was a combined period when the children were placed in developmental levels to complete the tasks assigned in an allocated amount of time. Based on their initial analysis of data from the literacy experiences that had become part of everyday classroom practice, they decided that they did not provide enough hands-on experiences. The teachers spent a weekend finding and making new resources to add to their classroom. They decided that they would draw on a popular television show (MasterChef – a high-stakes amateur cooking competition), that was the topic of much conversation amongst the children, to collect data to be able to measure their response to the changes. The children at the beginning of the literacy block were introduced to the new experiences and told that the block would be operating for a longer period of time and they would be able to engage in both the old and the new experiences. At the completion of the time, they could select a red or blue chip to vote for their preferred literacy experiences. This quantitative measure of data proved to be very thought provoking – the children had chosen the old experiences over the new ‘improved’ experiences. The outcomes here were unexpected. The teachers were intrigued and decided that they needed to follow this up by creating a series of interview questions to gain a deeper understanding of the children’s responses. These insights assisted teachers in realizing the number of factors involved in structuring an environment to facilitate literacy learning. They also reinforced the fact that learner perceptions are not necessarily the same as the perceptions of the adults working with them!

Analysing data Analysing data provides an opportunity to construct an understanding of the identified question and enables opportunity for discussion, debriefing and interrogation in order to determine the next steps. Patterns in data represent realities of what is occurring in the classroom setting and highlight areas for deeper consideration. Bringing data to the meeting sessions and providing time for teachers to look through their data, made it possible to consider these patterns, often with a critical friend. This proved enlightening; there were many of these sessions where participants felt that they came away with a renewed understanding of their question due to what the findings were showing. Data analysis is ongoing throughout the practitioner inquiry process, it does not just occur at the completion of the project. This is a significant factor in the practitioner inquiry sequence. Teachers would gather approximately once a term for focused discussions and there were always opportunities

38

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

to discuss the ongoing nature of the data that was being collected. This critical step ensured that participants were on track to respond to their questions or make changes as needed. To guide these discussions, prompts were available to assist with focus and enable teachers to articulate their thoughts. This was helpful in developing hypotheses about their findings and directions in moving forward. Such prompts included: MM

Share your data-gathering processes and the relationship to your question.

MM

Discuss the patterns you have observed in your data over the past three months.

MM

Describe the data-based conclusions you have reached.

MM

Highlight any surprises in the information you have collected.

‘Surprises’ were sometimes a single example that appeared in the masses of accumulated data, yet caught attention and beckoned for further thought and discovery. It may have been a comment from a child or a piece of work which did not represent what was being asked. It was these surprises that warranted further consideration. One teacher described this as her ‘ah-ha moment’. She continued: If I hadn’t taken time to really look at this data, I would not have really seen or listened to Alysse. She was the only one who coloured all the smiley faces in my survey about how children learn. I could have left this, believed that everything was alright but I chose to talk to her and everything was not alright. I could have ignored this but by really looking, I could see the anomaly. This complex process of analysing patterns brings to the fore a concrete representation for teacher reflection. Teacher comments showed the value of analysis as a professional learning point that provided renewed energy to move forward. For example, one noted: ‘I didn’t know the children felt that way. I always thought that the playground was a happy place to be.’ Another said: ‘I actually feel like I know my children now. I think I need to get better at finding times to allow choice and give them that opportunity.’ A third teacher wondered: ‘How have I missed this all this time? Why do children only have to create what I model? I am amazed at what they can do with open-ended materials.’ The depth in understanding through the process of analysis changed perceptions of ways of working with children and levels of understanding teachers had for individuals. A Year 1 teacher shared her reflections on her journey, ‘I don’t think, if I ever went into a normal classroom situation again; you’d never revert, what I’ve learnt this year you always keep at the forefront of your mind … you would continue to implement them, whether



Gathering and building on data

39

it be in a whole classroom approach or in a shared classroom learning situation.’

Conclusion The process of practitioner inquiry has been identified as transformational (Groundwater-Smith et al. 2013). With regards to professional learning, it enables individual teachers to make decisions about their own growth and development that takes on, not only a personal interest but also engages teachers in meaningful collaborations with colleagues with focused reflection and discussion on practice. However, it is critical to this process that teachers take time to carefully create meaningful questions which are a direct response to the concerns they have identified in their classroom or school. The question sets the trajectory for the practitioner inquiry and determines the methods for data gathering. In order for teachers to make sound decisions about how to address their questions, they need to carefully select and carry out data gathering. The analysis of that data along with critical discussion of findings helps determine how to move forward, the types of strategies or changes to enact. Understanding the potential of data, whether it be readily available through existing means or developed to address a particular concern, participants have shared that they have ‘received their greatest light bulb moment’ or ‘really saw something I had not seen before’ when engaging in the analysis of data. As one kindergarten teacher stated, ‘I now have an understanding, a better understanding and one based on research, so now I feel that I’m more confident in myself … in the approach that I take to teaching the children … and I feel that really helps the learners, the ones that experience difficulty too.’ These quotes help us to understand the potential of practitioner inquiry for teachers, to be renewed and invigorated in their role and have a stronger understanding of themselves as teachers.

PART TWO

Illustrating inquiry initiatives Teacher research has been represented as the challenges and delights of completing a jigsaw puzzle (Castle 2012: ix). ‘In puzzling over questions that they raise about the complex world of teaching young children, … teacher researchers fit jigsaw pieces of data together … to create a whole picture of what they are studying.’ Reflecting on the completed puzzle picture ‘gives teachers new perspectives, new knowledge and insights into their own teaching and children’s learning’. The metaphor of teacher research as a jigsaw puzzle highlights the characteristics of the chapters in Part 2. The authors and invited colleagues have written these chapters as authentic examples of practitioner inquiry in action. In most cases, the chapter writers were change facilitators who were leading practitioner inquiry projects to scaffold sustainable change. In continuing to explore her image of the teacher researcher, Castle suggests that the different colours and textures of a puzzle symbolize the ‘diversity and connectedness in early childhood settings’ (2012: ix). The following chapters, drawn from a range of early childhood contexts including primary schools, childcare centres and preschools, represent this diversity and connectedness. Across these chapters, the voices of teachers are interwoven with the reflections of educational leaders and change facilitators to reveal multiple perspectives on the creation of the jigsaw puzzle.

42

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

Each chapter reveals aspects of the jigsaw as experienced in real-life encounters. When considering the nature of teacher research, Castle (2012: ix) reminds us that ‘sometimes the pieces fit smoothly into a meaningful pattern’, and examples of these smooth-fitting puzzles are illustrated in the following chapters. At the same time, the process can be more challenging when pieces look as though they should fit, but unfortunately don’t. This means that approaches and strategies need to be reconsidered; these difficult aspects of practitioner inquiry are also evident in the chapters. Although practitioner inquiry is often presented as a sequence of logical steps, the inherent messiness and the complexities of working in these ways are revealed in these chapters. They show how the flexible nature of practitioner inquiry encourages teacher researchers and their leaders to respond to unexpected events in a thoughtful and reflective fashion. We can learn from the diverse examples presented in Part 2, as each chapter provides an insight into how practitioner inquiry was enacted at different sites. In a recent publication, Woodrow and Newman (2015: 1) point out that ‘in early childhood contexts, practitioner research may be seen as an “emergent” practice, and the research literature documenting its use in these settings, while growing, is relatively small’. Thus, the examples presented here add to our understanding of genuine and sustainable change in early childhood contexts. These narratives of delight and excitement, of challenge and uncertainty, deepen our understanding of how the puzzle of teacher research may come together to create effective and lasting change.

CHAPTER FOUR

Redesigning pedagogy in the early years of primary school: An employer speaks by Franceyn O’Connor

Setting the scene – who we are The Catholic Education Office (CEO) Sydney is responsible for a system of 150 primary and secondary schools, spread across three regional areas within the greater Sydney metropolitan area of New South Wales (NSW), Australia. In 2006, the Teaching and Learning team at CEO Sydney began a conversation challenging the traditional educational environments observed in many of the early years primary classrooms. These conversations prompted the start of a journey towards a vision for change.

The provocation The ‘early years of primary school’ refers to students from kindergarten to Year 2 and generally span the ages from four-and-a-half years to eight years of age. In the NSW education system, these early years of schooling, like all the primary school years, are highly structured and regulated. Schools are obliged to follow formal curriculum documents set by government or regulatory bodies, and children are regularly assessed on criteria determined by external bodies. Classrooms are governed by timetables that meet mandatory time allocations for subject areas and school structures. Regulations and set standards are vital for ensuring academic rigor, the well-being and safety of all, as well as affording children and their families equal opportunities to access quality educational environments. However, questions started to emerge from the team at CEO around a so-called ‘state of

44

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

compliance’ where school environments that should be promoting qualities such as inspiration, imagination and knowledge creation were instead becoming places of mediocrity and sameness. Classrooms, regardless of the occupants’ ages, backgrounds and cultures, looked the same. Students were observed to be performing the same tasks regardless of differing abilities and needs. It was becoming apparent that the voices of students and their teachers were missing, although they were most affected by the educational environments. A different perspective on the regulations and standards was necessary. As an employer, the CEO needed to promote a view of standards as enabling and transformative rather than controlling and restrictive. The CEO staff needed to be open in their own thinking, to be risk takers, enabling and trusting school communities to be open to different possibilities, staying true to the expected standards, whilst creating high quality educational environments that were meaningful and authentic in their own diverse contexts. A balance between creativity and compliance was required. Other observations and challenges at the time that influenced the CEO to take action included: MM

Children in NSW can start school with a cohort of students where there may be a sixteen-month age difference, challenging teachers in their provision of developmentally-appropriate learning environments.

MM

Issues were raised concerning the NSW Government’s decision to assess all kindergarten children on entry to school (Best Start Kindergarten Assessment) on their literacy and numeracy abilities. The challenge for CEO Sydney was reflected in the value of providing students with opportunities to demonstrate their capabilities and understandings across all fields through diverse assessment opportunities.

MM

The difference between prior-to-school settings (e.g. preschools, childcare centres) and some classroom environments was quite significant, thus challenging the notion of a seamless transition to school.

MM

An understanding was growing that the young learner would thrive in an environment that allowed time and space for imagination, inquiry and creativity. This again challenged teachers who voiced concern over syllabus constraints and school timetables.

Initial discussions within the system focused on the importance of pedagogy as the catalyst for system change in the early years learning environment. Historically, CEO Sydney had offered teachers professional development focused for the most part on curriculum fields such as literacy and numeracy. Despite the best intentions of schools, silos of practice had



Redesigning pedagogy in the early years of primary school 45

become commonplace. Although the connections between curriculum, pedagogy and syllabus delivery were regular agendas for discussion where there was a shared sense of common purpose, the practice, however, of aligning and providing cohesion between these discussions was often not the reality. There was concern that some teachers were using the syllabus as the focus of their curriculum decision-making, rather than using the syllabus as a guide and subsequently designing learning based on student abilities, needs and interests.

A journey of change The first step of the process was to establish a system-wide CEO Early Years Advisory Committee to identify the major areas for system policy development. This committee consisted of school principals, university academics, classroom teachers and educational consultants. The committee developed a statement for the system based on the question: ‘Who is the early learner?’ The key elements focused on a high-quality learning environment promoting a culture of learning with the individual child at the centre of the learning. Practitioners and research informed the development of a system policy paper titled The Early Learner: Position Paper, (Catholic Education Office 2010). The key elements are presented in Table 4.1.

46

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

Table 4.1  The Early Learner: Position Paper The Early Learner …

Therefore the Early Learning Environment promotes …

Is a spiritual child. Learning through story and symbol. Engagement of imagination and discovery. The ‘I wonder’ approach. Time for silence, contemplation, ritual and prayer. A range of spiritual learning experiences. Has life experiences.

Connections between home and school. Positive transition to school processes. Inclusion of family, community, culture and church. Meaningful connections to life experiences and prior learnings. Valuing of diversity and respect for difference.

Has innate capacities.

Sustained engagement in authentic learning tasks. Comprehensive teacher knowledge of the student. Diverse opportunities to encourage and demonstrate capabilities. Cognitively challenging learning experiences through exploration, investigation and problem-solving. Explicit teaching.

Is holistic and sensory.

Learning through collaborative interactions with others and the environment. Self-directed tasks to support independent learning. Attentive listening to the early learner’s ideas, hypotheses, questions and points of view. Multisensory spaces for inquiry-based learning.

Seeks meaning and connections.

Time and space to imagine, innovate and create. Enjoyment of learning. Authentic learning opportunities connected to real world experiences. Use of technologies as a tool for accessing and creating information. Timely teacher feedback to support and guide learning.

Thrives in relationships.

A sense of belonging, where all learners feel safe and valued. Teacher and students jointly negotiate learning opportunities. Learning experiences based on reciprocal relationships. Creation of flexible spaces for engagement of small groups and pairs. The active involvement of parents, caregivers and significant others in the learning process.

Has a voice in their own learning.

Curiosity and imagination and the creation of theories. Student voice in informing learning and goal-setting. Opportunities for different learning styles. Student choice, initiative and risk taking. Self-regulation and the creation of theories.

Source: Catholic Education Office, Sydney, NSW, Australia



Redesigning pedagogy in the early years of primary school 47

School communities within the system welcomed this paper as a source for clarification of expectations as well as providing guiding principles for teacher development. The position paper influenced the second stage of the change process with the introduction of the Early Years Project for the CEO Sydney.

The Early Years Project A professional learning model was needed to help teachers translate the theories from the ‘Early Learner’ paper into their daily practice. This model had to challenge traditional modes of teaching, support teachers in constructing new knowledge about the young learner and use this knowledge to create learning opportunities. The model would include elements of critical thinking and reflective practice built on data collection and analysis. It was expected that this new knowledge would bring about changes to the learning environment and impact positively on student learning outcomes. In short, the ‘Early Years Project’ required rethinking current approaches to professional learning (See Chapter 11). In 2007, the Sydney CEO invited staff from the Institute of Early Childhood (IEC) Macquarie University to collaborate in the facilitation of professional reflection for teachers and school leaders. The focus of this professional learning was to be the principles of practice outlined in The Early Learner: Position Paper, and the development of appropriate and effective early childhood practices in the first years of school. As facilitators in the educational change process (and lead authors of this book), the university team from the IEC suggested the use of ‘practitioner inquiry’ as an effective tool for including teachers’ voices in discussions of educational change, thus building capacity to transform learning environments. The practitioner inquiry methodology provided the CEO system with a new model for professional learning. It became a vehicle for negotiating a pedagogical approach that was foreign and challenging for some staff. Practitioner inquiry opened up many diverse possibilities for educators to examine their pedagogy based on real and meaningful data gathered from within their own school or class. For the first time, teachers were given a choice and a voice in an area of inquiry connected with their current level of understanding and their own situation. Teachers had the opportunity to investigate their own learning environment as they built alignment between theory and practice. The university consultants introduced the notion of collecting baseline data followed by analysis of the information before any changes were made to the environment or teaching practice. The analysis of data became a critical tool for deepening knowledge and the practical application of new pedagogies. Therefore, from the perspective of a system of schools, practitioner inquiry assisted the development of teachers and

48

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

leaders as they become data-literate, which was an important component in building teacher capacity. In a quest to help school leaders and teachers identify the practical elements of practitioner inquiry, the CEO Early Years Advisory Committee referred to several other sources of information. The Committee was seeking to articulate a model of practitioner inquiry that was unique to the system’s requirements and its context. Sources of interest included the cycle of continuous improvement introduced to Ontario schools (Levin 2008; Ontario Principals’ Council 2009) and the work of Timperley and Parr (2010). By combining these two sources with the practical management of practitioner inquiry as introduced by the university consultants, a cycle of inquiry and reflective practice was developed (Figure 4.1). This five stage model of inquiry asks practitioners to begin by observing the current reality of their teaching practice and identify a question of inquiry that is meaningful to their context. This question could be regarding a particular classroom practice, the learning environment, a particular student, and so on. Teachers and leaders were asked to form their question in relation to the CEO Early Learner position paper. They were asked to observe the issue under investigation and collect baseline data from their own context. Through analysis of the data, teachers and leaders identified a change that might help answer their question. They implemented the change, collected more data to see if there had been a

FIGURE 4.1  Practitioner inquiry cycle (Adapted from Ontario Principals’ Council 2009 and Timperley and Parr 2010)



Redesigning pedagogy in the early years of primary school 49

positive outcome and if their question of inquiry had been answered. In most instances the question changed again as a participant’s knowledge deepened and so the cycle of inquiry continued. This enabled teachers and leaders to delve more deeply into their understanding of the issue under investigation.

The Project profile In 2008, twelve schools registered interest and joined the project in its first year. It was expected that participants from each school would include the school principal or assistant principal and teachers from kindergarten, Years 1 and 2. It was a key initiative and condition of registration that a member of the school’s leadership team form part of the project learning team in an effort to promote sustainability. Research clearly indicates that whilst teachers are key to school improvement, sustainability is influenced by a range of factors, including ‘sufficient resources’, ‘a knowledgeable supportive principal’ and ‘a supportive community of practice’ (McLaughlin and Mitra 2001: 305). Infrastructure and employer commitment become critical in ‘scaling up’ (McLaughlin and Mitra 2001: 314) the project across schools in the Sydney Diocese. The Project’s aims were explained to schools. These were to: MM

gain deeper knowledge of the early learner

MM

rethink pedagogy appropriate for early learners which fulfils current syllabus requirements

MM

incorporate teachers and school leaders in the process of change

MM

work with the principles and philosophy underpinning early learning within the ethos of Catholic Education.

The collaboratively planned and facilitated Early Years Project included a mixture of professional opportunities from full day events, half days and twilight sessions. In the second year of the project, professional interactions were designed to accommodate the needs of new participants as well as continuing teachers and leaders. In 2009, six of the original twelve schools continued on the project. The loss of half the number of initial schools was concerning and contact was made with each of the six school principals. A number of reasons were given for withdrawal of staff from the project. These included the movement of staff, which meant that original participants had transferred to new schools and were no longer engaged in the project. In addition, one school had a change of principal and therefore a change in school priorities. However, several of the principals voiced dissatisfaction with the model

50

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

of teacher professional development offered. In the spirit of practitioner inquiry, the CEO system-based facilitators gathered data from all twelve original schools to analyse and identify factors impeding or promoting teacher and leader development. In hindsight, these facilitators would have been better situated had they collected baseline data related to the schools’ previous experiences with professional learning. This would have provided information to understand the factors contributing to the success and/or failure of previous change attempts in each school. For those schools that did not experience success with the practitioner inquiry model, it became apparent that the leadership teams had not participated in the process. They had seen themselves as ‘leading change’ rather than developing or carrying through with their own questions. As a result, they were unable to recognize the challenges of this new model of professional learning (see Chapter 11). Similarly, results of data collected from the system-based CEO facilitators indicated that initially they also had a limited understanding of the practitioner inquiry process. Therefore, they felt this constrained the level of support they could offer schools. As they were committed to changing practices in the early years of schools, however, they worked together with the IEC staff to overcome this lack of knowledge and build on their knowledge and experience by undertaking their own question of inquiry. In addition to the continuing schools, twelve new schools joined the project the following year. At this time, more attention was given to the leaders and facilitators and their key role within the project. The six continuing schools also invited additional staff to join the project in a Next-door Neighbour programme as encouraged by the university facilitators. This was designed to build teacher capacity and increase the number of participating staff. In this context, the Next-door Neighbour programme was seen as the first step towards ‘corridors of practice’ (McLaughlin and Mitra 2001) where children benefit from a sequence of teachers who have engaged with similar professional learning opportunities. It was also to become a vehicle for building the sustainability of the project, so if a staff member left a school, their colleagues would be able to maintain the cycle of practitioner inquiry and principles of early learning. This attention to sustainability ensured the continuation of knowledge creation and focused teacher practice. The project began to flourish, allowing, for the first time, educational leaders from the CEO, school leadership team members, classroom teachers and specialist teachers to all meet with their own particular questions of inquiry and share professional dialogue to question, affirm or challenge practice. With an element of professional risk-taking, this model of adult learning led to the development of communities of practice where participants engaged in learning-focused dialogue and the exchange of ideas. This process of collegial support and encouragement resulted in increased professional confidence and competence. Most importantly, the project had finally focused on teachers’ voices to identify which



Redesigning pedagogy in the early years of primary school 51

classroom practices should change. Teachers’ voices are often overlooked in the complexities of educational reform, but these changes came from a need, an observation or an interest identified by the teacher and the changes were driven by immediate and meaningful data. Over seven years of intensive support for practitioner inquiry, the Early Years Project was introduced into more than one hundred CEO primary schools. This resulted in a number of schools taking up the principles of practitioner inquiry as the preferred approach for staff professional growth. This ensured continuation of the project and the development of professional learning communities within schools.

Introduction of Early Years Learning Hubs As the number of participants increased in the Early Years Project, it became too complicated (and expensive) to maintain intensive support for the schools beyond the two years of funding provided for implementation. After the initial two years, it became clear that further support was needed for schools in their third and consecutive years of the Early Years Project. A significant introduction to the Early Years Project was the establishment of the ‘Early Years Learning Hubs’, which evolved through consultation with a colleague from the Australian Catholic University. Teachers and principals who had been involved in the Early Years Project for the previous two years were invited to join a Hub to ensure continued exploration of, and commitment to, the practitioner inquiry process and the principles of early learning as identified in the CEO position paper. Teachers, principals and consultants who were to be involved in the Early Years Learning Hubs were consulted about their design and purpose. They were asked to comment on their current understanding of the Early Years Project and to explain their future needs in sustaining professional learning. A selection of comments from this discussion reflects many shared aims and common themes. For example, one teacher noted: ‘Schools are dynamic. There are continual staff changes. This highlights the role of leadership. We need a process for building early learning pedagogies that can be adapted.’ Another said: ‘We can see the impact of our learning on other teachers. The ideas are spreading throughout the school and the project is genuine and authentic and valuing.’ Further, another teacher asked: ‘What can we achieve? We don’t want to be comfortable with what is. We want to be stretched and challenged. What is our Zone of Proximal Development?’ Meanwhile, principals in each of the schools were taking a different journey but heading in a similar direction. Their comments included points such as: ‘We can build a network of learners – even with different contexts we can still have shared learning.’ Another noted that: ‘We

52

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

used to see difference, but it was usually in terms of who didn’t fit in. Now with early learning pedagogy, difference is integrated and valued, and children are encouraged to respond in a range of ways. Difference is seen as an asset rather than a liability.’ A third commented: ‘We strongly value working as a team. It helps us to take risks, to question each other and ourselves.’ The regional consultants who were facilitating the Early Years Project were mostly concerned about how to extend and consolidate the reach of practitioner inquiry across all schools. The common issues can be summarized in the following questions: ‘What actions and processes can sustain this pedagogical approach? How can we expand the approach of practitioner inquiry and ‘teacher as researcher’ across all schools?’ ‘How do we ensure the sustainability of the new directions in early learning within schools, regions and the diocese? We need to be growing the leadership base across the regions. How can we work more effectively with school leaders?’ Armed with this information, along with relevant research on professional learning communities, a model of implementation was designed (see Figure 4.2). The model for the Early Years Learning Hubs was informed by socio-constructivist perspectives (Rogoff 1990; Vygotsky 1978), communities of practice (Wenger 1998) and practitioner inquiry. Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002:4) wrote that ‘communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis.’. This statement describes the thinking behind the establishment of the Early Years Learning Hubs. The Hubs provide opportunities for groups of teachers and principals who share an interest in innovative ideas for the early years of school to meet together and learn from one another. The meetings for the Early Years Learning Hubs take place in schools three or four times a year. They usually involve four schools with two teachers from each school (in their third or fourth year of the Early Years Project) plus the school principal and a CEO facilitator. Teachers in their first and second year of the project are also invited and referred to as ‘visiting teachers’. The ‘visiting teachers’ inclusion came as a result of requests from staff at schools new to the project who wanted to see what the future possibilities could be for their school. Caution was taken with this ‘visiting teacher’ group as Hub schools did not want to be seen as ‘lighthouse’ schools showing exemplary practice. Rather, Hub teachers were adamant that they were still on a journey themselves and although they had learnt a great deal and made many changes, they were still inquiring into their practice and new challenges were confronting them along the various pathways of the journey. This reality reflected an ongoing tension for teachers when ‘measures’ of quality are prescribed from outside rather than coming from within.



Redesigning pedagogy in the early years of primary school 53

Prior to the Hub visit, host teachers are asked to send visitors a reading, quote or image that is impacting on their current thinking. At the beginning of the visit, host teachers share their current question of inquiry, the data collected and the impact the data has on changing or enhancing classroom practice. After this initial discussion, visitors spend time in the classroom to view the learning environment and observe the changes in situ. Hub members then regather in three different groups – hub teachers, principals and visiting teachers – to discuss their observations and professionally challenge the teaching and learning environments created. For example a kindergarten teacher asked Hub participants to observe, ‘what learning takes place in my classroom during free play?’ Visiting teachers observed the children actively engaged in their learning and responded to her question during follow up discussion. This pattern of interaction illustrates key points of teacher research which ‘stems from teachers’ own questions about and reflections on their everyday classroom practice. They seek practical solutions to issues and problems in their professional lives …’ (Henderson et al. 2012: 4). Figure 4.2 outlines the roles and responsibilities of each section of the Hub. Teachers in their first and second years of the Early Years Project or school executives planning on joining the Early Years Project (known as visiting teachers) are also invited to observe the discussion and view classrooms. These people, too, are given time to question and debrief the visit to ensure there is a shared understanding of what has been seen and the reasons behind it. Time given to building professional relationships and trust between host teachers has proven to be an important element of the success of the Hubs. Host teachers invite focused reflection, allowing their process of inquiry, thinking and reflection to be made public for purposeful educative discussion. Their learning and discoveries become visible to others and they in turn learn from the comments, challenges and affirmations offered by the observers. Kinsella and Pittman (2012) strongly support the value of having the practitioner reflect with others in their own setting, allowing for ‘the negotiation of meaning within practice settings and the role of discourse in the process … [ensuring] concern with not only his or her own interpretations in practice but also the dialogic possibilities implicit in the recognition of the interpretation of … others’ (Kinsella and Pittman 2012: 49). The role of practitioner inquiry within the Hub environment enables collaborative, authentic and transformative decision-making. Participants experience a multitude of perspectives and rather than it being one person’s introspective point of view and question, the question of inquiry becomes a collective concern, inviting different interpretations and solutions. It is designed as a relationship-based model for authentic professional learning to sustain and strengthen early learning pedagogies and to build leadership capacity across the Archdiocese of Sydney. Figure 4.2 reveals the connections between various elements of the model.

54

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

FIGURE 4.2  Early Years Learning Hubs design Source: Catholic Education Office, Sydney, NSW, Australia

The Learning Hub processes are summarized in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2  Early Years Learning Hub processes 1. The Provocation.

Host teachers send a provocation to hub members prior to the meeting. The provocation creates an opportunity for deep thinking and shared reflection. Why is this significant for me? How has it impacted on my practice? How has it challenged my thinking? Does this also strike accord with you? Can you see this reflected in my work? How can I deepen, strengthen the implementation of the essence of this provocation?   Teachers sharing the provocation ask some critical questions to deepen their understandings. The visiting 3rd year teachers consider this question during their observations in the classroom and reflect on how they can help to enrich and extend the host teacher’s thinking by sharing their thoughts and responses after the classroom visit.



Redesigning pedagogy in the early years of primary school 55 2. The Briefing.

Host teachers brief all visitors on: Their intentions – what is guiding their work with the children during the visit as well as choices made in the classroom? This can include aspects of early learning pedagogy such as the use of the environment, resources, group dynamics and relationships, individual student needs, projects and provocations. MM Their Practitioner Inquiry question and findings to date. MM A provocation to the group in the form of a question for visiting 3rd year teachers to consider whilst observing in the classroom. The host teachers will pose a question or share an issue with the group that they are wondering about, or that is bothering them or getting in the way of their implementation of early learning pedagogy. The visiting 3rd year teachers will help to enrich and extend the host teacher’s thinking by sharing their thoughts and responses after the classroom visit. MM

3. Observation Visit.

An hour in the learning environment.

4. Conversations. Sharing questions and curiosities.

During morning tea teachers visiting from 1st and 2nd year schools are invited to ask questions of host teachers in order to clarify, question, or affirm aspects of early learning pedagogy evident during their classroom visit.

5. Dialogue. Deconstructing and Reconstructing.

As with ‘Communities of Practice’ three groups with similar experience and professional roles 3rd year teachers, school leaders and teachers new to the project, will meet together to share their observations, insights and questions. Facilitators will document these conversations.   Third year teachers explore what they saw in the classrooms and consider this in relation to the issues discussed earlier in the briefing. Teachers will: Share their responses to the provocation sent by host teachers. MM Identify a ‘learning’ and the implication for their practice that they will take away from their visit. MM Share at least one ‘I am wondering about …’ MM

First and second year teachers discuss what they saw and heard on their visit, ask questions to clarify, question and extend their thinking. Teachers are also asked to identify a ‘learning’ and the implication for their practice that they will take away from their visit and share at least one ‘I am wondering about …’   Principals from 3rd year schools will meet with a consultant to explore issues they are addressing or need to consider further in their roles as leaders of schools in the Early Years project. 6. Documentation is reviewed by facilitators.

Facilitators of the three groups organize to meet to discuss their documentation of the sessions and plan for future hub provocations.

Source: Catholic Education Office, Sydney, NSW, Australia

56

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

Moving online In order to make sharing and learning for teachers accessible at all times, Regional Advisors decided to trial the development of online Learning Hubs. Although slow to take off, teachers now post their questions of inquiry, twitter feeds, classroom photos and any articles or websites that they come across which support their research. The communities have grown with daily interactions occurring between teachers, principals and CEO staff. In the past, teachers came together at the end of each year to share their questions of inquiry and learning outcomes. Teachers now share on a regular basis, allowing questions and research to be short circles of inquiry, receiving feedback or ideas from colleagues that may allow research to go deeper.

Practitioner inquiry: The hidden potential The initial purpose of engaging with the practitioner inquiry process was to build leaders’ and teachers’ understanding of the principles of early learning (CEO Sydney 2010). The process was a vehicle for transforming theory and aligning it with classroom practice, building teacher and learning capacity; but its effect on the system of schools has gone well beyond that and ventured into areas that were not on the CEO’s horizon. First, the power and possibilities of practitioner inquiry have been observed by system and school leaders as a highly authentic and meaningful way for teachers to set goals for their own professional learning and growth. The CEO currently has in place an annual performance review process that requires teachers and leaders to set performance goals with a purpose to: 1 rejoice in successes and celebrate achievements 2 identify emerging needs in order to respond to fresh challenges 3 establish plans that will ensure a firm foundation for effective future

action 4 set a clear direction for further development and increased effectiveness. (Catholic Education Office, Sydney 2011) It has become a natural occurrence that questions of inquiry based on meaningful data have merged with the review process, allowing practitioners to address identified needs or challenges within a system process. Rather than seeing this as a separate process to their daily practice of research, the two are now interwoven. A second influence of practitioner inquiry is seen in its adoption as a process for introducing student teachers to the principles of early learning.



Redesigning pedagogy in the early years of primary school 57

These novice teachers completing their professional experience requirements in schools, engage with practitioner inquiry as a means of gaining insights into teaching and learning. A third noteworthy influence has been the extensive use of practitioner inquiry by staff leading other professional learning projects. Within the CEO system, consultants and regionally-based subject specialists are using a form of practitioner inquiry or practitioner research to inform professional learning. Thus, the benefits of practitioner inquiry have gone beyond initial predictions. It has become instrumental in building a culture of research, data literacy and interrogation of practice within a system that is committed to a shared vision of whole school improvement.

Conclusion As the Early Years Project has developed and evolved across a system of schools, it is important to reflect upon the journey and use the experience to inform future initiatives. From the outset, it quickly became apparent that the steps involved in the change process might go in many different directions. Some schools and teachers were in a position to take giant steps, whilst others progressed at a much slower rate. Change occurred incrementally; it was crucial for the facilitators of change to know and recognize the context within which the change process was being introduced. Prior to commencing the inquiry process, facilitators needed to take time to get to know the school community, investigate past and current responses to change and identify the individuals within each school community who were most likely to lead and sustain the project. It was important to work with these people first, ensuring they had a clear understanding of the inquiry process and a vision for how it would work best in their school. The schools most likely to succeed turned out to be those where quality time was spent prior to commencing the project. Another key lesson was the importance of people understanding and knowing together. Change doesn’t happen in isolation, and positive, inspiring relationships were crucial. It was important that school leaders, facilitators and teachers had their own questions of inquiry to develop understanding of the process, discuss what they had learnt, and build capacity to challenge and support each other. Setting up networks of successful schools provided ongoing support for new schools or schools who were struggling with the practitioner inquiry process. The introduction of Learning Hubs presented facilitators, school leaders and classroom teachers with real opportunities to see theory in practice, and identify the complexities of the process and relate it to their own experiences. Finally, the power in providing educational practitioners with the opportunity to identify their own area of research, rather than it being imposed

58

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

from an external body, has been a significant lesson. Recognizing and valuing the capacity of practitioners to inform and lead their own professional development in meaningful and authentic ways has encouraged school communities to embed practitioner inquiry processes into the daily fabric of their school’s improvement culture. It is no longer just the domain of Early Years practitioners, but seen as a strong process for change across the whole school. The potential of practitioner inquiry to grow and sustain professional learning has been identified by other system initiatives who now utilize it to build and extend the educational opportunities offered in our school communities. From a small beginning, the power of practitioner inquiry as a vehicle for change is now well established across a system of schools and will no doubt grow and flourish into the future.

CHAPTER FIVE

Stories from schools: When things go well Introduction Any exploration of positive change initiatives in educational settings must highlight the roles of leaders and enactments of on-site leadership. A useful frame of reference is the literature review of effective school leaders proposed by Holmes, Clement and Albright (2013). These researchers highlighted practices of effective leaders which also become evident in the case studies which follow: (i) development of a shared vision; (ii) development of relational trust; (iii) use of multiple sources of information to solve complex problems; (iv) maintenance of a focus on the core business of teaching and learning; and (v) being responsive to external demands. In these cases, a key component in the investigation of complex problems was found in institutionally-supported and externally-facilitated practitioner inquiry. In the context of this narrative, two principals were offered an opportunity to participate in a systemic change initiative (see Chapter 4) that was prompted by a major employer wanting to encourage a rethink of practice in the first years of school. The larger educational community had been inspired by media interest in ‘the brain research’ which foregrounded the importance of children’s early years, and which, by implication, challenged some traditional approaches to schooling. The Archdiocese of Sydney accepted these challenges and developed a project with the authors of this book to ‘springboard educational change’ through processes of practitioner inquiry. Invitations were extended to schools to join the Early Years Project and both of the principals who are sharing their work in this chapter chose to become involved, one in the first year of the project, and the other in the second year. As they were in the geographical area that was the responsibility for facilitation by one of the authors, the schools had also been part of case study research that fed into formal project evaluation as well as contributing to many of the ideas emerging in the first two chapters. Both schools were located in the same area so had common demographic factors influencing their planning. Both principals were still leading their

60

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

schools four years later as this chapter was being drafted, and they added further reflections two years after that as the writing was being finalized; elements of practitioner inquiry were firmly situated in the philosophies and practices of both schools. For example, one of the principals had embedded practices throughout the school with the majority of teachers contributing to a school-wide formal report of their individual inquiries and analysis of outcomes to share across their system of schools. These are stories of success, where things – largely – went well. One of the contributors, an experienced principal, was excited to have the opportunity to engage with the project as her original qualification was in early childhood education; she was pleased to have an opportunity to reconnect with possible intersections across prior-to-school and earlyschool pedagogies. The other had had earlier successful engagement with action research projects; being new to her present appointment, she was looking for pathways to introduce the potential benefits of those practices into her ‘new’ school. Both of their medium-sized schools were on busy roads, walled off from the steady stream of traffic. They had benefited from recent renovation, including the provision of green play areas and light and inviting libraries. While including some diversity, the families generally included settled professionals who had lived in the area for some time. Both principals were experienced teachers with Masters degrees and other further study. Both were personally and professionally positioned to be interested in, and to benefit from, engagement in practitioner inquiry. Their stories help illuminate factors that contribute to successful change initiatives; their voices help to bring light and colour to the issues of time management, staff engagement and the building of professional learning communities. Their experiences also highlight that, in instituting change processes, even effective strategies are fraught with potential pitfalls.

Introducing Helen Having avoided the struggle with the cramped little car park and left my car down a side street, I walked into the school for my meeting with Helen. We had already met through earlier project workshops and engagement with a small case study of the teachers’ experience with practitioner inquiry in the previous year, but this was my first visit since the conclusion of that portion of the project. General discussion with Helen now included her introduction to the school which was in the middle of some renovation, a walk through the building and an explanation of a successful recent school fete, sharing her pride about children and families who had enjoyed the day – ‘It’s about the spirit of the school’. This observation foregrounded the conclusion about the importance of school culture to change initiatives.



Stories from schools: When things go well

61

Helen had previous experience with action research and enjoyed working through inquiry methods. In considering the way the Early Years Project had unfolded at her school, she said that she values patience and small steps:

Voices from an interview Alma: When you first put your hand up for the Project, did you think particularly that it was an exciting new initiative or did you like the idea that it was focused on the early years, or were you attracted by the idea that it was a practitioner inquiry based project, or some set of those? Helen:  Probably a combination, particularly of the early learning principles and the project, more than the practitioner inquiry … Coming from my background of course, that was my understanding of educational philosophy around early learning principles and the way children learn and their needs. So, I suppose the practitioner inquiry was a bonus … We found that, because we’ve had such a changeover of staff, trying to get this established as one of the ways we work here, has taken a long time. We’re still a work in progress. We’ve particularly focused on kindergarten, Year 1 and Year 2 (K-2), but interestingly enough, another member of my leadership team, has been doing some study about data. He was one of those who came back from the conference and he said, ‘Okay, looking at my class, there’s a social issue. I’m not happy about it, and I’m going to try to put this into place’, and then afterwards he did something with it, and came back and evaluated it … So, he was using the process, not in a formal way; he was the first one outside of K-2 to do that.

Organizational strategies Helen’s approach to supporting the initiative included appointing an Early Learning Coordinator from within the existing staff who, as part of her responsibilities, spent time in the K-2 classes – usually six hours a week at each grade level (e.g. Year 2) for a term. Helen also organized for staff to attend the CEO Early Years conference; everyone had attended in the previous year so they would be exposed to the ideas, and then the new K-2 staff participated this year (seven of the twelve classroom teachers). In following up the conference, all K-2 teachers had a question of inquiry that they were investigating. Commitment is reflected also in her employment

62

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

strategies. Half of the staff are new to the school since the first year of involvement due to maternity leave and other personal factors:

Voices from an interview Helen: I believe in the pedagogy of early learning, and so I think it’s great practice. So, it’s the expectation that when I employ people, particularly in K-1-2, it’s in their contract now that they know that they need to be able to fill those requirements. Alma: How do you explain it to them? What that requirement is? Helen: Well, it’s interesting. When people talk in their interview, one of the things we talk about is The Early Learning Principles, and I ask them about what their understanding is of it. We get a lot from that, and when we talk to peoples’ referees, I particularly ask a lot of questions around peoples’ pedagogy … You need to be prepared to work in this way, to be in this school environment. I think, for some people, it gets to the point where it’s just too uncomfortable.

Introducing Rosemary Rosemary was also generous with her time for this conversation, being committed to the principles and purposes of the initiative. When the Early Years project was first mooted through an emailed invitation, she said, ‘I thought it looked great and I ran it off and put it into the pigeonholes of our infants’ teachers’ (Kindergarten-2).

Being strategic With an early childhood background herself, Rosemary was pleased to have an opportunity to focus on the first years of school and to develop a question which would enable linking her school with a nearby preschool, for discussion and staff visits. She was also highly involved in local and regional committees, and efficient in being able to locate and allocate resources effectively. As for Helen, the topic of employment arose as a relevant factor in the productive climate of the school. Although early childhood specialization was not included in the criteria for new staff positions, Rosemary said: Early learning has been my bias … And you probably know that there are a number of early years/early childhood qualified teachers here …



Stories from schools: When things go well

63

which was once again intentional, but I didn’t employ them particularly because of that reason, but I employed them because they were highly competent and they were the best candidates … and the fact they had early childhood qualifications … is icing on the cake. This outcome says something in itself in that the kind of people she was seeking – coincidentally – were interested in early childhood methodologies.

Understanding the process In describing her perception of practitioner inquiry, Rosemary said: ‘Well I believe it is developing a theory or a focus and methodically moving, establishing steps … keeping your eye on your target … gathering data and evidence along the way and having some sort of benchmark at the end of the process for reviewing and seeing what’s occurred between the genesis and the end of the project.’ She described it as: Finding an issue, a case, a problem, a scenario within the context of the school or the classroom, defining it, and having some benchmark for gathering information about your focus and then attacking it from a number of angles in order to try to move that issue to a new place. Obviously it’s on about school improvement ultimately. I think that another really good thing about this project is that – we’ve done a lot of work on curriculum differentiation here so we’re used to thinking of groups, modified, core, and extension groups. Most teachers in our schools would think in those terms but this project has really helped me to understand that you can narrow it even more than that. You can have sub-groups in your groups, so it really reminds me of how attentive you can be to individuals. Building on this understanding, this principal’s commitment to sharing the school’s journey was evidenced in a full page explanation of the teachers’ engagement in practitioner inquiry that was shared with the school’s parent and faith community.

Perceptions of the whole These two principals could envisage clearly the role of this inquiry-based project in the life of their schools. In discussing the role of practitioner inquiry in achieving the goals she had for the school, Helen commented: I think it’s given us a framework in which to work and a shared

64

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

understanding. I suppose in hanging our hat on that, people are more aware of things that really good teachers do naturally … You can hear that when you’re talking with them, ‘Oh, I’m not happy with that and so I went and did this …’ and that’s practitioner inquiry, isn’t it! It doesn’t have to be anything huge. Even if it’s a question about one child in your class … In her context, Rosemary stated: ‘It’s the most exciting thing I’ve ever been involved in … my teachers are gaining a lot through participation and they’re growing and being challenged all the time. I can see an enormous growth …’ So if this optimism is characteristic of these two charismatic leaders, how does the vision translate to teachers in their schools? As part of the process of thinking through their involvement in the larger system-wide focus on the early years of schooling, one of the staff teams held a feedback forum to gather educator opinions to share with the author. This group consisted of nine educators, including the principal and (newly arrived) assistant principal and at least one teacher from each grade level, kindergarten through to Year 6. The meeting was held in a pleasant teacher resource room at the school, with discussion questions distributed previously and the author collating ideas. School responsibilities had been managed to enable participation on a ‘pupil-free’ day at the beginning of a term. Comments on positive and more challenging aspects of practitioner inquiry as a vehicle for educational change were summarized and fed back to contributors shortly afterwards to confirm accuracy of recording and interpretations. Responses were grouped to indicate the year in which each participant had ‘joined the project’. Most responses were similar across categories, but analysis highlighted the voice of someone in the second year of this school’s involvement, saying ‘You can learn from other teachers, try something that they have implemented with success’ and enabled one of the newest participants to say that this work provided ‘opportunities to formally engage in the dialogue about one’s views and to build on where one is at’. Another stated that ‘This approach centres all efforts on what is the best outcome for each child – and highlights the need for reflection and the process to inform best practice; if at system level and school level “this” is valued, it is permission/motivation/invigorating to be a part of the process.’ These perspectives are important in themselves as they illustrate how engagement in a school-wide practitioner inquiry initiative is ‘lived on the ground’. In addition, these responses highlight the importance of context. Participants from the first year of the school’s engagement commented that while ‘practitioner inquiry has encouraged opportunity for reflection on professional practice’, it was also noted that ‘practitioner inquiry has built on our established professional learning community’ and ‘is supported by credible personnel from CEO and IEC at Macquarie’. These observations highlight the key roles of climate and support in scaffolding change. As has



Stories from schools: When things go well

65

been established since Biblical times, there needs to be well-tended fertile ground for seeds to grow. When asked to comment on aspects of practitioner inquiry that were negative in terms of being positioned as a vehicle of change, possibly as constraints, there were fewer responses. This may have reflected the generally positive approach in a school where the process was ‘going well’, as well as demonstrating a desire to be seen to be ‘in step’ with a centrally sanctioned initiative. Two people (who each had at least a full year’s involvement) foregrounded their perceptions that the component processes reflected their existing practice. One commented, ‘We should be doing this anyway’ and the other wrote: My problem (one of many!) is framing a question/creating the provocation. When I read most projects – I think I already know the answer; of course, in most cases, doing more or providing more experiences in ‘x’ will enhance learning. I have lots of ideas about things that will enhance the learning in my classroom; the question is often time and organization – not a philosophical shift – therefore I wonder if I am really engaging in the process. Generally, the concerns that were raised related to needing time and support to assist with the elements of inquiry (finding a valuable question, processing useful data and so on), leading one of the newest participants to ask, ‘Have you considered “speed” catch up sessions on key understandings?’ This useful idea in itself is, of course, a question of key resources: time, money and knowledgeable personnel.

Thinking through the threads Several key factors emerge when reflecting on the common elements across these two contexts in which practitioner inquiry has been embedded successfully in the life of schools as a tool of professional practice. In both these cases, the approach has contributed to the creation of a professional learning community that supported a climate for educational change. Fundamental is the fact that both Helen and Rosemary embraced the challenge as a personal opportunity, not as something to be required of staff, but as a tool to promote change and growth through their own participation. Each took on an inquiry question to investigate themselves in each year of engagement with the initiative. Excerpts from each principal’s narratives are included to give the flavour of their inquiries. Helen took on the invitation to work with ‘a buddy’, in this case, the Early Years Coordinator in her school. All participants were encouraged to

66

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

work in pairs for a range of reasons, including personal support, professional motivation and a built-in source of feedback and friendly critique. Helen continued a previous interest that had been associated with outdoor renovations as she explains below:

Voices from an interview Helen: Ellen and I have gone to the playground this year, continued with our playground project … We both looked at the playground, and we thought our question was the same, but it isn’t actually. Mine’s about, mainly about, a group of children and how ‘loose parts’ in the playground affect them … I’m looking at how these children, who weren’t interacting well on the playground, are interacting now. My next question is going to be, I think, about how the playground stimulus and environment affect the learning in the classroom.   Just the other day, it’s interesting, some children came to me and they said, ‘These materials …’ and I said ‘Oh yes’. ‘There’s a bit of a problem’ and I said, ‘Oh, okay, what’s the problem?’ and they said, ‘There are so many people that want to use them, and we don’t have enough!’ And I said, ‘So, what can we do about that?’ and one child turned to me and said, ‘We need a roster!’ Alma: Of course! You can see the adult in the child! Ummm … that’s one possibility … Helen: ‘Yes, that’s interesting … what else could we do?’ and he said, ‘Well, do you think we could get some more? Because I’ve worked out that people aren’t happy with just one or two pieces, even if they had five or six pieces and there were ten children it would work better …’ so he had really thought it through, and I said, ‘Right!’ and another child said, ‘another thing might be to not put all the materials in a container together …’ Alma: That’s clever. Helen: ‘… but to have a couple of containers around the place’. They literally run all around the playground and see what’s there, gathering them up and then holding onto their precious possessions! But the play! We’ve had brides, we’ve had kittens, we’ve had … kids have tied them into the trees to make a little hammock, so all these things have been going on. [conversation continues]



Stories from schools: When things go well

67

Furthering the thread of principals having their own investigations: at the other school being portrayed here, previously Rosemary had evolved a question exploring potential benefits of linking early years school staff with educators at the local preschool, for exchange of philosophies and practices. Following the success of that initiative (which included shared visits and discussions at both sites), she moved onto joint staff development, with a focus on ‘twenty-first century education – topics that are of interest to both campuses, to build that relationship, and also particularly for the preschool not to feel so isolated’. After reporting on some of the content of the shared sessions, Rosemary concluded, ‘and it was good for our staff to value the work of other early childhood educators’.

Management implications Having committed to engaging in the processes personally, both principals also considered the organizational and financial implications of successful project engagement. Perceptions of priorities and of allocation of funds were raised. Rosemary stated: We have been talking about professional learning teams as a very overt part of our pedagogy and we will look for opportunities to incorporate the whole notion of action research as part of our pedagogy … That influence has come from this project into our strategic plan … My hope would be that that would become a way of life, a way of operating in this school environment. Helen also commented on the (three to five year) ‘Strategic Management Plan’ in her school: So what you do is, you have a look and say, ‘where do we want to be at the end of that time, and what do we need to do to get there?’ … Professional development is a BIG big part of that plan. So each year we might say, ‘Okay, what are some of the needs?’ A lot has gone into pedagogy here. For four years we’ve had a lot of input around pedagogy, and now we’re looking at programming because people say, ‘Well, that’s all well and good, but – how will we actually get this down on paper?’ With regard to paying for attendance at the conference which the employer offers annually to support this initiative, Helen noted that for her school, one person’s registration was paid as she was presenting, but the rest came from school funds. With a casual teacher for the day costing approximately $360 at the time and registration at about $100 a head, this is a major commitment for a ‘continuing’ school (only new schools are funded

68

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

centrally). Principals can choose to make one day of the conference (Friday) a staff development day which is ‘pupil free’ and all can attend. When that’s not possible, Helen plans for one person from each grade to attend so they can share across the year team. In terms of other financial implications, Helen commented that if anyone on the staff had a well-justified proposal to put to her, they could have funding and agency (e.g. robotics gear and a consultant to work with a Year 5 teacher). ‘I’ll find the money.’ Similarly Rosemary stated that, ‘if the team validates it as an authentic resource or need or requirement, I will resource that for them’. In terms of other forms of support, she noted: I’ve been able to offer teachers half a day release per week to go down to the [local preschool] and to have a look. I’m a firm believer that people need release time to be able to reflect, be taken out of the busyness of their own environment, and to be given that time to filter information and to bounce it off their colleagues and so forth. That’s been a great gift to be able to provide all that release time. This pragmatic commitment is recognized by teachers and helps establish the school learning culture. Another key factor for principals is their responsibility to national accountability requirements (as evidenced in the national testing of literacy and numeracy, NAPLAN). In this case, both principals recognized accountability as a context rather than a limitation. Helen reflected on one of her recent conversations with families: At the end of the Parents and Friends night, one of the parents said (and I just had to laugh), ‘We know you well; your report talked about the playground and the visitors, dah dah dah, and all these wonderful things that are happening in the classroom, being creative and that. You gave two sentences to NAPLAN. You said “NAPLAN is a snapshot in time, all you need to do with your children is to give them a good breakfast and a good night’s sleep. And that’s it”’. They laughed and said ‘You spent 20 minutes talking about the playground … And for NAPLAN, it’s “Get a good night’s sleep!”’ In summarizing her reflections, Helen said, ‘We want them to do well, but we don’t want that to be the only measure of their education.’ Rosemary also commented on the context of accountability, noting the development of a new national Australian curriculum: ‘When you’ve got state syllabuses and national syllabuses coming up you tend to think in boxes of key learning areas instead of thinking of the children. You should have that bottom up influence, not the top down influence.’



Stories from schools: When things go well

69

Voices from an interview Rosemary: Interestingly, in The Australian [newspaper] a couple of months ago, this school was listed in the top 100 schools in Australia for mathematics. Alma: Is that on the basis of NAPLAN? Rosemary: On the basis of NAPLAN; but the point is that the Year 3 children sitting NAPLAN – I was teaching that class, so people couldn’t argue that our inquiries detracted. Alma:  That’s nice data. Rosemary: So we also did another activity in the early learning project … After the experience of doing the NAPLAN test, I said to the children: ‘the NAPLAN people have come back and they’ve asked me to get you to write the next NAPLAN paper. We’re going to call it WAPLAN for Whitton [pseudonym for the suburb], not the National Assessment Project but the Whitton Assessment Project.’ I said, ‘now let’s do a brainstorm of all the topics we’ve covered in Year 3 this year. Not just what I’m teaching you’ … but what the other teacher, the class teacher was teaching them, which they did. Then I said, ‘now you can take any of those topics one or more and you can …’ Alma: Design the assessment? Rosemary: Yes! ‘Write a question that’s going to be put in this exam for everybody in Australia’ and they did that; it was fantastic! Once again after the first edit they had to bring it to me and we had to make sure that it made sense: were they communicating the idea properly, was it written up properly? Would other people understand it et cetera? So then they went back and re-jigged it once again. I’ll show you that next time you come – then ultimately I typed it up, just looked like one of their exam papers and I put their initials on the corner of the paper so that they could recognize their own work. Then they got their own copies and they took them home; they showed their parents they could test each other! Fantastic, it’s such powerful learning isn’t it? Alma: Rosemary: That really came out of that Early Learning Project [see Chapter 4] because I wanted to prove that you could take those principles and move them up through the school without losing the integrity.

70

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

Flexible leadership Flexibility is another thread that runs through the data collected from these two principals. Both had clear ideas about how they wanted their schools to evolve, but they were open to new possibilities and willing to explore a range of options for organizing time, money and personnel to achieve their goals. This openness was intertwined with clarity of purpose, so that potential roadblocks were acknowledged and managed. When Helen was asked whether she had any issues with staff resistance, she mused that, ‘I did have one person in the past who was a “blocker”, but they’re not here now, so that’s made a difference.’

Voices from an interview Alma: So they just felt it was time to move on, or there was actually a conversation about it, or? Helen: ‘Encouraged.’ Alma: Yes! That reminds me of this wonderful conversation we had with a school principal in Denmark when a dozen of us were lucky enough to be visiting as part of an investigation of how different places were responding to the provocations from Reggio Emilia. Scandinavia has fantastic take-up, partly because they’re physically closer and partly because they value aesthetics and so on. So we were talking with the principal in one school, trying to pursue this question about that proportion of staff who might be resistant to change, because there’s always at least one, and it depends what position he or she is in, how that impacts on the others, and he was asked how he had managed to have such a cohesive positive staff. He was really thoughtful about it and then said, ‘Well, they’re often not here’. We thought we were losing something in the translation from the Danish, but with a pause and then a twinkle in his eye – he said, ‘some, you stroke’, (he gave a gentle hand movement and then he paused) ‘and’ (with a shrug, looking around the group) ‘and some you push!’ Just delicious! You don’t lose that thought across languages! (Both laugh) Finally, the threads coalesce under the umbrella of ‘Leadership’. As Rosemary remarked: ‘I think the fact that I’m part of it myself, I’ve got my own project, is significant. I’m not just a figurehead, I’m actively engaged in it the same way that they are; I’m not just having a symbolic role in this process, I’m having an active role. That’s obviously a very positive thing.’



Stories from schools: When things go well

71

The topic also emerged for Helen under the guise of sustainability. Her belief in the people around her typified her approach: Leadership is critical. Absolutely critical. I’ve got four people in my leadership team and they’re all excellent; they’re thinkers and they’ve done it in their own way … I’m a great believer in developing leaders. All classroom teachers are leaders. So when things come up, I look at people, and I have conversations with staff members. ‘Okay, we have a great practitioner here, always trying to improve; where do you see yourself in five or ten years’ time?’ and they might say, ‘Oh look, I’m really happy in the classroom’ and they don’t see themselves like that. I like to give them little challenges occasionally like, ‘You can do that’ to plant those seeds in their mind. Then, I have a couple of younger teachers at the moment who have come to me and said, ‘What do I need to do to have your job?’ That starts the conversation! In concluding our discussions, both principals were asked what advice they might give to another principal whose school was joining the project – to another leader who was trying to use practitioner inquiry as a tool in the change process. Helen responded: To be really realistic with your goals. There’s something that you have in mind, but it’ll take you double the time that you anticipate, but getting your leadership team on board … and I think in developing the leadership team, we do things together. So, if I have to pay for that for a viable school, I’ll do that. So the four of us have done a couple of things together, and that gives us an understanding of each other and where we’re at. It’s very much about shared leadership too though. Like people come to me and they might say something, I say, ‘Well, go to this person on the leadership team because they have the skills to help you with that.’ Rosemary reinforced the importance of being involved personally, taking on an investigation yourself and developing ‘a team mentality’, rather than expecting people to work solely as individuals. She also revisited the ‘Next-door Neighbour’ (see Chapter 1) philosophy that had been raised in workshops (bringing neighbouring staff into the philosophies and practices of the inquiry process) and noted that ‘it’s not necessarily going to happen by osmosis; you have to orchestrate it’, to plan staff placement and professional learning to support people in growing with these ideas. Finally, she advised people to take advantage of the supports available, in this case from the university and CEO facilitators. ‘If you were coming into it, you would know that if you were stuck, you could pick up the phone’.

72

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

Conclusion In these stories of settings where practitioner inquiry has been embraced as a change vehicle, it is clear that the initiative has been successful in a number of ways. As Helen noted, ‘I think the shift I’ve seen in four years is going from a very structured text-book environment to teachers being more open around their own needs as far as learning about good pedagogy. And their programming has changed immensely, so they are starting to look more at the child rather than the content. That’s four years.’ And Rosemary concluded: Practitioner inquiry certainly parallels the child-centred thrust of this whole project, and I think it also helps to make sense of your own cultural context, you know, what problems have been bothering you, or what issues are really stopping you in your practice, and how can you overcome it … and it also sort of takes away blame, or any notion of incompetency. It’s human nature to project – and certainly the teaching profession’s no different – you think that things are going well, and you’re fully in control, and fully professional and fully competent, but the reality is, that we’re all growing and changing all the time, both as people and as professionals, so it’s good for that process. It doesn’t apportion blame. These schools have also contributed to impacts across the system, in terms of offering ongoing professional leadership for continuing schools (see Learning Hubs in Chapter 4), enabling staff to speak at the annual conference and in scaffolding staff who subsequently take their expertise and enthusiasm for these ways of working to other schools when they move on. While it may be coincidental that both of these principals were female, as indeed were the majority of principals in this primary school sector at the time, it is worth pausing to consider the potential role of gender and, indeed, the characteristics of effective leadership in general, in the cases being reported here. In the 1990s, gender in school leadership was a topic generating both heat and light, and largely disappearing (at least in terms of primary schools) at the turn of the century. At approximately that time, discussions of marginalization turned to issues of race and culture, with heteronormativity and disability not yet appearing in the leadership literature. So in an evolutionary continuum, moving beyond women as empathetic, humanistic and responsive, what can we learn from these two narratives of strong women in school leadership positions? On the cusp of the new millennium, Jill Blackmore (1999: 125) wrote several case studies of female leaders, summarizing: These women in the bureaucracy had come to understand policy as process and action, as open-ended dialogic process that was both



Stories from schools: When things go well

73

contested and changing, always in a state of ‘becoming’, as they sought to work with often mutually incompatible discourses of ‘hard-nosed’ management and ‘women’s styles of leadership’. Arguably Rosemary and Helen could make the same claims of their positioning as leaders in these inquiry initiatives, while also agreeing with Blackmore’s claim that, ‘it is principals and teachers who deal on a daily basis with the ambiguities arising from competing discourses of equity and efficiency, quality and outcomes, devolution and democracy’ (1999: 15). An answer to these challenges lies in the recognition that principals must be managers as well as leaders, dealing with the pragmatics of managing a complex system, being the human face of relationships amongst school personnel, learners and the community, as well as offering constructive, visionary leadership to carry the school through the mundane, through the complexities of diversity, politics and bureaucratic infrastructures to the desired future. In her 2002 Foreword to The Constructivist Leader, Maxine Greene (2002: viii) positioned the changing leadership environment in terms of ‘The realization that reciprocal processes within complex educational communities must now take the place of imposed agreements and totalities …’. She noted that the book challenges ‘anonymous decisionmaking’ and offers ‘interdependent learning communities’ as pathways for the future. These perspectives mirror those of Lambert and Walker (2002), who identify key elements in their stories of change which resonate with the points being made here. These include: ‘When we learn ourselves through change, we commit to the outcomes’, and ‘Such learning is constructivist in nature, involving reflection, dialogue and conversation, inquiry and action’, and ‘Learning communities among adults are prerequisite to deep learning experiences and equitable outcomes for children’ (2002: 163). Continuing this trajectory to a specific consideration of leadership in early childhood settings, there has been a definite move to discussions of ‘distributed leadership’ (see Heikka, Waniganayake and Hujala 2013), a strategy which is evidenced in the two schools highlighted here, although this concept in itself was not unpacked for the purpose of the inquiry initiatives. It is also an ongoing conversation across the broader early childhood sector, as was noted in a subsequent publication investigating leadership in early childhood centres: ‘Further research is necessary to explore the complexity of factors that contribute to collaborative professional development and learning, and the growth of distributed leadership’ (Colmer, Waniganayake and Field 2014: 111). The intersections of conditions for professional learning and effective leadership are complex and will benefit from further consideration. Taking another perspective on early childhood leadership, Biddle (2012: 74) stated that ‘It is the creating of new possibilities rather than succumbing to the tensions of current realities that take leadership thinking into leadership action. When leadership thinking produces leadership actions,

74

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

teacher knowledge increases, student learning is enhanced, and overall programme effectiveness is strengthened’. These kinds of ‘leaderly behaviours’ are present in the success stories being shared here. Finally, the intersection of the affective and cognitive domains must not be overlooked: ‘The kind of relationships that lead to reciprocal learning and critical reflection about professional practice are built around solidarity of purpose and like passions’ (Biddle 2012: 75). This claim is reflected in the research by Evans (2014: 195) of the requirements for leadership of professional development and learning in schools and colleges: ‘Leadership for professional development requires flexibility, vision, resourcefulness and above all, awareness of the importance of interacting with and considering teachers as individuals …’. The absence of these characteristics may be central to some of the less successful initiatives explored in the following chapter. Both Helen and Rosemary were open to opportunities that were available, including working with their university and CEO facilitators. Their personal and professional characteristics provided a platform for the growth of a school culture of inquiry. Of course, for the employer, questions arise when principals do not have either the personal predisposition or professional attitudes to embrace these opportunities. Told in a collection of interviews and vignettes, the humour and patience that accompany visionary leaders becomes clear and may offer guideposts for others on a similar journey. They portray genuine construction of learning communities embracing the social construction of knowledge, showing those principles of pedagogy operating at school level as well as in classrooms. Balancing flexibility and accountability, this kind of change reflects research-based policy, but thrives beyond the realms of regulation and requirement. It is personally driven, well-funded, emotionally supported, effectively managed and dependent on committed thoughtful leaders.

CHAPTER SIX

Stories from schools: When issues arise Introduction The nature of the practitioner inquiry process means that in any one school there can be a number of teachers carrying out cycles of inquiry that are personally and professionally meaningful, although significantly different from investigations by their grade partner/s and their principal. Their learning is quite individual and whilst they have opportunities to share their learning with critical friends and ‘buddies’, ultimately their growth is quite particular to many facets of their own careers; their teaching experiences, personal interests, professional learning needs, classroom concerns and/or leadership issues. While this may be perceived as being empowering within a professional learning community, it may also raise many challenges within a school environment for a principal. Perhaps the principal is new to this way of working or feels a loss of control over professional learning opportunities. It may also be that the principal feels that his or her own leadership and sense of direction mapped out for the school is compromised or that the ship is steering in the wrong direction, into dangerous waters, with the potential to become rudderless; power and control perhaps come into question. Further, it is a time of growth and change for many teachers. They may feel a renewed sense of self as a teacher, on a revitalized learning journey that involves ‘letting go’ and teaching in a whole new way. For other teachers, however, the introduction of practitioner inquiry may highlight a sense of inadequacy or questioning of what has always been perceived as the one right way of being a teacher. This chapter shares the voices of some of the teachers and principals who were greatly challenged with this way of working. We hear their voices, sharing their struggles and concerns throughout the process. For some of these schools, the issue of ethics also comes into play as principals and teachers are forced to think, reflect and act on how they will address unexpected outcomes and consider the ethical implications moving beyond the classroom walls and

76

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

school fences. This chapter draws on the experiences of participants in the CEO Early Years Project (see Chapter 4 for further information) and shares stories of times when situations have arisen that have not gone according to plan, and the manner in which these were addressed.

Entry into practitioner inquiry Initially, the process for school involvement in the Early Years Project required an expression of interest and discussion with key stakeholders in advisory roles. Whilst at the time of these events this was a voluntary initiative, school-based participation was determined by the principal; sometimes in consultation with teachers and sometimes teachers were strongly encouraged or told that their participation was mandatory. Unfortunately, those teachers who arrived at workshop sessions having ‘been sent’ were dismissive of the process and often argumentative. As one of the academic facilitators, Katey reflects on her experiences: In the second year of the project, I was working with a group of teachers new to the process. All the participants had attended the introductory conference and were at the first workshop. There was excitement in the room, a contagious buzz, but looking back on my researcher’s notes I had recorded the following: Well that was an interesting first session. I’m really excited to be working with this group of teachers and principals but a little apprehensive as well. We seem to have a number of teachers who physically look uncomfortable to be here. Their body language has them turned slightly from the table, arms folded in front of them in a protective manner … I approached one such teacher as the rest of the participants settled into some reflective writing and discussion … I tried to engage her in conversation about what might be something of interest to her – the response, ‘nothing, I’ve been teaching kindergarten for 20 years, here we go again with the cycle, I’ve done this all before’. Berger, Boles and Troen (2005) discussed in their findings the greater chance for success and school-wide cultural change when there was schoolwide participation. They acknowledged that there is a necessity for the involvement of numbers of teachers within a school being a part of the process. The creation of a groundswell can be a key element in the success of a change initiative. However, mandating this participation in an effort to create a critical mass can create angst. These authors noted the need to find balance between teachers feeling forced to participate and creating a sense of ownership that invited or encouraged membership to this learning process.



Stories from schools: When issues arise

77

Katey continues to reflect: I continued to attempt to engage this teacher throughout the initial session and into the second workshop, ensuring that I made time to discuss with her the question she was considering and her baseline data. By the third session we had made little progress; her absence spoke volumes, one of her colleagues explained that she had been away from school sick on that day. This teacher did not return to the sessions. Day and Townsend (2007) acknowledge the issue of what they term ‘power differentials’. They describe the difficulties associated with supporting participants when there are opposing and dominant views. This term could also be applied to those who are ‘forced’ to attend by the very nature of their position within the school. These tensions have significant implications for the individual’s initial involvement and ongoing commitment in that framework of professional learning. Further, it raises ethical questions for the academic facilitators. Negotiating consensual involvement and willingness to participate are challenged. Academic facilitators in this process are placed in a difficult position. They are at the intersection between the broader system and the school, both principals and teachers. Their role is heavily reliant on the development and sustainability of relationships with participants to create trust and ensure credibility. These facilitators do not decide who should attend but make recommendations based on school size and potential roles that would benefit from participation (for example, beyond the principal and classroom teachers to include specialist and support teachers – librarians, information technology staff, reading support teachers – all of whom work across different classes). Whilst facilitating these sessions, the academic facilitators are fulfilling a responsibility to an employer, as they have been employed by the system to effect change. Ethically, however, it raises questions of how professional learning is determined within systems and schools, and whether the role is to continue to massage and support the recalcitrant participant who is there for all the wrong reasons. For some teachers, their entry into the process created more confusion than it did interest: ‘I didn’t know anything about it at all until about the middle of last year, when we were sent on a little visit … It was quite: “Go to this school, have a look” and it was like “Why are we doing this?”’ Another teacher from the same school continued: [The Principal] sent all of us across to look [at a school that had actively been engaged in the process for quite a few years] and then kind of said ‘Let’s try it.’ So we were thrown into the deep end of just trying it. I like to have things organized and [the Principal] said ‘No, let’s start right now.’ I kind of felt really anxious because I like to really have things a bit

78

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

more … under control. So it has been – there’s a lot of – I mean, I really enjoy it but I’m finding it really stressful at the same time. I’m finding this balance between – there’s a lot to prepare and a lot to set up. There’s a lot of time and effort that needs to go into preparation. Some teachers who had volunteered to be involved described the early stages of practitioner inquiry as confusing and challenging. They were, though, able to move beyond this to recognize long-term benefits for their teaching and the children. For other teachers, however, the entry into the initiative and process of practitioner inquiry was hindered by the manner in which it was introduced. The project revealed that the initial engagement experiences impacted strongly on ongoing interest and involvement. Knowing how to effectively lead change in the early stages requires pre-empting where opposition is likely to come into play and having strategies to address this (Kotter and Schlesinger 2008). The role of the principal before initiating involvement into a new form of professional learning is to prepare teachers for what is entailed and the commitment required. The resulting increased sense of knowledge and understanding creates a stronger bond with, or ownership of, the process.

Changes to practice As academic facilitators, we learned many lessons throughout our years of involvement and as time progressed, we began to feel more confident. We continued to be challenged, however, by unexpected participant responses to the process and their lines of inquiry. In some schools, as the interest in the practitioner inquiry process increased, the changes to practice were not always positive. On reflection, there were identifiable factors that caused these concerns, but it was not always possible to anticipate the outcome. At the end of the first year of the project, feedback was sought from participants and the CEO Early Years Advisory Committee. This evaluative data indicated that new teachers might benefit from having presentations from members of the initial cohort about their question choice, data gathering processes and experiences in practitioner inquiry. This would give new teachers an idea of expectations, and also share the genuine excitement that the majority of teachers were feeling. It was decided that there would also be presentations representing teachers from schools, advisors who worked in schools with teachers across a particular region and an advisory committee member who was also one of the architects of the initiative. They would present at the beginning participants’ conference in the following year. It did not become apparent either before or at the time of presentation that there happened to be a strong link between all presenters around the topic of ‘learning centres’ as either central to their question or a finding for consideration as part of their data



Stories from schools: When issues arise

79

gathering processes. Learning centres are quite commonplace in prior-toschool settings and provide a space where a collection of resources are present for children’s exploration in order for them to be active players in choosing ways to engage with the materials selected as those likely to support children’s thinking, creativity and engagement. They may be a permanent component in a room or available during a specific time of the day. They have the advantage of appealing to a variety of learning styles (Arthur et al. 2015). The Early Years Project (see Chapter 4) was developed to encourage teachers in the early years of school to rethink their pedagogy and practice of working with the children and families in their setting. Learning centres are one, but not the only, means of introducing a different way of learning to usual classroom-based practice and it was never intended to present this concept as the only possibility. Evidence of this thinking was not instantaneously clear to us from this cohort but appeared over time. As Katey reflected: Musings from my first gathering with ‘new’ people … great to see so many enthused people in the room, I must say I am enjoying the sense of anticipation and slight exclamations of puzzlement as they begin to discuss the practitioner inquiry process. I’m fascinated by the number of individuals interested in learning centres as a question (Twilight session 1). And later in my journal: How can we have missed it? After a conversation with one of the school teams this evening it became clear what is going on here: the teachers think professional inquiry is learning centres?? They said that they thought that was why the presentations were about learning centres so that was what they needed to do. It explains a lot – why they were quietly resistant to conversations about their questions and whether this was what they were experiencing in their classes and queries about the baseline data to support it. We need to do something now to stop the misinformation! (Twilight session 2) The Early Years Project had been designed with two parallel components to the professional learning experience: practitioner inquiry and early years’ pedagogy. The content of the early years component was intended to inform ways of working and provide a stimulus for potential change to practices. Unfortunately, it became clear that this caused confusion when demonstrated as a complete picture. Unpacking the two, returning to the parallel with explicit discussion separate for both areas became necessary in moving forward. It did reinforce an old adage that professional development within a frame of ‘tell me and I’ll do’ is a familiar and comfortable space from which people learn. Well-intentioned efforts to do ‘what was

80

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

expected’ reflected the confusion for some participants about the nature of accountability, both within the systemic framework of outcomes and within the practitioner inquiry initiative itself. Recognizing the sources of this confusion became a learning opportunity, both for the academic facilitators and the CEO leadership team, and affected the ways in which the next stage of the project was presented to schools. Change at any time can be difficult. Being given permission to change does not automatically instil everyone with a great urge to do something different in an attempt to redefine ways of thinking and working. As humans we hold onto what we know and feel comfortable with and sometimes struggle to reconcile within ourselves that there are new and different ways to work. Zembylas (2010: 227) discusses the importance of recognizing teachers’ emotional development as a factor which can affect and impact on the change. Their ability to cope with the change can be as diverse as the questions they are exploring, and their emotional well-being is affected by the cultural climate of the school. He believes that ‘sensitivity to teachers’ needs for emotional and social support is essential to reform efforts’. (Examples of positive efforts by principals to create school cultures that facilitate practitioner inquiry are explored in Chapter 5.) While the Early Years Project, through the CEO system, gave teachers permission to rethink their classroom practices, nevertheless, constraints around compliance and achieving syllabus-mandated outcomes tended to cause concern and raise many questions. One teacher bravely spoke up at a session attended by a key system representative, inquiring: ‘So you’re saying that we can think about things differently, that not everything has to be so structured and rigid – then how do we manage compliance?’ The system representative unpacked this concern, suggesting solutions and explaining how they might look. She posed questions to the audience about their understanding of integrated and sequenced learning that achieved outcomes across a number of syllabus areas. She challenged participants to really know the outcomes they were working towards for the children and how this might look in their classroom. She also tried to provoke professional thinking by wondering whether there was more than one way to meet outcomes. In an interview midway through the second year of her involvement, one teacher explained how she was addressing compliance in her classroom: Amira: So I’m still also tossing back and forth with compliance in a way. I have this unit to teach and I constantly ask myself what’s the best way of going about it? We’re getting there, we’re learning and trying things, but … Interviewer: So, it’s like a struggle over content, of say a KLA [Key Learning Area], and processes, or learning freedom. It’s an interesting dilemma in a way … it’s the balance, it’s so that



Stories from schools: When issues arise

81

you don’t go all one way or the other. So, at this stage of your journey … Amira: I guess it makes you stop and reflect a little bit more, in a more formal manner. As teachers, we do it every day, and sometimes you can see a solution there and then. Other times, such as this, it’s an ongoing process. Permission to change and permission to move forward are powerful in terms of changing mindsets and accepting that there is a place for doing things differently and challenging the status quo. A kindergarten teaching team in one school also explored the message of ‘permission to change’ within their classroom context. There were two teachers who, excited by the opportunities and potential, worked together to develop questions around their environments and children’s ways of learning. They meticulously collected baseline data that included pictures of children in each of their classrooms; they listened to children’s voices to better understand the ways in which they felt their learning would occur. They discussed these findings with each other, with their principal and with the academic facilitator during their attendance at the ongoing sessions. They made changes to their classrooms, each teacher targeting these changes to their specific question, including removing some of the desks and creating opportunities for small group learning throughout the day. They acknowledged the struggles they were having with the children settling into the new learning environment and ways to manage these challenges. They stayed true to the process, however, eagerly arriving at sessions to share and analyse data and ideas of ways to move forward. Towards the end of the year the two teachers arrived for their evening session looking less enthused than usual. They had met with the principal earlier in the afternoon, as there had been some parent complaints about the kindergarten classrooms. A few parents had expressed their concerns about the changes, worried about the impact on learning for the children and said that the new spaces looked more like a prior-to-school setting, which the children should have moved beyond. There were clearly tensions in the school as a result of this and the teachers felt unsure how to move forward. They did not want to go back to their ‘old’ way of working and were excited about how the children had progressed in so many areas beyond their experiences with previous groups of children. Ensuring that everyone who will be impacted by the change is informed may have lessened the culmination of stress felt by the parents. Identification of key stakeholders as part of the practitioner inquiry process is critical. This is the case with any form of organizational change. The teachers had not forgotten to include families in the changes, but they had chatted together and decided that when they were confident in what they were doing then they would talk with families. They had not foreseen the potential of this kind of response from the parents. The consequence was a perceived lack

82

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

of trust, with parents heading straight to the principal. Both teachers had thought they had strong working relationships with many families from their classes and feelings of hurt and frustration surfaced. They realized that, in future, they would need to broaden their data collection processes to include the voices of families. It was a slow road back for those teachers, repairing relationships, setting up communication processes and rethinking their approach to working in partnerships with families.

Predetermined questions Predetermined questions tended to make an appearance in the second year of involvement in the practitioner inquiry process. It became evident that a few of the principals could see the benefit for changes in practice which were required school wide; for instance, to embed a new way of working with children – either a project approach or learning centres or for teaching new skills, even implementation of interactive whiteboards. Therefore some principals thought that providing a framework for the questions would be beneficial to their school in meeting these strategic focuses, responding to concerns with nationwide test results in literacy and numeracy and in meeting general professional development requirements of the school. Whilst this was not the intended purpose, the principal in one school believed that it would ‘ensure staff were all heading in the same direction’ and they would be able to ‘support each other in their quest’. Agendas pertaining to school-wide, as compared with national requirements, were highlighted here. As identified by Day and Townsend (2007), external pressures can be driving forces that impact on the perceived validity of the question choices for participants. This principal and six teachers from kindergarten to Year 2 were involved in the practitioner inquiry project in the first year. The principal did not directly identify her own question, but rather spoke of her emerging, undecided question throughout the first year and the importance of her support for her staff whilst engaging in the process. In the second year, the principal elected to introduce practitioner inquiry to the remaining teachers in the school to incorporate a whole-school approach. The principal decided that the school would have an overarching question focused on numeracy and involve the use of the new interactive whiteboards and each pair of grade teachers would have a shared question. Initially it was a little unclear as to how the questions for the teachers had evolved: Interviewer: What’s the question that you’re exploring this year? Teacher 1: ‘Well, there’s been a push to continue the early learning approach through kindergarten to Year 2, so we thought we’d – only recently we got interactive whiteboards, so we thought something that would be consistent, that runs



Stories from schools: When issues arise

83

through K to 2, and the question is …’ (looks towards other teacher in interview). Teacher 2: ‘How can the use of maths resources, including electronic interactive whiteboards, enhance the development of whole number concepts K to 2?’ Interviewer: Why did you choose this question then? Teacher 1: ‘Well we only recently got interactive whiteboards, like within the last six weeks the whole school’s got interactive whiteboards.’ Teacher 2: ‘And I think that maths is something as a school we’re focusing on as well. I guess for us we were pretty happy with how our literacy is going, and we just wanted to probably focus a bit more on numeracy.’ Teacher 1: ‘And we wanted to track how the children are improving in the whole number, because we’re finding that through the NAPLAN results [a nationwide testing programme], whole number is a bit of an issue. If they don’t ground their whole number, then other areas fall down as well. So the use of whole number, but also including new technology, and because as professionals we’re only – we’re still learning ourselves how to use the interactive whiteboard, so we thought why not use this inquiry approach to develop our learnings of the interactive whiteboard.’ An interview with another teacher from the school started to highlight where the ideas were derived from with words such as ‘altogether’ and ‘feed off each other’: ‘Okay. Well this year we’re sort of trying to take K-2 Teacher 3:  approach this year. Because last year we all had our own individual grade questions. This year we thought we might take on something altogether and then we could feed off each other.’ The next interview confirmed that the principal was involved in the decisionmaking process. Teacher 4 said: ‘This year the school has moved to a whole group question. [The principal] is replicating the process with teachers in Years 3–6. K-2 teachers are involved in the project for the second year. The question centres around whole number and by working on the same question they are able to support each other.’ When I spoke to the principal she explained that there was a mathematics focus for all the teachers to work towards. She explained that they could have their own question within the parameters of the broad question: ‘All teachers need to know they are part of a team, it is part of a process of skilling up/developing fluid reflective practitioners. It formalized the process of reflective practice. It will also improve student

84

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

learning, allow teachers to focus in on certain learning needs of students and create more focused learning for particular children.’ It also became evident that the nationwide testing results were driving her vision: ‘How? Data will be in results for children. [The principal] will be using diagnostic results currently available to compare. There will also be an opportunity to measure teacher responses; measure enthusiasm and interview teachers for reaction.’ However, for one teacher this was not what she wanted to explore. Instead, she shared the question that she would be exploring based on her prior experiences: Teacher 5: This year I’ve been exploring the question that I started exploring last year which is how can I use science learning centres to enhance student learning in the classroom? So prior to that my teaching of science was very much whole class experience. I’d look at the programme, look at the outcomes, look at the unit of work and it was very much teach whole class approach. When asked about the whole school question she stated ‘yes, that’s what I’m exploring on the side but it’s not the one I want to talk about’. Her question lay in science and the achievements of the children. She spoke of her data gathering methods and using this information to inform the next step in her teaching approach. She summarized as follows: I’ve learnt a lot about the kids. I’ve actually learnt a lot about my students. There’s a lot more there than I expected with some of my more quiet students that would often just sit back and – let you do everything. Given the opportunity to explore and discover, they’ll take it on board. I’ve had parents come up to me, because last week I’ve had interviews, they’ve said ‘Oh, Miss, my child would never have gotten up and presented information about a cockroach.’ The kids were asked to do tasks and the parents were invited to come and sit and watch and some of the mums and dads were just like ‘Wow, is that my son up there.’ They were amazed that their children had the confidence to do something that they never thought their child would do. I think it’s brought out something in the children too; it’s renewed this confidence that they can speak and they can demonstrate. One boy made a cockroach using play dough and then he painted it and he did all these things to it and he just wanted to talk about it. He’s a child that would never talk and he thought ‘well I’ve made this now I want to share this with the class’. The level of engagement to the whole school question was problematic, highlighted in a number of ways; one teacher was unable to provide her question and turned to her grade partner for support, and another spoke of her own classroom quest which went beyond the scope of what was



Stories from schools: When issues arise

85

expected from the principal. Periods of disengagement were ongoing throughout the year. It was not unusual for the first teacher to arrive at sessions without data for discussion or analysis. The principal identified a disconnect for some of the teachers and at one point approached the system-based facilitator to discuss their ongoing involvement as she did not believe it was achieving their needs. The facilitator worked with the principal to try to reach an understanding of practitioner inquiry as it was to be considered in this model. The principal stayed with the initiative for the year and then withdrew her school site the following year. It seems as though this principal may not have appreciated the elements of adult learning embedded in the inquiry approach. Although the university facilitators offered professional support specifically for school leaders, the offer was not implemented due to the time pressures experienced by principals and, as a result, some leaders may have been struggling with key concepts related to practitioner inquiry processes.

Differences in outcomes for children The consequences of involvement in practitioner inquiry were mostly unknown until multiple collections of data and analyses of findings had resulted. Instances whereby schools were dealing with the effects of changes to their environments, ways of teaching and outcomes for children were usually of a positive nature and beneficial to all key stakeholders. Statements from teachers such as ‘I feel like I really know the children’ and ‘I didn’t realize the children could be so capable and independent’ or ‘I never thought I could trust myself to let go and give a voice to the children’ were not uncommon. However, occasionally there would be something happening in a school that would warrant further exploration. For example, a surprising outcome occurred in one school with six teachers and the principal involved in the project. The focus of this concern was identified with two teachers working in their own classrooms on the same grade. They had both always worked collegially together, sharing ideas and resources and working along similar themes to achieve the same outcomes. One of the teachers was more excited about, and eager to be involved in, the practitioner inquiry process when it was introduced to the school. The principal stated: ‘Because one teacher is more enthused, then her grade partner, in a way, doesn’t want to be left behind. So that’s great’. However, her instant engagement and decision on her question and immersion into the practitioner inquiry process resulted in a way of working with the children that challenged them beyond expectations that were usual for that time of year. They had met the learning outcome requirements and were working towards the next set, which were usually completed later in the year. The problem was that the grade partner’s children were not working at this extended level. The principal noted:

86

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

We didn’t realize that the class teacher who hadn’t moved immediately with the project wasn’t at that same stage. It’s had an effect with our reporting procedure too, because this teacher assessed some of the strands in the Human Society [syllabus] that the other teacher hadn’t done. So we decided that we wouldn’t include that in our reporting to parents. That will go in our reporting period next time. But we will explain to parents at interview, about the project. We had to consider our reporting, because they were both doing something different and normally when our reports go home each class is the same … That was something that we didn’t think about. It just happened. We didn’t realize the implications I guess for actually seeing it on paper. Yes, so we didn’t think that completely through. But it’s not a problem. But it’s just something to consider. The principal highlighted issues for expectations of families and ethical concerns of reporting if children in one class were seen to be outperforming their peers. Whilst the principal was able to reconcile this difficulty within her school, there was anxiety from the teacher whose children were outperforming the other class. She had discussed this with the principal but was not keen to talk to her grade partner about her children’s efforts. She was worried that it might cause embarrassment or feelings of inadequacy for her fellow teacher and she didn’t want to create a scene. A few years after the event I saw the grade partner in a local shopping centre. Although I had never been privy to the conversations that happened around reporting to parents, the teacher told me that she had left the school at the end of that year and felt much more comfortable in her new school environment.

Considerations for learning through surprises Practitioner inquiry won’t always be perfect, and we can’t always get it right. Nevertheless, it is about reflecting on the issues and the lessons learnt. It is unlikely that there would be two situations where the same issues arise, but it is about being prepared to tackle the issues and consider the implications for all key stakeholders. As noted by Zembylas (2010), considering emotional spaces, allowing for conversations and understanding differing states of readiness for change will assist with addressing issues. Therefore, leadership is key. The ability to build relationships with staff that create trust and a sense of understanding will enable teachers to take risks and try new ways of working in the classroom setting (Fullan 2001, 2008). Practitioner inquiry offers opportunities to teachers to challenge themselves, to move beyond the barriers which have encased their teaching (Stremmel 2007). A common factor amongst all of the above-mentioned



Stories from schools: When issues arise

87

situations was the role of the principal in the critical time. For some, the decisions impacted significantly; for example those teachers who were directed to participate did not have positive outcomes. Leadership in this instance resulted in the teacher becoming disengaged in the process and eventually dropping out. Perhaps a different way to address this situation would be to begin by engaging teachers who want to be involved, building capacity within those teachers and then using this momentum to invite teachers less inclined to change (Fullan 2008). Approaches to practitioner inquiry also need to be ethically based. Many of the scenarios above demonstrate that when things don’t quite go right there tend to be issues of ethics requiring further consideration. From the perspective of mandated involvement in practitioner inquiry endeavours, the notion of collaborative practices and control are challenged. From an academic facilitator perspective, we are answerable to the contractual obligations, but also mindful of the ethical implications for this type of involvement (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 2007). We can advise, but school principals control the decisions. Over the years, conversations with principals as they express an interest in their school’s involvement have included a stronger clarity of the teachers within the school who would be most likely to engage in this style of professional learning. Participants that have ended a series of workshops totally excited, engaged and with a greater sense of self as a teacher from the experience serve to further the mission of this type of learning, acting as a conduit for other teachers to be enticed into exploring practitioner inquiry in subsequent years of the school’s involvement. Campbell and McNamara (2007: 99) recommend that issues and dilemmas should be identified and shared to practise ways of addressing such problems and ‘sharpen our ethical thinking’. It is hoped that by sharing these stories here it is possible to see that whilst ‘things don’t always go quite right’, they offer an opportunity for reflection and discussion – communication with key stakeholders and critical friends in order to build and maintain trust to ensure that participants are able to feel confident to move forward in their practitioner inquiry journey.

CHAPTER SEVEN

Embracing the unexpected: Professional inquiry as a source of inspiration Introduction The Professional Enquiry Project in the Australian Capital Territory (PEPACT) began as a professional development initiative generated by the leaders of three childcare centres in Canberra. These centres catered for children from two years of age to starting school, for up to nine hours a day, forty-eight weeks a year. Originally, two of the leaders had been inspired by an article describing a project of professional inquiry conducted with South Australian childcare staff (Tregenza 2006). The two leaders were subsequently joined by a third and together this group of leaders embarked upon a journey of change within their centres. Educators from the three centres were invited by their leaders to participate in this project and investigate their own questions or dilemmas, supported by the authors (Alma and Catherine) from the Institute of Early Childhood, Macquarie University. Workshop sessions included experiential stories from Janet Robertson, a leading educator from the Mia Mia Child and Family Centre associated with the Institute of Early Childhood in Sydney, research processes led by Alma and principles of early childhood practice guided by Catherine. Implications for each inquiry site were teased out through group discussions.

Context PEPACT was undertaken at a time when there seemed to be limited opportunities for professional development for ACT childcare staff. Apparently, this was related to the historical distinction between childcare and preschool provision in the ACT, a distinction grounded in different qualification

90

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

requirements as well as industrial frameworks. Historically, preschools were resourced through government funding and were seen as an element of broader educational provisions, while childcare centres tended to be private establishments with little government support caring for children of working parents. Although this situation was changing and more community-funded childcare centres were operating in the ACT, the provision of appropriate professional development still appeared to be a challenge for this loosely connected network of centres. This lack of centre-relevant opportunities led to the growth of PEPACT from a ground-level initiation. Simultaneously, international research continued to confirm the importance of the earliest years of life to children’s growth and well-being. This research is associated with evidence that the number and qualification of educators is a key factor in the provision of quality childcare (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD] Early Childcare Research Network 2002; Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2006a; Ryan, Hornbeck and Frede 2004; Whitebook 2003). Educators in a childcare centre usually have a range of educational qualifications. It was anticipated that involvement in practitioner inquiry would enable the sharing of professional insights that may subsequently lead to professional growth and increasingly sophisticated practice throughout the centre.

Goals As a strategy to enhance investment in staff development, practitioner inquiry offers the possibility of sustained professional growth into the future. This approach assists in overcoming the isolation of centre-based employment through establishing membership of a professional learning community. By making their decision-making visible, early childhood educators are then supported in sharing their practice and children’s experiences with families. Within this professional frame, PEPACT sought to develop and deepen new understandings and practices to improve outcomes for children and their families. As participants were researchers into their own professional practice, it was anticipated that each staff member would gain confidence and skills in using practitioner inquiry to support professional practice. Such engagement was also intended to enhance professional respect within each centre and the larger community.

Participants All educators at the three centres were invited to participate in the project. Consequently, the majority of staff along with their centre leaders attended all



Embracing the unexpected

91

project events. Individuals, however, participated at different levels over the life of the project. As a number of project events were held outside working hours, family responsibilities and other commitments meant that some participants were unable to attend all sessions. Staff changes also meant that there was some fluctuation in attendance: the forty participants in the first session were not necessarily the same forty staff present at the final session. As is typical for the early childhood sector, nearly all participants were female. Within each centre, room leaders had particular responsibilities for the project, including the task of engaging the majority of staff regardless of roles, age and/or qualifications. The staffing profile for the project reflected a broad range of qualifications, and included staff with diverse experiences from a variety of backgrounds. The varied cultural backgrounds reflected the ethnic diversity of the local community. Of the participants attending the first day, there were seven Australian university qualified teachers, including four early childhood specialists. A further twelve held the Diploma of Children’s Services or were near completion, while nine participants were at an earlier stage of qualification. There were four people with international qualifications, and three with local university degrees not related to education, plus two people with management related qualifications and three participants who held no formal qualifications. Such a range of staff characteristics is familiar in many early childhood settings; the flexible nature of practitioner inquiry is well-suited to cater for this diversity.

Approach to practitioner inquiry Practitioner inquiry enables practitioners to ‘develop new understandings of professional practice that may subsequently extend and refine their work’ (Goodfellow and Hedges 2007: 187). This form of teacher research includes the pursuit of agency and empowerment. It has emerged from the tradition of action research (e.g. Mills 2013), and the importance of the practitioner’s voice in educational improvement (e.g. Fleer and Kennedy 2006; Hargreaves and Fullan 1998). With understanding of the limitations of single session professional development (Fleet and Patterson 2001), practitioner inquiry adds to the knowledge base of ways to strengthen and empower an undervalued work force committed to the well-being of young children. A focus on collecting and analysing data about ordinary events and interactions can improve professionalism and staff engagement in issues of quality care and relationships (Manning-Morton 2006). Sharing investigations also encourages the development of thoughtful learning communities in the workplace. As explored in Chapter 2, and threaded throughout this book, the development of practitioner inquiry projects recognizes principles of adult learning. These include the importance of:

92

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE MM

building on learner strengths

MM

engaging in relevant situationally-based content

MM

enabling peer support

MM

avoiding confrontation, but challenging counterproductive behaviours

MM

encouraging participation through a range of strategies.

These elements were integral to the development of PEPACT, as illustrated below.

Project structure PEPACT focused on research questions generated by staff teams from three centres. The number of people working on a particular question varied from centre to centre. For example, at one site, educators in each room explored unique questions based on their shared concerns, while at another site, questions were investigated in a centre-wide approach with variations being considered in each room. Alma and Catherine met with the participants in both full-day and half-day sessions to promote collegial investigations and the associated processes of practitioner inquiry. Employers provided ‘time in lieu’ and other organizational strategies to enable staff participation. As facilitators, Alma and Catherine helped educators develop their own research questions about ways to improve such things as children’s engagement with curriculum. Systematic inquiry enabled staff to explore questions such as ‘How can we facilitate focus and engagement in learning?’ or ‘How does questioning nurture higher order thinking?’ or ‘How can we have more meaningful interactions with all children?’ Educators gathered data through techniques such as surveys of their own practices, photographs of their own centre environments during the day, self-observation schedules, transcripts of staff discussions and entries in their staff journals. Each of these data sources was developed by the participants for use in their own settings and reflected ongoing workplace staff development in a manner characteristic of evolving learning communities (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 2009; Gordon 2008, Hargreaves and Shirley 2009). When relevant data had been gathered, participants were assisted in analysing their own data and in considering ways of presenting the information to professional colleagues. Participants discussed and reported on such things as: What data do we have? What questions does this information help to illuminate? What action have we tried in response to our data? During these sessions, educators were invited to reflect on their ongoing participation in the project and plan the next stages in their



Embracing the unexpected

93

inquiry. The three centre leaders attended all sessions and worked with staff on collaborative processes in their workplaces. While some conversations took place on site, others were held in a community hall with refreshments provided by employers. A spiral model of practitioner inquiry was chosen to scaffold this initiative in which ideas were introduced in a variety of ways and subsequently revisited for increasing clarity. This enabled: 1 The introduction of ideas to newer staff over an extended period of

time in a fluid staffing context. 2 Accommodation for a pressured work context in which regulatory requirements such as accreditation processes periodically take precedence over other initiatives. 3 The percolation of potentially confronting ideas over time. This was important as sometimes the process can be as confronting for site leaders as it is for team members, and participants need opportunities to revisit their learning and understanding.

Key components There were a number of key components in the PEPACT project including the following:

Sharing visual possibilities: Janet’s analysing of daily practice The input from an informed theoretical practitioner was an essential component to enable participants to visualize possibilities and to see thinking happening as demonstrated by a teacher sharing her work with children in their centre. Some participants had probably never envisioned the recording of these observations and interpretations as part of their role – when seen in contrast to traditional activity-oriented, timetable-driven sites. These inspirational provocations provided a source of possibility for reconsidering existing practices and ways of thinking about early childhood work.

Increasing empowerment and professional confidence The cycle of input and discussions over time enabled all members of staff to develop confidence and skills in thinking professionally about their practices. As childcare often has a high staff turnover with an

94

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

under-qualified workforce, the opportunity to engage in professional discourse is an important component of quality care. The opportunity for those with little experience or status to voice opinions and contribute to ongoing project development is valuable and takes time.

Strengthening professionalism through evidence-based practice Multiple approaches to collecting information enabled greater awareness of the potential for improving everyday practices. As the project unfolded, it was evident that changes were being made in all centres as a result of careful attention to issues arising from the collection of information. At each large-group gathering, it was apparent that individuals within centres were at different stages in the practitioner inquiry process. Some teams were still trying to agree on a focus for ‘the question’, while others were engaged in sorting through data or exploring ways to manage or analyse ‘the data’ (see Chapter 3). These inquiry processes in themselves led to thoughtful analysis of current practice and subsequent efforts to improve those practices. Awareness of the usefulness of systematically-collected data was key to the evolution of these understandings (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 2009; Henderson et al. 2012).

Project outcomes Most educators were interested in the project and willingly attended sessions with the facilitators. There was, of course, some expectation from employers that staff commit to the project processes, although there was also flexibility that acknowledged individual circumstances. As participants gathered data and discussed their findings at regular meetings, there was a growing sense of colleagues working together to improve outcomes for children and their families. Core members of staff were motivated particularly by the possibilities of professional inquiry and keen to be involved. The level of professional growth in individual staff members was exciting to observe. For example, one educator noted that: ‘I realize now that I am capable of things that I never even thought of doing before. I look at things in a whole new light and can document things differently now. I am very happy with the changes we have made in our room to make it much more enjoyable.’ The professional learning experienced by staff was evident in a number of ways. Three key themes emerged from the data. The first theme related to an increased understanding of young children’s learning; the second theme focused on the benefits of practitioner inquiry; and the final theme examined issues of personal growth.



Embracing the unexpected

95

Learning about children When asked what they had learned about children as a result of the project, the following elements were emphasized:

Changed image of the child A number of educators explained that they had discovered children were more capable than they had originally believed. There were frequent comments such as ‘we tended to underestimate children’, or ‘the children are capable of so much more than we expected’, or ‘the children continually amaze me with their knowledge’. One staff member noted: ‘The project has changed my thinking about children. The way I do things in the room has changed because I am looking at children differently now.’

Slowing down and taking time Another common ‘learning’ was related to the idea of taking time to be with the children. There was general consensus about the need to slow down the frantic pace of the day and respond to children’s timing. One staff member noted: ‘Taking time to watch the children each day helps me discover more about each child. It’s important for me to take time to engage in more interactions with them.’ Other staff also acknowledged the need to slow down to observe the children, and make time to reflect and think about their observations. One asked herself: ‘How can I make the time spent with the children more meaningful? Perhaps I should hold myself back more often?’ Associated with the idea of ‘taking time’, there was also a thread of ‘giving time’ to children. For example, there were comments about giving children time to ‘consider their thoughts and act upon them’, or ‘giving children time to try to do it themselves – not to be in a rush to help’. The last words on the crucial nature of time come from one of the directors: ‘The project has brought about a passion in the staff for their work. There is more critical reflection. They continually ask: “How can we improve?” Instead of the old catch-cry “We haven’t got time”, it has changed to “How can we change things to make time?”’.

Learning about the professional potentials of practitioner inquiry At the conclusion of the project, participants were asked to record their key learning about practitioner inquiry. The most frequent responses were classified into the following two categories:

96

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

Professional growth A number of participants, particularly those in leadership positions, commented on the potential of practitioner inquiry for professional growth. For example: ‘It’s a valuable tool for professional development’ and it ‘has the potential to be a very powerful tool to make change’. One staff member commented that: ‘It is vital that we have opportunities to come together like this to work and support each other and create a reflective environment.’ There was some acknowledgement of initial concerns about the processes involved in practitioner inquiry, followed by the pleasure of professional growth. An assistant in one room recorded her doubts: ‘At first I thought it would be more work, but now I’ve realized it just all comes together.’ Another staff member commented: ‘I was worried about PEPACT in the beginning, but I’ve learned a lot about the children and my room from being involved.’ One director had similar doubts at the beginning of the project: ‘After the initial anxiety of staff, the worry about the extra workload and the inexperience in gathering data, it was a revelation to find there was a total shift in thinking right across the centre.’

Job satisfaction A room leader noted: ‘This project has added satisfaction to our job because we are able to share our inquiry with like-minded people.’ Another senior staff member commented: ‘Engaged staff make for a much more stimulating work environment. The difference at the centre is fantastic with the way staff are questioning what they do and how their actions affect the children.’ One staff member said: ‘This project has been a great way to verify our status as child educators.’ A director explained the value of practitioner inquiry in this way: ‘As we continued with the project, staff began to see themselves as professionals and became excited about their work. I came to realize what an extremely important experience this has been.’ Another director noted that practitioner inquiry ‘brings true meaning and rewards to a job that could just be routine. PEPACT has influenced the thinking of each and every one of our staff. It has been professionally exciting as well as rewarding.’ As well as learning more about working with children and the benefits of practitioner inquiry, participants were also able to identify personal learning about themselves as practitioners.

Professional challenge and individual reflection: Learning about self A number of participants related their learning about themselves to the benefits of the process for the children. For example, one noted: ‘PEPACT



Embracing the unexpected

97

has made me question and reflect on my image of individual children. The way I do things has changed because I look at things differently now.’ Another commented in a similar way: ‘Learning about how to look at, listen to and hear children makes my work more valuable for me and I feel more satisfied.’ Others revealed that the project helped them feel more competent about their work. The following kinds of comments were common: ‘I have become more confident by learning new things and challenging myself. It’s been scary to step outside the square but it’s been exciting too.’ Another noted: ‘I’ve found that I’m a capable person and able to take on change. I can make a complete shift in the way I think about myself.’ Meanwhile, some participants recorded challenges for their professional lives. One enjoyed the opportunity to ‘constantly challenge my own thinking of where the children’s learning is heading’. An unexpected comment came from another participant who related her professional learning to her personal self: ‘I’ve realized that working with children can be very rewarding if you try to see the world “through their eyes”. I’m sorry I didn’t know this when my own children were little, but I’ll be ready for my grandchildren.’ Other participants wanted to continue to challenge themselves: ‘I’ve learned that there is still so much I have to learn and things I want to improve, but this project has helped me understand that everyone seems to feel the same.’ Another noted: ‘I’ve got so much to learn about myself, and my abilities to work with children.’ Finally, one staff member explained that she had learned that: ‘Working with children is exciting, valuable and at times a complete joy. There is nothing else I would rather do.’

Consequences for families As the project progressed, people at one centre took the opportunity to share their new knowledge with parents at a Parent Evening session. Their director said that she was extremely impressed by the quality of their presentations. She noted that the families had responded positively to the changes at the centre and they ‘appreciated the commitment of the staff to researching better outcomes for their children’. She also commented that parents had told her they’d noticed that staff members were distinctly happier and more positive in their work. She added that PEPACT had improved the daily practices of her staff and she was delighted with the results. She felt that ‘participation in the project was undoubtedly the best decision in terms of personal and professional growth for everyone at the centre’. At another centre, a staff member recorded that PEPACT had ‘changed forever how the parents of these preschoolers view childcare’. This practitioner and her colleague had focused on developing questioning skills to

98

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

nurture higher order thinking skills and once the inquiry was underway, the children began to arrive at the centre with the questions they wanted to discuss. As a result, parents also began to participate in this process by recalling the questions the children were asking and relaying them to staff. Parents also made positive comments about the complexity of the questions their children were asking. As a result, staff noted that prospective families had made inquiries directly related to the changes influenced by the PEPACT project.

Consequences for children Along with improved outcomes for staff and more engaged families, the outcomes for children at the three centres were significant. As reported above, cognition gains through complex questioning were evidenced from children, along with growth in the disposition to question. Changes in daily practice also occurred as educators reflected on their work and endeavoured to improve experiences for children. As one staff member said: ‘Now I know that even routine times can be quality interaction times. The children are happier and the staff are happier too.’ Another said: ‘We’ve realized just how much of our daily routines were opportunities for interactions with the children, now we’re trying to involve the children in all that we do. We take time for this and we’re finding that there is less stress for children and staff, more time and a sense of greater depth to our days.’ Participants from a range of perspectives noted the change in responsiveness to children. For example, one senior centre director reported that: ‘Staff members now have more time to be involved with the children and to develop more responsive, intellectual and emotional relationships with them. Not a moment is lost in dreary routines. Staff now make use of every opportunity to engage with the children. They have learned to prioritize their interactions with the children.’ Meanwhile, one self-described ‘junior’ staff member working with toddlers noted: ‘I’ve come to realize that the things I used to think of as jobs to be done are, in fact, important opportunities to interact with children. For example, asking the children to hang up their artwork, or help to set the table for lunch or lay out the bibs all become opportunities for learning. I’ve learned to think more and not be ruled by routines and to learn this so early in my career has been very important to me.’ These changes in staff perceptions led to cultural changes in the centres which enabled children to be more visible in the daily routines.



Embracing the unexpected

99

Collaborative nature of practitioner inquiry Evaluation comments from participants showed that the collaborative nature of practitioner inquiry seemed to improve relationships among staff both within each centre and across the three centres.

Within centres A number of educators recognized the impact of the project on relationships between staff, either within their own room or with staff in other rooms at their centre. For example: ‘PEPACT has improved teamwork in our room.’ Or as one staff member noted: ‘I feel that taking on the project in our room has made us a stronger team. It’s had a positive impact on our working relationships.’ There were comments about the project improving communication in the room as staff made time to talk about how progress was being made on their inquiry. This focus on communicating with colleagues often built stronger relationships among staff. One staff member noted: ‘The project has improved relationships amongst staff. We now talk about our work.’ Another reflected: ‘PEPACT has been a great opportunity to work closely with other staff to collect data for our questions.’ In some cases, the improved communication between staff helped bring them together. One director commented: ‘Our team spirit has been strengthened and we are a more cohesive team as a result of our involvement in the project.’ Again, these gains contributed to enriching the culture of each centre, thereby improving the contexts for learning by both children and educators.

Across centres The collaborative nature of practitioner inquiry also promoted new relationships with staff from the other centres. The workshops were organized to give participants the opportunity to share their experiences with staff who were working with children of a similar age in the other centres. This was a deliberate strategy to encourage participants to speak about their investigation to relative strangers from another context. Thus, all the nursery staff, or all the staff in preschool rooms might be asked to get together to complete particular tasks. One participant wrote: ‘Working with other centres has been great. We don’t usually have the opportunity to do that.’ Another said: ‘I really liked meeting with staff from other centres and hearing about what they are learning.’ This sentiment was echoed by another participant: ‘The networking between the three centres was fantastic. We don’t usually get to work with other centres or see what they are doing.’ Again, these strategies offered the opportunity to strengthen learning communities.

100

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

Final celebration Fortuitously, one of the centres had an association with an events manager, who donated her time to convert a community hall into a gracious dinner venue complete with shining glassware and white tablecloths. The overwhelming success of the final celebration evening demonstrated the sense of pride and achievement experienced by the participants. Educators at each centre had prepared storyboards that attractively highlighted the processes involved in answering their research questions. These were displayed around the room for families and friends to enjoy. In addition, selected staff made formal presentations that illustrated the depth of knowledge and understanding of children that had been developed though the project. During the evening, it became evident that a number of participants were seeing themselves as researchers and some were taking their first steps to make public presentations about their work. As one person said: ‘I never imagined I would be involved in research, let alone stand up and speak in front of an audience.’ Representatives from the three centres later co-presented at a national conference with one of the facilitators; this sharing with the wider early childhood community was an opportunity for staff to extend their sense of involvement in a professional community. They were able to see themselves as early childhood practitioners who could make a valuable contribution to research. This additional analytical component was valuable in the context of the concern raised by Groundwater-Smith and Mockler (2005) that celebrations without analysis may limit the effectiveness of practitioner inquiry as research.

Challenges and dilemmas Although PEPACT made a positive contribution to the professional growth of staff, there were incidents of confusion and frustration during the year. Initially, some staff found it difficult to ‘tune in’ to this new kind of professional learning where they had to take a leading role in directing their own participation, instead of the more traditional in-service session where an expert provided advice and direction. Most were excited about the possibilities of the project, but uncertain about their responsibilities and unsure about how they could incorporate practitioner research into their regular work with children. There was also a certain amount of resistance from some people about the timing of the full-day Saturday sessions. Staff were given time in lieu to attend these sessions, but the weekend timing often conflicted with personal commitments. When the working conditions of staff in childcare (shift work and long hours) are compared with those working school hours, it is more difficult to find an opportunity for all staff



Embracing the unexpected

101

to get together and share common experiences. Less generous industrial conditions contribute to complexities in enabling participation by childcare educators. Another dilemma was that senior staff were sometimes frustrated by the unexpectedly slow rate of change. They hadn’t anticipated that staff would need ongoing opportunities to practise new ways of working. Yet, the continuing public enthusiasm of room leaders carried the project through tough times as they were prepared to work with participants to help them see the progress that was being made. A number of participants also expressed frustration in the initial stages of the project. They found it hard to go through the process of ‘finding a question’ and gathering ‘baseline data’ (see Chapter 3). Having had an opportunity to talk about what they wanted to change, some staff wanted to act immediately rather than taking a more considered and evidence-based approach. Over time, however, they refined their thinking and became more willing to embark upon more in-depth investigations. Staff turnover also caused some challenges as new participants joined the project at various times of the year and strategies had to be developed to ensure they felt comfortable within this change environment. There were also some pressures from unexpected sources. For example, one centre was undergoing extensive building renovations and another was involved in accreditation processes. While these were not long-lasting complications, they added to a sense of stress for some participants and provided an opportunity for some negative ‘venting’ during sessions. These concerns were acknowledged as they arose and strategies were suggested for dealing with the stress. Throughout these diverse challenges, however, participants persisted with their work. The regular meetings where staff from all three centres met together provided a focus for community learning, and a shared sense of engagement and professional growth sustained participants. The funding by centre owners of facilitation for a ten-month period assisted in the success of the project.

Discussion This was a ground level initiation with no outside institutional or financial support. The opportunity to build on another successful Australian programme (Tregenza 2006) provided encouragement to the initiators. The idea evolved over time as part of an ongoing context of frustration by the organizers with local provision for professional development and lack of centre-relevant opportunities for growth and insight. To succeed, this initiative required financial backing from local owner/operators, key local educators in leadership roles, a visiting practitioner researcher and

102

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

outside professional facilitation. This focus on the improvement of quality service provision reflects the professionalism of committed individuals in this sector. The project benefited from the vision and the personal connections amongst the three people who comprised the key organizing group. There were, however, disadvantages in the lack of government or institutional initiation. These included a lack of funding for participating centres and administrative support that made it possible for hesitant centres to avoid committing to participation. A large group of centres in the area had expressed interest originally, but had become anxious about the commitment required. As a result, the initiating directors had to take key roles in providing both administrative and pedagogical leadership. Nevertheless, as demonstrated in this chapter, the benefits to centres and individuals exceeded all expectations. The extent of changes in the centres was remarkable. Comments from educators indicated that the encouragement from consultants to ‘slow down and watch the children closely’ had led to newer insights and deeper understanding of children. By finding ways to spend more time with children and focusing their attention on the children’s well-being, staff created opportunities to respond more authentically to their learning. The empowerment of staff was a particular feature of the PEPACT experience. Participants found themselves reflecting their role as childcare professionals, and building stronger relationships with families and colleagues. As they developed new understandings of professional practice, staff began to realize that they could make a difference. As one director stated: ‘It’s true! Never before has professional development had such an impact on our staff and the learning environment at our centre. PEPACT has enabled our staff to see the importance of their role and to understand why they have such a significant place in the lives of children and their families.’ Reflecting on this project some years later, one of the directors considered some of the incidents related to PEPACT that had occurred over time, two of which are reported here. First, she reflected on one member of staff who shall be called Mary. The Director explained that Mary was a room leader when the project began and she had been noticeably quiet when the project was introduced and continued to be resistant as it developed. She had been reluctant to engage in discussions around PEPACT, hesitant to help her team devise a research question and unsupportive of the rest of the team when they decided to pursue a question of their own. Mary subsequently resigned from her position at the centre. Eighteen months later, having gone to work at another centre, Mary returned to resume her previous employment, showing a different attitude with enthusiasm and support for further learning. Her experience of a more limited learning culture at another site had been a revelation to her. This vignette shows that sometimes the timing of a change initiative is not appropriate for every participant, yet it is impossible to predict any later, more far-reaching impact, that practitioner inquiry may have.



Embracing the unexpected

103

Then, looking back at the events described in this chapter, one of the directors reflected on the issue of sustainability, which is always key when considering any change initiative. In this case there were a series of developments reported by the director. Firstly, the owner of one of the participating centres retired, with a resultant change of leadership and focus. Secondly, there were the inevitable infrastructure changes, with the project leaders changing their responsibilities from owning and managing two centres to leaving one centre and working together at the other. In this process there were staff changes, so that only a few of the number of educators from the centres who had participated in the original project remain. This staff mobility is, of course, typical of the childcare sector in Australia, for a range of financial and sociopolitical reasons. Nevertheless, four key members of staff, including the original innovator and educational leader, and educators from two toddler rooms are still working as part of the team in one centre. Their interest and enthusiasm have maintained core principles of the project. For example, PEPACT is raised as a subject of example of action research in team meeting conversations, programming meetings and senior staff meetings. The PEPACT experience is often used by these continuing staff members to help motivate others. They encourage their colleagues to critically reflect on their practice, or to engage in data collection to find out more about a question or problem. The processes of practitioner inquiry have become embedded in practice.

Conclusion The PEPACT example demonstrates that practitioner inquiry can make a difference in early childhood environments. Along with the spiral nature of this approach that allowed for continued learning and reflection, the motivation provided by the visiting practitioner helped participants see possibilities for improvement in their own work. As participants were scaffolded through the steps and stages of practitioner inquiry, their own sense of empowerment and professional confidence grew. The opportunities to engage in professional discourse enabled staff to appreciate the potential of improving everyday practices. As their understanding of evidence-based practice deepened, they became more aware of the value of systematically gathered information as the basis for professional growth. Experiences with PEPACT led to enhanced professional learning for many participants. They reported that the project gave them an increased understanding of children as capable learners and for some this transformed their core beliefs and subsequently changed their ways of working with children. Allied with these changes to professional practice, came a deeper understanding of the processes involved with practitioner inquiry. Engagement with practitioner inquiry resulted in a high level of enthusiasm

104

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

for the intellectual challenges encountered in the process, along with a delight in the opportunities to share experiences across centres. The collaborative nature of practitioner inquiry provided time to discuss, debate and reflect on current practices within centres. When families became aware of the changes made within the PEPACT project, they responded positively and, as a consequence, participants felt reaffirmed in their developing images as practitioner researchers. Children also benefited from the changes to daily practice in the participating centres. In particular, the quality of interactions between children and staff improved as the educators took time to develop more responsive relationships. Rethinking their regular ways of working with children enabled staff to provide enhanced learning opportunities for children. Ultimately, the PEPACT experience demonstrated how professional inquiry can be a source of inspiration for pedagogical change in childcare centres, and how it can increase staff commitment to professional growth and take them further than they believed possible.

CHAPTER EIGHT

Stories of pedagogical leadership: Collaborative professional learning Fay Hadley, Sandra Cheeseman, Katey De Gioia, Kate Highfield, Sheila Degotardi and Debra Clarke

Introduction In 2009, Australia’s newly elected Rudd Labor Government launched an ambitious early childhood reform agenda aimed at improving quality and professionalism in the early childhood education and care sector. Under the banner of a newly legislated National Quality Framework, the reforms committed to increasing access to, and the quality of, Australia’s early childhood provision with a view to improving learning outcomes for children. Among the many reforms, Australia’s first national early years curriculum guide was introduced. Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia (Australian Government Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations [DEEWR] 2009) was described as providing ‘broad direction for early childhood educators … to facilitate children’s learning’ (DEEWR 2009: 8). It also aimed to ‘provide young children with opportunities to maximize their potential and develop foundations for future success in learning’ (2009: 5). By including specified learning outcomes along with the requirement for educators to show evidence of their planning for, and assessment of, children’s learning, the introduction of the Early Years Learning Framework marked a significant regulatory shift for Australian early childhood educators – particularly in relation to expectations for planning

106

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

and assessing children’s learning. This shift was a challenge for many educators, as it required them to think deeply about their programming and planning, and adopt new ways of documenting children’s learning.

An opportunity for professional learning Responding in part to this shift in expectations for educators, the Australian Government announced a small number of ‘Best Practice and Innovation Grants’, encouraging work-based projects to investigate innovative approaches focusing on workforce development. As the Chief Executive Officer of University of Technology Sydney Childcare, (UTS Childcare) Debra Clarke initiated a proposal to submit for the grant, and invited academics from the Institute of Early Childhood, Macquarie University to join preliminary discussions. As an employer, UTS Childcare is always scanning the horizon and engaging with changes that embrace the Australian early childhood sector, and Debra recognized the potential of the grant to build on the professional learning that the organization had always prioritized. In responding to the new requirements of the National Quality Framework and Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF), Debra appreciated the key role that the educators had in understanding and using the EYLF wisely. She realized that management support was needed to provide additional funds to support the project and top-up the grant income, as well as providing paid time for educators to attend the professional learning sessions and associated learning circles. Debra’s vision was that a partnership model – involving academics, educators of the three UTS childcare centres, along with educators from nearby local government providers – would provide a substantial core of thinkers who might collaborate and develop innovative approaches to their pedagogical work. While none of the early childhood providers had significant concerns about the existing quality of their pedagogical programmes, all acknowledged that they were keen to embrace the introduction of the EYLF as an opportunity to re-vision pedagogic practice and generate in-depth thought and discussion about contemporary approaches to learning and curriculum. Much of the professional learning they had previously provided for educators tended to be one-off, short-term sessions that resulted in what they considered shallow engagement in concepts, rather than sustained changes in practice. This sentiment is supported by the report from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2006b) that discusses the importance of engaging in quality professional learning that is participatory and provides opportunities for pedagogical reflection. This premise, then, was the basis for the development of a research project that would not only provide professional learning for educators, re-examining their



Stories of pedagogical leadership

107

pedagogic practices in light of a shift in regulatory expectations, but also to investigate how a model of practitioner inquiry-based research might assist educators to re-vision their practice and sustain their learning over the longer term.

Project aims The aim of this project was to promote thoughtful curriculum decisionmaking that took account of individual children as well as the family and community contexts within which they worked. A key feature of the project was recognition of the importance of pedagogical leadership in affecting long-term and sustained change for improvement. The project design focused attention on educator participants initiating their own practitioner inquiry projects. Drawing on elements of the framework that were pertinent to each educator and their context, manageable work-based projects were self-selected where each educator took leadership for implementing a small-scale change to the environment or their own and others’ practice. The focus on leadership was recognition of the nature of the EYLF as a guide to practice that would be interpreted by qualified educators. The authors of the document recognized ‘the importance of educators with early childhood qualifications … taking a pedagogical leadership role in working with colleagues to interpret and implement the EYLF in locally relevant ways’ (Sumsion et al. 2009:8). For this reason the educators invited by their respective providers to participate in this project were all diploma or degree qualified educators (or close to completion of their qualification). The aim was to promote the thoughtful interpretation of the EYLF, enabling educators to design curriculum responsive to each group of children and their interests. In-keeping with the intent of the framework described as providing guidance to ‘educators in their curriculum decision-making …’ and underpinning ‘the implementation of more specific curriculum relevant to each local community and early childhood setting’ (DEEWR 2009: 8), the metaphor of a road map was introduced (Cheeseman 2011). This metaphor offered educators a way to see themselves as agents in the change process. Rather than being subservient to the regulatory change and seeking formulaic solutions to meet the new expectations, the metaphor was a way of empowering educators to draw on their existing knowledge and skills while being open to new thinking and evidence that might enhance their work with young children. When faced with an uncertain change, educators could choose to use the road map as a guide to look for the many roads that lead to learning. They might use the road map (or in this case the EYLF) as a structural guide or scaffold for their thinking – keeping one eye on the destination (the learning potential) but always being open to the possibilities

108

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

that a road trip (or learning journey) might offer. In contrast, educators who adopt a Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation approach might be looking for quick, generalized answers that would meet the National Quality Framework requirements. They hand over their decision-making to a preprogrammed computer (or a generalized template) that can get them to the destination in the quickest or most convenient way. Instead of seeking ways to interpret, adapt and generate learning along with children, the GPS model implies that educators are systematic in meeting baseline expectations rather than engaging in thoughtful professional reflection.

Practitioner inquiry as professional learning Using this metaphor as inspiration, the project used a practitioner inquiry model to promote professional learning and pedagogical leadership. Traditional forms of professional development (such as single or one-off workshops) delivered collectively to educators are being questioned in terms of transforming everyday practice (Hadley, Waniganayake and Shepherd 2015). Such approaches may be effective in transmitting knowledge, but are argued to have limited value in developing professional learning that can result in contextually meaningful changes in pedagogy (Webster-Wright 2009). In order to change organizational culture and practice, the approach to professional learning needs to be systematic, involve individual and group decision-making, and adopt a longer-term and organizational focus. In this way, the ‘road map’ metaphor comes into play, as educators are actively involved in identifying and pursuing avenues of exploration. Research suggests that some of the most effective strategies in changing early childhood practice comprise a combination of: 1 providing release time from teaching 2 engagement in focused training for the centre/organization where

practices are critically examined

3 collaborative work on defined changes with colleagues 4 mentoring and coaching by external experts on the practices being

examined 5 opportunities for reflection and mastery through trial and error, and that 6 this occurs over a period of time for consolidation of the learning. (Hahs-Vaughn and Yanowitz 2009; Walter and Briggs 2012). Practitioner inquiry is an active process which requires the practitioner to examine current practices and explore possibilities. This exploration occurs with an expert or mentor and usually with other practitioners working in a similar or the same educational setting. The practitioner actively engages



Stories of pedagogical leadership

109

in research in the setting/classroom by reflecting on their current practice, leading to an investigation of their understandings of the subject over a period of time. This investigation can include developing a question to focus on, reading more on the subject, collecting data on the subject from their classroom/setting, implementing changes, discussing the question with others regularly (including the expert or mentor) and reflecting on those changes. This is an approach in which educators have extended opportunities to explore aspects of practice that are most relevant to their current interests and their specific teaching contexts. This professional learning model encourages educators to respond to real-world challenges by testing new ideas, developing meaningful strategies, and engaging reflexively with the processes of change. The result is an enhanced self-knowledge which becomes a catalyst from which educators can develop a richer understanding of their practice (Maton 2003; Sumsion 2005). In this way, practitioner inquiry constitutes a ‘paradigm for change’ (Orland-Barak 2009: 111) that allows educators to take leadership of their own professional learning and acquire an evidence base that will directly contribute towards enhancing the quality of their own teaching and programmes. Practitioner inquiry as a professional learning approach has been gaining momentum in the early childhood sector (Hadley, Waniganayake and Shepherd 2015). By providing an ongoing, systematic inquiry approach, the educators are given time and opportunity to explore practices that are important to them and relevant to their setting. Given the diversity of the educators and the sector, this approach is one way of bringing groups of educators together to examine and transform their practice.

Ecological framework This collaborative learning project draws on the work of Bronfenbrenner (1979; 1993), reframing his ecological model of human development as shown in Figure 8.1: Collaborative Professional Learning Ecological Model. Bronfenbrenner’s notion of the impact of the interrelationships between and amongst each system in order for growth to occur can be applied to collaborative professional learning. Further, the increasing complexity of the nested systems as they move outward from the centre of the diagram impact in varying ways on the individual (Bronfenbrenner 1979). Bronfenbrenner highlights the significance of the interactions between the systems and the individual being sustained over periods of time (Bronfenbrenner 1993). Whilst the authors acknowledge that the timeframe of three months may not be considered significant, there was sustained involvement throughout the project with small groups, regular learning circle meetings and email/phone conversations which helped build relationships and enabled individual growth. Each of the systems in this adapted model are described in detail below:

110

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

Microsystem: The early childhood setting sits within the centre of the model. It is the workplace where the individual is exposed to interpersonal relationships between and amongst children, families, and the staff team. Conditions in the environment also support or constrain the potential for professional learning to occur. Mesosystem: Academic facilitation links the individual to their immediate environment of the early childhood setting and the potential of their professional learning through practitioner inquiry. Exosystem: This includes organizations, systems and supports. The impact of the organization to which the early childhood setting is linked can support or hinder an individual’s professional learning. It can also determine the type of professional learning employees are exposed to, whether it be topic directed with a focus on telling and doing or an open ended approach such as practitioner inquiry which allows educators to determine their area of need. Macrosystem: This system identifies broader characteristics of the early childhood sector. Regulatory and accrediting bodies impact on all levels

FIGURE 8.1  Collaborative professional learning ecological model (adapted from Bronfenbrenner 1979; 1993)



Stories of pedagogical leadership

111

of the Collaborative Professional Learning Ecological Model. As outlined earlier, the reform agenda was the catalyst for this professional learning project. Chronosystem: Time overlays and impacts on all areas of this model: time to participate meaningfully in professional learning and time provided throughout the process for reflection and change to practice. Time also needs to be considered from the perspective of implications for each system level and changes that result at these levels.

What we did Ten long day care centres were involved. Diploma (and staff working towards a Diploma) and degree qualified teachers in these centres were invited to participate and explore a curriculum question relevant to their workplace which reflected contemporary ideas in the Early Years Learning Framework. The participants included the educators (fifty-one from across three organizations) and five academics from Macquarie University. Within the cohort there were: MM

twenty educators with an advanced diploma or diploma qualification

MM

sixteen educators who were four-year university degree qualified

MM

thirteen educators who were three-year university degree qualified

MM

two educators with a completed Certificate III in children’s services who were near completion of the Diploma in Children’s Services

MM

and five academics who each held diverse research expertise and experience in adult education.

The educators’ role in this project was to attend the professional learning aspects outlined below, engage in thinking about their centre-based practices and implement their practitioner inquiry project. The role of the academics was to provide contemporary thinking (content), provoke and support the educators in developing and implementing their investigation, reflect and mentor them throughout the process. This support included communicating with the educators via an e-group between meetings to disseminate appropriate readings and/or resources. The activities that were implemented to support the development and implementation of the practitioner inquiry project included:

112

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

A full-day seminar The full-day seminar was seen to be important in giving all educators who had various levels of qualification and experience a baseline of content as a foundation. Conference content was delivered by academics to fifty-one educators. The sessions covered child development, curriculum planning including the EYLF, technology in early childhood, reflective practice and working in partnership with families. The day also included the first meeting of dedicated learning circle groups, where the educators could meet others and the academic who would be facilitating the learning circle, collect the book of readings and reflective journal. The educators were also given some tasks to complete before their first learning circle.

Learning circles The learning circles were established to develop a ‘community of learners’ and foster a learning culture for active participation in their projects (Wenger, McDermott and Snyder 2002). Cordingley and colleagues (cited in Walter and Briggs 2012) found that collaborative learning which included at least one other educator over a sustained period of time, including an outsider expert, resulted in improved practice. As defined in the Glossary, Learning Circles are a place where practitioners come together with a facilitator (an expert consultant or academic) regularly, for example once a month. The learning circle time allows practitioners to think about their current practices and what they would like to change or think through. It is a place where the group (usually eight to twelve practitioners) discuss their thinking, what they are finding and what they still want to know more about. It is a highly reflective process which requires practitioners to come to the learning circle ready to critically engage and also share their learning. The facilitator guides this discussion and reflection and ensures all practitioners are supported to continue their investigation between meetings. Learning circles for this project were seen as a way of enabling a progressive ongoing professional learning model to support change and practice (moving beyond the GPS to a road map approach). These learning circles were facilitated by one of the five academics and were grouped into the age group of children the educator worked with (birth to two, two to three or three to five years). Learning circles were made up of eight to ten educators of differing qualification levels and leadership roles from at least four different centres across at least two organizations. This was seen as critical to expose staff to different pedagogical assumptions and to begin to build cross-fertilization of ideas. Three learning circles, held one month apart, were held in an adult environment in the evening, so that educators could complete an early shift during the day and then attend the learning circle. During these learning



Stories of pedagogical leadership

113

circles, educators each developed and discussed a practitioner inquiry investigation, which required them to research an issue that was interesting them in their classroom. The educators were encouraged to frame their investigation in terms of the principles, practices or outcomes of the EYLF, as a means of beginning to engage with the document. The process included: MM

Developing a question to investigate.

MM

Collecting some baseline data/evidence – for example photos, observations, videos, and questionnaires of their current practice.

MM

Formulating a two-month plan to explore their question. This included making changes, consulting literature and drawing conclusions about the success of their investigation.

MM

Sharing their progress and thinking at the learning circles.

MM

Documenting their project in preparation for the exhibition.

Workplace visit Hahs-Vaughn and Yanowitz (2009) found that providing release time to engage with professional mentors or coaches meant educators were more likely to implement their practitioner inquiry projects. To ensure personalized support with their work-based intervention, an academic mentor visited each educator in their workplace. This included observing practice, guiding development and clarifying aspects of each practitioner inquiry investigation. Visiting educators in their workplaces helped establish a trusting relationship with the academic and by receiving on-site advice and mentoring, the educators were able to consolidate their projects.

Exhibition The requirement to articulate research findings and justify decisions publicly was an important component of the project in both celebrating achievements and demonstrating professional accountability for the funding and employer contributions. This was a formal celebration that brought all educators and academics together and provided educators with the opportunity to share their learning. Invitees to this forum included project participants, university academics, service stakeholders, professional networks and other early childhood educators. Five emerging educator leaders from the learning circles were invited to share their projects in an oral presentation, whilst the remaining participants exhibited their projects in a poster display. Areas of investigations included: partnerships with families; issues of equity and bias; reflective practice; responding to

114

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

children’s needs; establishing respectful relationships with children; intentional teaching; transitions; documentation and learning; and implementing the EYLF with the differing age groups.

Insights and reflections A range of data points informed this project, including practitioner surveys, participant reflections (both for the educators and academic partners) and participant evaluations. Practitioner survey data collected both at the beginning and end of the project provided information on educator qualification, role in the setting, perceptions of the EYLF and its interpretation in their setting, and a self-evaluation of pedagogic knowledge. Prior to collecting the data, ethics approval was granted by the University’s Faculty of Human Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee. In the following section, we use qualitative data to identify and highlight some of the reported outcomes and processes that were associated with the project. In doing so, we identify both supporting and constraining factors.

Strengths and challenges of sustained projects The participants overwhelmingly acknowledged that the project had challenged and enhanced their thinking in terms of implementation of the EYLF and their professional practice in general. The real-world application of the acquired knowledge in the workforce was referred to by many as a strength of the project. As one participant wrote: ‘I found my involvement in the project assisted me within my job and extended my knowledge of children’s learning and how to better support this.’ The flow-on effect of individual knowledge to the centre team was also acknowledged. One director reflected: My staff have become very interested in learning more about the EYLF. At the first training day, they had little knowledge of the document other than knowing it had just been released and that it would be something we were going to have to implement. It has inspired them to read the document and begin discussing how it will impact on our work and how we can include it in our everyday practice. This in itself is a major task as it not only impacts on our everyday practice but it will affect all our written documentation about the service including philosophy and goals. Many also reported increased leadership skills as they implemented the practitioner inquiry project in their workplace with their team (who may not have been involved in the process). The educators commented on



Stories of pedagogical leadership

115

benefits of this project; for example, ‘reconnection with staff plus an appreciation of the team I have – the potential of our team plus the motivation to run with them’. As the project progressed, academics noted an increased sense of engagement in deeper thinking as educators developed links between theory and practice and their confidence increased. For most groups, as the learning circles’ participants gained trust in each other and their facilitator, the depth of discussion was enhanced. Two inter-related factors of ‘time’ and ‘collaboration’ appeared to support this change.

Time The significance of having repeated opportunities to meet and explore ideas was identified as a key contributor to the success of the project. The time factor was associated with increased personal involvement in the project, and the ability to have time to reflect on and adapt individual approaches to change: ‘Professional development over a period of time is a great way to work. It allows you to identify what you want to know, set goals/ implement, then reflect and evaluate.’ The time invested in each individual learning circle was also regarded as a positive factor, with this format not only being seen as significant for the sharing of knowledge but also associated with increased involvement and participation: ‘[The learning circles] were effective in sharing information. The three-hour time block was really relaxing and didn’t have the same time pressures that shorter more-frequent sessions might have had. Everyone had time to talk. This is not a feature of many “training” sessions and I feel was one of the most meaningful aspects of the format.’ The investment of time also required a personal and professional commitment. Reflections such as ‘[it was] hard to go at the end of the day’ illustrated the time pressures that many of the participants experienced but were balanced with other comments such as ‘when you made the effort and turned up, you always came away inspired and pleased that you went.’ These comments indicate recognition that the initial outlay of effort was regarded as worthwhile. This effort was certainly appreciated by the academics who frequently made comments such as: ‘They always came well prepared. I was taken by their commitment to the project when they have so much else to do in a day.’ Time, however, also posed as a constraint to some. The time allowed for individual projects was a factor, with some educators commenting that they would like ‘more time to work on their projects’ and at times ‘it felt very rushed’. Time factors also appeared to limit the reflective and collaborative nature of the project, especially at the beginning. As one academic explained: ‘putting a mixed group of people together meant that they took some time to develop trust in each other and in the academic’.

116

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

Collaboration A key feature of this project was a desire to implement a collaborative approach to professional learning. As identified in the section above, the development of professional relationships between all involved was regarded as key to this process. Time elements again came into play, with the early establishment of small and stable groups identified as a key starting block for the project: ‘I have found that working from day one with my learning circle has been a good way to build relationships and continuity within the group.’ The establishment of trust between participants was another enabling factor. While trust was not always easy to establish between all group members, as a whole, the continuity of the learning circles facilitated the open and enthusiastic sharing of information. As one academic expressed: ‘I was absolutely floored by the level of trust that was established so quickly in the learning circles. It was stunning. They turned up with information on flash drives, shared the information amongst each other, really quickly.’ Evaluative comments from the academics such as ‘I loved the make-up of the groups – the sharing of resources and ideas added to the richness of the project’ attested to the collaborative nature of the professional learning. However, diversity of qualifications and experience levels within the group added to the complexity of the process: ‘my group was great but diverse, which makes chatting through their projects challenging’. Some, though, attributed increased learning to the diversity of the group, firstly in terms of exposure to multiple perspectives; ‘They listened to differing views; this was especially interesting when they came from differing philosophical approaches’ and secondly in terms of collegial support: ‘They … supported each other throughout the project in between meetings. The less experienced were exposed to models of highly experienced people that they might aspire to and the more experienced were useful in promoting a good level of conversation and challenging each other in a supportive way.’ The relationships formed appeared to be long lasting and also developed collegial networks both within and outside the centre walls with associated positive effects. For example one participant noted: ‘I am already seeing evidence of this with relationships building between services and colleagues. It has been a great way for people to learn from each other and I believe these professional relationships will continue. It breaks down the isolation that some staff feel working in centres and opens up new perspectives and that has to be a positive!’

Discussion In this final section, we examine the data through an ecological frame with each layer presenting opportunities for analysis and discussion. This



Stories of pedagogical leadership

117

multi-layered discussion outlines the opportunities and challenges for participating educators and academics. The reform agenda (macrosystem) happening at the time in the Australian early childhood education and care sector was the impetus for the project and showed that reform can present opportunities for change. The commitment from the organizations (exosystem) to professional learning was the driver for this project. Further to these two layers, elements of the micro-, meso- and chronosystems also had a bearing on project outcomes.

Diversity of early childhood settings (Microsystem) The microsystem of this project was identified as the particular characteristic of each early childhood setting. One key theme related to the microsystem arose from the differing dynamics of centres. Whilst a strength of the project was bringing educators from a range of centres together, each of the settings was unique and each practitioner had varied styles and roles within their context. This meant that some had to implement their projects in the setting alongside other staff members who were not necessarily a part of the project and perhaps less supportive of changes arising. Research by Killgallon, Maloney and Lock (2008) found that early childhood educators who had a positive attitude towards implementing change were more likely to embrace and implement changes in their practices. These educators were also more likely to get involved early to be informed and understand the mandatory changes and what that required of them in terms of practices. Furthermore, while the practitioner inquiry project was a rich opportunity for learning, these opportunities were dependent on the educator’s selection of an appropriate focus of investigation and identification of their focus question. The perceived effectiveness of the project was influenced by staff experience of inquiry processes, skills in documentation and capacity to facilitate change within their context. There may be a range of reasons contributing to the varying uptake of the learning opportunities. Academics reported that those educators who were willing participants and not feeling compelled to participate were most receptive to the learning opportunities. Killgallon, Maloney and Lock’s research (2008) found that educators were less favourable to implementing changes unless they felt they had the autonomy of their decisions. The academics also found that some dispositions and attitudes toward change were more compatible with this way of working than others. Educators who had skills in reading and interpreting literature and reflecting honestly on their existing practices appeared more open to authentic change and more likely to be successful in achieving their project goals than those without those skills or dispositions.

118

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

Academics’ connections with educators (Mesosystem) The mesosystem represented within this frame were the academics who identified the significant change that occurred within some contexts. Data indicated that the academic mentor was central to the success of the model. This role of the academic mentor has been found to be important in professional learning in several research studies both in Australia and overseas (Evans, Lomax and Morgan 2000; Hadley 2012; Hahs-Vaughn and Yanowitz 2009). Participants spoke of feeling privileged to have had access to the academics and to the knowledge that they imparted. Both the accessibility and credibility of academics were consistently cited as positive aspects of the project by the participants. The benefits were bidirectional, with academics particularly recognizing the benefits of immersion in current practice. As one academic reflected, ‘It was such an insight into the daily pressures of staff. As an academic we can be out of touch with “the real world” and we can forget the pressures staff face daily.’ This connection with educators provided the academics with opportunities to bring new perspectives to their teaching and research. This was reflected in comments such as, ‘I enjoyed the project a great deal, and always learn so much from being with early childhood staff who work with infants and toddlers. The visits were particularly beneficial as I got to see centres that I had not visited before and see staff in the context of these centres.’ This project also helped inform the academics in their work with pre-service teachers in relation to engaging with the EYLF and the complexities of the contents.

Timeframe (chronosystem) The process of inquiry and the related timeframe is presented as the chronosystem within this project. As previously identified, the set timeframe for this project was a challenge for all participants, and was associated with the time needed to build community and engage participants in small groups (learning circles). While this interaction was seen as helpful for all participants, some educators (depending on skills and experience) needed more time and assistance to enable the development of their question to move forward in the process. Stremmel (2007: 3) acknowledges that the development of the question takes time. It needs to focus the participant in the area of their inquiry. This may cause tension as it can take time to come to the realization of what is core to the problem which needs addressing. Unfortunately, the nature of the early childhood education workforce made it virtually impossible to ensure that all participants were able to attend



Stories of pedagogical leadership

119

all sessions. While very few participants dropped out, annual leave, study commitments, illness, resignations, maternity leave and disconnect with the project all contributed to variance in attendance. The overwhelming response from participants, academics and employers was that whilst this project had significant potential, it should be spread over a much longer time period. The intensity of the project probably ensured that most of the questions were addressed, but tight timeframes created additional stress that might be diffused if there was more flexibility with time. It is likely that the depth of knowledge attained and depth of curriculum exploration would likely increase over a longer period. Ultimately it would be ideal to embed the skills of practitioner inquiry into everyday thinking and practice so that working reflectively is not tied to a particular project or timeframe.

Directions for future professional learning The overwhelmingly positive response to this style of professional learning suggests this model has significant potential for staff employed in early childhood education and care. We argue that a collaborative approach between academics and practitioners is likely to result in lasting change and quality improvement. In addition, while results from this study are tentative and largely anecdotal, we recommend further research be undertaken to formally evaluate the academics’ learning in similar change projects. We see potential for this model to be used in the future with educators to ensure engagement with contemporary practices and for academics to also maintain currency with the complexity of regulatory reform. One response to the question ‘Would you recommend a similar project to other early childhood staff?’ speaks clearly of the value of this style of project: ‘Yes, because it is ongoing, you have access to an academic without enrolling in a uni course, and the project was specific to my centre, and was aimed at improving things within the centre.’ As McCormack, Gore and Thomas (2004: 3) state, ‘if professional growth is to occur, teachers need to have sustained and substantive learning opportunities involving serious ongoing discussions with critical colleagues such as mentors and continued reflection on all aspects of their practice and beliefs to enhance their knowledge of teaching’. We argue that collaboration between academics and educators has the potential to enrich the experience and knowledge of both groups. We see potential for this learning model to be used in the future to ensure both academics and educators engage with contemporary theory and research in ways that translate meaningfully into everyday teaching and curriculum practice.

CHAPTER NINE

Sustaining practitioner inquiry projects: Frustrations and achievements Anthony Semann and Rod Soper

Introduction It is two o’clock in the afternoon; I am full of carbohydrates and sugar from the sandwiches and juice. I am still sitting in the same seat, looking in the same direction, listening to the same person’s presentation about innovation in the classroom. I am struggling to hold back the waves of sleep, which are trying to sweep over me. I try to take notes to keep me awake and on task. I look for Mentos for another sugar hit – oh – they are all gone! The speaker wraps up the presentation and asks the participants who might go back to their workplace and apply something innovative. I gaze around the room and notice the hazy look in others’ eyes. Someone answers making the presenter smile with satisfaction. The presenter moves on to the evaluation request, we all shuffle in our seats, desperately needing to complete the task and leave. As I leave the professional development day with my pack of untouched handouts, I ask myself, ‘what have I learnt?’ I learnt that innovation in the classroom is important and includes lots of interaction and participation. I noted that it did not include a long presentation from the front. Was I going to apply any learning from today? We will see, as I am so busy just now, loads of documentation to do and the open day is coming up … all that art to do … Too often have we experienced this scenario! We have great intentions regarding the improvement of our professional practice. We find what looks like a great professional development day and then ‘whack’, with one swoop all our good intention is lost as we battle through a well-intended six hour presentation. Our passion for professional development takes a hit as we regroup. Little if any change is applied or has longevity.

122

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

So what is the alternative? Consider this! You have been thinking about your practice and the specific nature of children’s developmental communication. You want to know more and be more attuned to needs to inform your intentional teaching. You engage in a professional discussion with your Educational Leader, who suggests that you look for professional development that is based on practitioner inquiry. You connect with a team of the thinkers who offer this kind of professional development and their first question is, ‘What have you been thinking about?’ In consultation with you, the professional development team guides you in narrowing down your curiosity about developmental communication to a single question to guide your inquiry. Your children, colleagues and parent community are invited and encouraged to participate in this learning, making your inquiry empowering and transformational for all community members. Schmuck (1997) notes the difference between practitioner inquiry and the traditional delivery of professional development as significant and critical to building on future learning. He highlights that traditional methods seek to explain current knowledge and apply experimentation to gain perspective that will assist in creating generalizations for universal application. Further, Schmuck (1997) contrasts the processes of practitioner inquiry as an investigation about what should or could be. He states that action research (in this case, equated with practitioner inquiry) develops knowledge bases collaboratively and embraces a range of opinions and options to critically and creatively think about the issue. The purpose, Schmuck states, is to create solutions for a specific and/or local application. Lui (2009) concurs with the transformational nature of practitioner inquiry. He notes that as a result of participating in this type of inquiry a researcher, or teacher, often has an increased sense of self-efficacy in the processes of research and change. This increased empowerment can be found in the pliability of knowledge, its acquisition and the determination to inculcate or embed change into daily practice. The effects of practitioner inquiry can be found in the teacher’s practice and the learner’s experience, making evident the deep impact of the research. Practitioner inquiry is a highly productive tool when a teacher wants to engage in authentic critiques of practice. It creates a space for the teacher to think critically about presenting problems and enables the development and use of strategic tools to embed change. Inquiry of this nature allows for effective unpacking of, and participation in, social and intellectual reconstruction. It also critically links theory with practice, which adds substance to the knowledge paradigm and allows new perspectives to be drawn out and reflected upon. One reason practitioner inquiry has such an impact on the researcher’s community is the nature of ‘camping’ with the issue. As researchers sit with the presenting problem, they have the opportunity to critically reflect, unpack attitudes and mindsets and embark on upside down and



Sustaining practitioner inquiry projects

123

discontinuous thinking (Handy 1989). These processes aid in re-evaluating, reworking and rebuilding their specific research setting. A lurking shadow around practitioner inquiry is the time factor involved in undertaking effective investigation. This issue can be significant for some, however, when recognized and valued within the initial planning phase, it does not need to become a barrier but rather a guide for the size and depth of the research (O’Connor and Greene 2004). Considered and deliberate time management creates an opportunity for measured portions of success to be achieved. To illustrate the influence action research can have on teaching and learning, we have collated stories from two practitioners who have pursued this methodology in their respective educational settings. These narratives record the planning, processes and successful achievements in making changes to their learning environments as a result of their practitioner inquiry projects. The purpose of capturing these stories is to inspire and evoke any rumblings of change into a life of their own, along with providing a powerful direction for exploration and application.

Renee’s story – family and community participation in early childhood education and care The context The Gordon Early Childhood Centre is a forty-five place long day care centre for children from birth to five years old, located in Canberra, the capital city of Australia. The centre is part of the Anglicare childcare community. The programme consists of three classrooms (twenty-four children aged three to five years, fifteen children aged two to three years and eleven children aged from birth to two years of age). I was the early childhood teacher in the classroom with children aged three to five years, as well has having a dual role as the assistant director of the Centre. As a programme, we acknowledged the importance of thinking critically about our teaching and, as such, we created a research team which included a staff member from each of the classrooms. As a research team we met monthly with educators from other Anglicare centres who were also interested in pursuing a research agenda through practitioner inquiry. As a research team, we were committed to growth and development as teachers through the sharing of our ‘niggles’, exploring and exposing our findings to others as well as opening ourselves up to being challenged and provoked by our colleagues.

124

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

The experience Significant staffing changes in early learning centres can affect all stakeholders in a diverse range of ways. A number of educators in our centre have found change challenging, and therefore experienced a sense of discomfort. Long-standing teams often develop strong relationships with families and this can be hard to move through when these relationships end, for example when a child’s time within the programme comes to an end. This niggle was the impetus for our action research project. This research project was designed to support our team in establishing meaningful collaborative participation with the families and community that use our service, to see us through the current challenges and well into the future.

The project The overarching question we were interested to explore was, ‘What does family and community participation mean and look like?’

Stage 1 The research team was involved in the collection of data from policies, centre philosophies, online information depositories, journal articles and licensing regulations in order to create a survey for both families and staff of the centre. Our intention was twofold: first to explore the current expectations of participation in the early childhood sector as well as those within our centre, and second, to collect qualitative data in relation to what family and community participation might mean and look like. The survey and collection of data revealed a number of interesting findings: MM

Families are willing to participate in centre events and experiences; however, they require us as educators to provide them with adequate timetabling of these events.

MM

More information on the Parent Advisory Group is needed for families regarding its purpose and how it contributes to the centre life and serving the children’s needs. An information night or brochure is required to be given/emailed to families.

MM

Two thirds of families do not feel comfortable with our current methods of decision-making, policy reviews and operational decisions. New ideas need to be considered to engage families in these processes. An initial approach tabled for consideration was the recording of informal conversations with families around these topics.



Sustaining practitioner inquiry projects

125

MM

Educators highlighted the need for greater clarity on the type of communication and information they wish to receive from families. A suggestion to begin achieving this goal was to create an identifiable space for such information to be provided and shared.

MM

Educators desired greater community involvement from families and the broader community.

Stage 2 Stage 2 included interviews with a small sample of parents from each classroom. Our intention was to ‘find out’ about families’ perspectives on the findings we uncovered in Stage 1 and to explore new and interesting ways in which participation could be enhanced. During these interviews families noted: MM

Communication was a strong point but the written communication currently taking place within the centre required improvement.

MM

Families are restricted by time, family and work commitments. They still required more notice and consultation regarding centre events.

MM

Families also desired greater levels of participation by other families who were attending the centre and were interested in exploring additional strategies to assist in realizing this desire.

Project outcomes As a result of the practitioner inquiry project, our practices have been impacted and adapted in the following ways: MM

We created a timetable for families which identified key events in the curriculum they could participate in.

MM

Our Parent Advisory Group’s president has begun placing notices in our monthly newsletter informing the community about the Advisory Group’s role.

MM

Staff expectations regarding communication and information needs were shared at our Parent Information Evening. Parents who were unable to attend were sent the supporting literature in order to make visible our expectations.

MM

Our parent library was updated and we actively promoted this to families.

126

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

MM

We have adjusted the timing of our parent meetings. These have been moved to the afternoon, allowing more parents with work commitments, to attend.

MM

We have implemented a ‘family homework’ strategy in the classroom for children aged three to five years. Educators provide this to our families. The tasks are sporadic and are based on the current interests of the children. They are designed to build family involvement in the child’s learning, to assist in building on our understanding of the child and to encourage families’ feedback and participation in the curriculum.

MM

A noticeboard of what’s happening each month has given families an opportunity to join in events and celebrations, and reminds them of educators’ expectations regarding their participation in the curriculum.

Reflecting on parental involvement has served as a critical first step in reimagining practices. Such niggles serve us well as they act as springboards for educators to address practices and processes that have the opportunity to improve early childhood pedagogy. This action research project has had a lasting impact on the ways in which educators have conceptualized themselves in relation to their practices and their relationships with families.

Vivienne’s story – practitioner inquiry The context The Calwell Early Childhood Centre is located in a southern suburb in Canberra. The centre is part of the Anglicare childcare community. We operate on a mixed model of care, offering long day care, permanent, part-time and occasional care, as well as a preschool programme with a university qualified early childhood teacher working with children aged three to five years. We receive special funding to be able to offer places to children whose families are experiencing a range of personal or family crises. The centre has fifty-eight licensed places, offering education and care for children from birth to school age.

The experience The whole service participated in the practitioner inquiry project, including educators from our infants’ room through to our preschool programme. We applied to participate in this practitioner inquiry project because, as



Sustaining practitioner inquiry projects

127

educators, we were reflecting on the practices and were asking ourselves questions such as: MM

Do we let opportunities for teaching pass us by in our everyday routines?

MM

Do we really listen and take notice of the conversations that engage children?

As a whole centre we came to the agreement that, as educators, there were moments that ‘passed’ during the day where the interests of children could have been extended, or, as educators, we could have been more actively engaged. There was unequivocal agreement that, as educators, we were going through the motions of the day rather than being intentional in our teaching of children. The vision we created was for our staff to become more reflective in our pedagogical practices. As educators, we wanted to be able to extend on children’s conversations and find learning experiences in those moments. We also had a deep desire to engage with children during the routines of the day in order to capture their voices and learning during such moments.

The project As a result of this reflective process we developed the following overarching question for our investigation, ‘What does intentional teaching look like for the children and staff at Calwell Early Childhood Centre?’ The first step in the inquiry process was to engage in research. We found and read articles and books relating to our topic of inquiry. We located critical friends to explore our thinking about intentional teaching, its operational definition and the ways in which intentionality could be embedded into the everyday-ness of practice. One of our first learnings was that intentional teaching is purposeful and planned, and it does not just happen. As such, educators need to use their existing skills and knowledge to organize learning experiences that facilitate intentional teaching. Educators who take advantage of intentional teaching are able to recognize a teachable moment, expand on it and provide children with the necessary tools to extend the learning that they are already engaged in. We learnt that intentional teaching required educators to be more focused on the children and their interests than previously. Further, we learnt that, as educators, we needed time to observe children, to document their interests; and then time to research and arrange experiences and projects (depending on the age) that linked to topics children had expressed an interest in. The educators working in our infants’ room (birth to two years) found this concept to be extremely challenging. The challenge in shifting a focus from routine-driven pedagogy to a more intentional teaching pedagogy raised further questions for them.

128

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

The struggle for the whole centre was to shift the mindset of educators to build on these important routines to create moments of learning. Practitioner inquiry taught us many things. We realized the importance of reflecting on our practices as educators and thinking critically about research and theory. This reflective process was central in our desire to become more intentional. We learnt that reflecting on practice never ends and that, as educators, we must be committed to seeing ourselves and our practices as being ‘under construction’. Therefore, a cycle of thinking, doing and reflecting is critical to our improved pedagogy.

Project outcomes One of the biggest changes in our practice was the change in our staff meetings. Our meetings were no longer full of housekeeping-related issues such as timesheets and administrative tasks. Rather they became a forum for professional conversations relating to our teaching. This practice remains today and our staff meetings continue to be used for exploring research and discussing new ideas, theory and practices. As a result, staff now look forward to our staff meetings and view these as an opportunity for professional development and team learning. Intentional teaching has stayed on the agenda at Calwell Early Childhood Centre. It has become part of our everyday practice and, more importantly, our everyday conversations. When we think we have become complacent again we revisit our research project to remind ourselves of the reasons we embarked on the journey to begin with.

Following the stories: The impetus and the impact These practitioner inquiry examples bring to life MacNaughton’s definition of professional learning: ‘researching with people to create and study change in and through the research process. In early childhood settings it can produce changed ways of doing things and changed ways of understanding why we do what we do’ (MacNaughton 2001: 208). We can see that such an approach embeds a clear relationship between theory and practice that allows participants to translate learning from professional development into the workplace. Practitioner inquiry may go through a number of cycles, as represented in Figure 9.1, before a final destination is arrived and a new investigation begins. Both scenarios demonstrate this cyclical dimension associated with practitioner inquiry. As educators revisit their new learning, they realize the growth and its impact on practice and make the next step in their inquiry.



Sustaining practitioner inquiry projects

129

FIGURE 9.1  Action research cycle Source: Cardno and Reynolds (2009: 212).

Practitioner inquiry serves as a vehicle for knowers, knowledge and new knowledge to become connected, interwoven and embedded into practice (Reason and Bradbury 2006). It creates a trail for learners to attend to as critical reflection takes place and has its influence in the practitioner, children and community. Furthermore, both scenarios demonstrate the critical nature of a clear and precise question to investigate, as it guides every aspect of the project. The question must be crafted in a way which authentically represents the core of the anticipated change. To create such a foundational question, practitioners must carefully unpack the area of investigation, identifying what lies at the heart. We can see this in both scenarios where the larger issues, such as intentional teaching and partnerships with families, were manipulated until a single point of reference was acknowledged. From this distillation a final specific question was crafted to lead the investigation. The investigation and analysis of this contributing question guides the process of intervention. In both scenarios we see practitioners engaging in rigorous critical reflection from the beginning of the project to its completion. Both services saw their communities being drawn into the investigation and participating in the reflection and ultimate intervention. The dynamic nature of the data collection, documentation, consequent

130

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

planning and action means that each participant was held within the crucible of change resulting in accountability across the project. A notable point for consideration by every practitioner in the future is the importance of always returning to the investigative question before beginning each phase of the project. As with many projects, distractions often unfold as critical thinking is applied to settings requiring change. To ensure the integrity of the project and the cyclical process, it is important to always frame every step of the process with the question determining the investigation. In both scenarios explained here, new discoveries emerged along the journey. However, as both settings kept a clear focus on their goal, the new discoveries didn’t lose their impetus, but rather were recorded and became points of interest to return to later. In the final stages, pursuing a narrative of the change will embody the journey and the evaluation of the practitioner inquiry project. A narrative approach affords participants the opportunity to ‘tell their story’ by identifying successes and challenges, clarifying plans of action and offering plans for the future. A narrative, via its engaging nature, also offers a platform to share the journey with colleagues, the community and the wider sector. Therefore, in revisiting our initial provocation regarding the nature of professional learning, one might ask, ‘Is there room for the traditional model of one-off professional development programmes?’ Perhaps rather than trying to arrive at some settlement about this question, it is better to rethink the issue and pose a new set of questions such as: MM

How much time for thinking and learning is required to shift practices that exist within a programme?

MM

Is there merit in practicing new skills acquired during professional development and coming back into a learning community to share the application of such skills?

MM

Is there a culture within the workplace to allow the integration of new skills acquired in professional development and can my colleagues provide me with the support needed to translate theory into practice?

These revised provocations invigorate us to find a new model of professional development, one that engages, is dynamic and offers a real and tangible opportunity for change to be embedded in educational settings.

PART THREE

Critical reflections We have framed these three chapters as the final section for this book. Yet, for some readers, this may be the starting point; offering an exploration of potential routes to a system-wide approach to practitioner inquiry which could be a major initiative rather than the actions of a single teacher in a classroom enacting this on their own. Previous chapters in this book have explored how individuals have experienced practitioner inquiry within their settings. Woodrow and Newman (2015: 7) claim that ‘practitioner research … becomes a political act of claiming power and agency for the practitioners, who usually have not had this in the past. There is an important aspect of self-determination involved and an attempt to shift the status quo frequently emerges.’ Shifting the status quo can be empowering for the teachers and educators who work in this way, and beneficial for the children, families and communities they work with. However, the power of upscaling the model within a broader system provides a commitment to the cause that is more likely to be supported with time and resources and more likely to ensure sustainability. The three chapters presented in this section provide an opportunity for the reader to explore how practitioner inquiry can be embedded within a larger organization to enable transformation. Considerations are given to strategic leadership in order to enact and embed change (Elliott 2011). Chapters 10 and 11 acknowledge the significance of relationships and time as key to a system-wide approach to practitioner inquiry resulting in cultural shifts in an organization. The role of the facilitator in supporting teachers moving into their first and subsequent forays into this way of working is explored. Interestingly, tensions can arise – there are moments

132

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

of ambiguity when facilitators are positioned in a space of knowing and expecting their recently ‘signed up’ colleagues to have moved forward, rather than allowing them to experience those periods of uncertainty and, sometimes, discomfort as they grapple with this new way of working. This part of the process, of understanding themselves as teacher researchers, is critical to their journey in the ongoing process. The final chapter draws together the central themes of the book. Critical to this is the notion of commitment; this process takes time and energy. It has the capacity to provide meaningful professional learning opportunities for all teachers and educators regardless of their setting or sector, years of service or position within the organization. It has the potential to effect change – significant change to the way in which individuals and systems work. However, acknowledging and preparing for long-term investment will ensure clarity of vision and give time and space needed for educational change to occur.

CHAPTER TEN

Facilitating the facilitators: Working together for change Introduction When considering system-wide educational change through professional inquiry, it is not enough to rely solely on the engagement of individual classroom teachers for sustainability. Rather, a support network is essential to encourage and maintain change efforts. As Adelman and Taylor (2007) suggest, ‘teams of champions’ are required as advocates for effective school improvement. This chapter will draw on the experiences with the Catholic Education Office (CEO) Early Years Project in Sydney, Australia to explore the rewards and frustrations experienced by local-level facilitators working with school staff. Viewed as a ‘team of champions’, these facilitators became a key element of the practitioner inquiry model used in the Early Years Project. As outlined in previous chapters, the CEO had embarked on a major system-wide project to scaffold educational change and excellence in the early years of school through cycles of practitioner inquiry. The initiative was designed for primary school staff to gain a deeper knowledge of the early learner and develop appropriate pedagogy while meeting curriculum requirements. In the early planning stages for the project, it became evident that it would be necessary to seek support from regional-level consultancy staff already employed by the CEO. An Advisory Committee for the project agreed that school-level support would be provided by CEO staff who were experienced in consultancy roles. Known variously as Regional Advisers or Curriculum Consultants, some of these staff became facilitators for the project, along with key central office personnel. They were experienced in working in schools, had already acquired a range of sophisticated approaches to working with adult learners and could readily develop cooperative relationships with teachers and school leaders. Some of the facilitators were members of the CEO Early Years Committee that had instigated the Early Years Project. These facilitators had a long-standing professional commitment to improving pedagogy in the early years of

134

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

school and encouraged particular schools to respond to the invitation to join the project. Other facilitators became involved through their passion for the early years of school or their personal relationships with others in the project.

University consultancy roles For the first two years of the project, the authors worked in partnership with the facilitators as university consultants. Regular meetings between facilitators and university consultants provided the foundation for all major project events, including the introductory conference at the beginning of the year, the bimonthly workshops, school visits by facilitators and the celebratory get-together at the end of year. This series of regular meetings gave the authors (who were the university consultants) an opportunity to share their experiences of the project and prepare professional learning activities for school-based staff. In the third year of the project, the university consultants took a reduced role and the CEO facilitators had more responsibility for planning and offering professional learning events. The fourth year saw a further decrease in the involvement of the university consultants and the CEO continued the project into the fifth year with their own resources. In aiding the work of the CEO facilitators, the university consultants were aware of the need to create shared understandings about the project. Initially four CEO facilitators worked across thirteen schools in three regions. The university consultants worked closely with these facilitators during the early stages of the project. The four facilitators were experienced educators who had worked in advisory/consultancy roles over a number of years, supporting teachers in curriculum areas such as literacy. Initial interviews found that they were excited about the concept of practitioner inquiry and felt they could learn from interactions with both the university consultants and school-based practitioners. One facilitator noted: ‘I was talking about the project today and that whole notion of learning with the schools. I have a certain amount of knowledge and so do they. But we’ll be coming together and I’ll be actually walking with them on the journey. Each school will be different and that’s exciting for me. It will definitely be a learning opportunity.’ This sense of excitement arose from the innovative approach of using practitioner inquiry to enhance educational change, rather than having specific content or techniques to be implemented by teachers. As they were more familiar with supporting change in a specific curriculum area, the facilitators were pushed to the edge of their comfort zones. Although they were enthusiastic about the concept of teachers as self-directed learners, they were not too sure of the processes involved or how their role would play out over time.



Facilitating the facilitators

135

During the early stages of the project, the university consultants used adult education principles to model effective practices by working from a belief in adults as self-directed and autonomous learners (Knowles, Holton and Swanson 2005). Apte (2009) and Billet (2010) suggest that facilitators of adult education should utilize learner-centred approaches to engage the adult learner. Such approaches aim to present experiences that are authentic and relevant to individuals in order to invoke engagement within the learning process. For example, working together to plan workshops gave the university consultants opportunities to move beyond a pragmatic focus on choosing tasks and scheduling activities, to encouraging the facilitators to think about the reasons behind their suggestions and to reflect on their decision-making. Adult learner-centred practices should include engaging learners in critically reflective practices and enable them to draw on previous knowledge and experiences. Adult learners have accumulated a great deal of experience which can be a rich foundation for further learning. Thus, time was set aside in regular meetings for the facilitators to reflect on their experiences with the project and to share ideas and strategies for working with teachers. In addition, one facilitator established a personal blog where she recorded her thoughts and reflections about her work with the project. Others maintained contact with the university consultants by emailing reports, questions or concerns. The university consultants endeavoured to build capacity within the facilitator team. It was important to give this ‘team of champions’ enough support so the project wouldn’t fall over when the consultancy concluded. Building capacity among this highly experienced team meant a focus on the development of trusting relationships and a mutual respect for each other’s professional insights. The three university consultants brought their knowledge and experience of early childhood pedagogy to the project, while the four organizational facilitators brought their knowledge and experience of contemporary primary school practices. All were seen as competent practitioners with expertise in adult education. There was enough common ground to create mutual respect across the group, while at the same time each individual brought unique professional expertise to contribute to the group. Although the original four CEO facilitators continued to have key roles at the regional level, as numbers of participating schools increased, so the number of facilitators grew to six (along with one or two changes of personnel along the way). There was, however, a remarkable sense of stability within the group due to a shared culture of inquiry, and new members were quickly accepted into the team. While the number of participating schools increased over time (there were thirty-four schools participating in the project by the third year, an almost 300 per cent increase on the original number), the facilitators felt more confident and relaxed about their roles and the university consultants took a smaller role in day-to-day decision-making. In a move towards a sustainable in-house

136

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

approach to support practitioner inquiry, the facilitators took more responsibility for running major project events such as regular workshops and an annual conference. Regular planning sessions and review meetings were still held with the university consultants as facilitators worked through the complexities of catering for increased numbers of participants, while remaining true to the principles of practitioner inquiry. As this process emerged organically, it was not always clear when the balance was shifting in terms of what roles were expected by the facilitators or by the university consultants who were ‘facilitating the facilitators’. Occasionally this resulted in confusion regarding responsibility for different portions of the process (e.g. planning workshop input), although the processes settled into an amiable pattern over time. Interestingly, this group of facilitators also became involved in catering for staff in schools who were in their third year of the project and were seeking more challenging experiences. These schools became Learning Hubs and met with a ‘critical friend’ who established a system to enable schools to host visits from other ‘third year’ schools (see Chapter 4). While the teachers and facilitators appreciated the opportunities this innovation provided, it was not a focus of meetings between the university consultants and the facilitators. Rather, this initiative illustrated an example of ‘lateral capacity building through networks’ (Fullan 2006b: 116). As the CEO moved towards systemic sustainability, the university consultants decided to offer to investigate the facilitators’ project experiences to expand the knowledge base related to inquiry-based processes supporting educational change. All of the organizational facilitators agreed to this initiative. At this stage, the CEO facilitators were planning and delivering six workshop sessions during the year. After each session they were asked to record information to share with the university consultants. In addition, they were also asked to participate in an interview about their experiences at the conclusion of the year. This chapter draws on information from these sources, along with meeting records, observations and research notes maintained by the authors.

Organizational facilitator roles When asked about their roles in the Early Years Project, the CEO facilitators described their functions in diverse ways. The most common (and not unexpected) response was to see themselves as facilitators of change. One person recorded: ‘Practitioner inquiry is a wonderful process for reflective thinking and contextualizing learning according to the local site. I like the tension this causes as I try to work out how to extend my role to accommodate new understandings. I can see the great flexibility that exists within this project and I am excited about my role as a facilitator.’



Facilitating the facilitators

137

In some cases, it had taken individuals time to clarify their roles. For example, in her third year in the project, one noted: ‘This is the first year that I’ve changed the way that I support the schools. I gained confidence over the past two years and this year it was a lot sharper and I defined it. It’s been fantastic for me. I set designated time aside, and I get into the schools on a regular basis.’ ‘Getting into schools’ was a pleasure and delight for the facilitators, yet at the same time it caused them some stress as they attempted to balance their role in the Early Years Project with the demands of their other responsibilities. For example: ‘Time is a major constraint on my role in this project. If I really wanted to do what I’m passionate about, then I would be fully involved and immersed in the project. But that would be at the expense of other projects.’ The facilitators identified the support they were able to offer schools as the most important aspect of their role. There were a range of similar comments on the value of this role, such as: ‘In this project, my role is the actual working with the teachers in the schools and building that relationship’ or ‘For me, the support of the practitioner inquiry process in schools is a highlight because it actually brings about change.’ These comments suggest the powerful influence that school-level support may have for those undertaking practitioner inquiry. As well as identifying the value of their roles in schools, facilitators also identified changes in their role that they would like to make in the future. For example, one noted: ‘I want to really be more a reflective person next year. Sometimes decisions are made and I don’t agree with them, but I don’t say anything. Now I really want to speak up a lot more in our meetings.’ This critical thinking by the facilitators helped ensure that inquiry projects were relevant and responsive to individual schools and regions. CEO facilitators continually clarified the strengths and limitations of their current practices and rethought their approaches to working with regional schoolbased staff. As one facilitator noted: ‘I know my region pretty well because I’ve been there for so long. When I hear what’s happening in another region it’s so different. We might have a similar focus across regions with the Early Years Project, but each facilitator has to work in a different way to respond to their region.’ An appreciation of the flexibility required to convince teachers and administrators to take on the challenge of the Early Years Project was evident. The regular meetings of facilitators enabled them to give the workshop programmes a similar focus, yet at the same time cater for differences across the three regions. Facilitators also saw themselves as being key advocates for the project. Two facilitators identified their advocacy roles as essential to the success of the project. One said: ‘This year the project’s taken us to where we feel we are doing something that’s quite different from others, and visitors from outside our system come to our schools to see what we’re doing.’ Another commented: ‘Now we have others saying “this is great, can we come and find out more about it?” That’s been a real highlight this year.’

138

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

Advocacy occurred at multiple levels from individual schools, through regional level to Head Office and national level. One facilitator noted that as an advocate she had to be conscious of keeping the project in the foreground: ‘I never let it slip off the agenda at meetings of the regional leadership team. I’m constantly advocating and sharing what’s happening. I try to be present for principals and when I pick up on some of the frustrations, I ask how I can help them through it. That’s our role as advocates for the Early Years Project.’ Another demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the political imperatives of the process. She said, ‘I think it’s about consciousness raising, about having the debate and inviting the right people to celebrations or conferences for the project. It’s a big part of my role to strategically position people so they get an insight into the impact that this project has on classroom practice.’ In a similar fashion, another facilitator noted: ‘My role involves influence – strategically influencing decision-makers and I do it every day. I actually timetable it into my diary to target. Whenever I visit a school, I find something about the project to share with staff in other schools, because if I don’t do that the project will just quietly go under the carpet and it will die.’ In his account of a large-scale change endeavour in Ontario, Levin (2007: 325) highlighted the need for advocates of education reform to ‘pay attention to political dynamics as the means through which improvement takes place’. Although he was referring to public schools, the same level of political astuteness is required within other educational contexts. Facilitators in the CEO project displayed an awareness of the need to consciously advocate for the Early Years Project. One described how she had been asked to explain the project to the regional curriculum team which included a number of secondary school staff: I expected people to say ‘Well this is early childhood. It’s got nothing to do with us.’ But when they matched it to the Melbourne Declaration that focuses on educating youth from birth, people sat up and started to pay attention. I think that really opened their eyes and they’re starting to see the reasons behind the project. So I advocate for it all the time and that’s why I am here and doing what I’m doing. I suppose that’s the key – the kids don’t get a second chance at their education in those early years. So unless we make sure we are really giving them the best possible learning environments, then we are not doing our jobs well. This multilevel advocacy kept the Early Years Project front and foremost during a time of competing change initiatives and budgetary demands. In summary, the information about the facilitators’ roles demonstrates the complexity and diverse nature of their responsibilities. As change facilitators, they were able to identify opportunities for their own professional growth emerging from the collaborative work with university consultants.



Facilitating the facilitators

139

In addition, their learning was also extended through their work with teachers in schools. At the same time, this provision of professional on-site support appeared to be a key feature, supporting teachers who were engaged in practitioner inquiry. As advocates for the Early Years Project, facilitators had an essential role in ‘marketing’ the success stories of practitioner inquiry. It was their enthusiasm and excitement that contributed to the increasing number of CEO schools taking up the project, prior to the systemic decision to mandate the approach. Meanwhile, research suggests that those in senior leadership positions are the main determinants of whether or not change is implemented; the facilitators were strategic in their advocacy efforts to ensure senior staff were ‘on side’. As the facilitators continued with their work, however, they encountered a number of elements that either constrained or supported them, as explained in the next part of this chapter.

Constraining elements As might be expected in a project of this complexity, constraints encountered by CEO facilitators included challenges with communication processes; communication between Head Office and the Regional Offices, or between facilitators and schools or among the facilitation team itself. The facilitators also experienced a diverse range of time pressures as they continued to juggle with existing commitments to take up the challenge of supporting the Early Years Project.

Administrative issues Levin and Fullan (2008: 298) highlight the need for ‘frequent, honest, two-way communication about successes and challenges; about what is being attempted and its challenges and setbacks as well as accomplishments’. In considering constraining elements for this project, some people explained that a lack of ongoing, effective administrative support was seen as a challenge, particularly in relation to organizational matters that ensured the smooth running of meetings. One commented: ‘I don’t have a lot of support here and when I’m trying to organize regional twilight meetings it all just takes time. Then I take my eye off the ball in other areas and things can get missed. That annoys me because I don’t like to operate in that way. So it’s a bit stressful at times.’ A second facilitator noted that she had experienced some confusion that she thought was due to a lack of communication. She said: ‘I sometimes have problems with competing agendas when the workshop days are shifted because they might clash with other commitments that I have to

140

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

run professional development days in the region. There seemed to be a few times this year I was thinking, “Hang on – have I missed something? What’s going on?” We need to have clearer communication.’ With hindsight, it could be argued that greater attention to communication pathways by the project leaders would have caused less stress for the facilitators.

Growing pains As more schools joined the project each year, it became difficult to find larger venues for the increased number of participants, and facilitators also found it difficult to liaise effectively with all schools and/or participants in their region. One facilitator noted: ‘I have to say I actually felt our group didn’t work so well this year. I think it was due to the large numbers of participants which meant that the facilities and the locations for some of the workshops didn’t work very well and I found it challenging to manage large groups in a small space.’ Another facilitator had similar concerns: I think the large number of people attending some sessions meant that it was difficult to manage everyone effectively. I tried to put a lot of processes in place, and think about how I was going to set up the groups, or how I was going to set up the room because there were such large numbers involved. I probably should have been more assertive in terms of organizing the numbers in the workshop sessions. I just sat back and thought, ‘we’ll go with the flow’ but it really was hard work. These practical problems associated with ‘scaling up’ an innovation (McLaughlin and Mitra 2001: 301) are rarely mentioned in educational change literature. Yet, as the project became more popular and increasing numbers of schools wanted to be involved, it became more difficult to cater for large groups of participants while sustaining the change efforts of the existing participants.

School-based constraints Another constraint identified by facilitators related to the lack of commitment from some school leaders. Although, initially, schools had to apply to participate in the practitioner-inquiry project, new problems might have arisen at the school, or perhaps the original enthusiast at the school had moved on and the project was left without a senior advocate at that school. As a result, facilitators found it difficult to ensure staff felt supported and that their efforts were worthwhile. These were the minority of schools, but



Facilitating the facilitators

141

facilitators worried about the influence of leaders who were not supportive; these ranged from people who were uninterested in the work to the few who were actively negative. In addition, inappropriate school support also caused concern as this hindered the ability of teachers to make the most of their involvement. As the project progressed, examples emerged where some school-based leaders asserted their authority and made unilateral decisions about the project. In their study of the complex roles of facilitators, Rust and Freidus (2001: 8–9) found similar situations where facilitators encountered principals who had ‘voiced a commitment to a change implementation without fully understanding its implications’. As the facilitators tried to support teachers, the principal was undermining their work; in these circumstances the facilitators found themselves caught in the middle, lacking authority to effectively support the change they championed. This slippage in understanding the principles of the project resulted in limited commitment to the change from some teachers. McLaughlin and Mitra (2001: 311) note that sustaining educational change requires ‘a knowledgeable and supportive principal’ who ‘not only understands the values and perspectives underlying the project, but also actively endorses the core principles from the beginning of the project’. Consequently, principals who hijacked the practitioner inquiry process for their own purposes were particularly concerning (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1993). For example, one principal wished to focus on literacy development within the school and used the Early Years Project to ensure all teachers were pursuing a literacyfocused question, rather than encouraging teachers to develop their own questions for investigation. As Berger, Boles and Troen (2005: 100) note, it is a paradox that a change effort ‘must be championed by a strong principal’ but ‘it can’t be owned by the principal’. In the few examples where principals used the Early Years Project for their own agenda, the practitioner inquiry process failed to engage teachers at the same level as those schools where teachers were encouraged to choose their own focus for investigation.

Supportive elements There were, however, a number of positive elements supporting the facilitators in the Early Years Project. The supportive attitude of senior staff in Head Office was often mentioned in the evaluation interviews, along with the relationship with the university consultants. A third element was the encouragement provided by the school visits, insofar as the enthusiasm of the teachers and the sense of making a difference seemed to give the facilitators hope and energy to carry on.

142

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

Supportive attitude of senior staff Facilitators felt confident that senior staff in Head Office saw the project as significant; the ongoing commitment of considerable funding was evidence of the system’s belief in the project. One said: ‘I think that the whole system’s approach has been really very supportive because we’re all speaking the same language and we’re building up a body of people who know what we’re talking about.’ Another facilitator spoke of the support from particular key people in Head Office that had enabled the project to be funded for over three years: Both of them [the Director and Head of Curriculum] have a lot of trust in the project. They can see the benefits of it and it’s where they want to go with our teachers’ professional development. They like the idea of practitioner inquiry where everyone has their own question and is motivated to research their own practice. So when I had my doubts about the project and I heard their positive feedback, it kept me going.

Support from university consultants Another aspect of effective facilitation was the strong, positive relationship with the university consultants. Facilitators appreciated the meetings with the university staff and found them energizing due to the alternative (and sometimes confronting) perspectives the consultants contributed to the discussions. Opportunities that provided for reflection on practice and sharing of new ideas enabled facilitators to extend their own professional learning. One said: ‘I always enjoy interacting with the three of them and hearing what they have to say, particularly because they’re not part of the Catholic organization, which is so refreshing. I mean that in a positive way. The three of them have got so much wisdom and experience. I really enjoy working with them.’ Another facilitator had a similar view: ‘I really value the input from the university because even though we may not always think the same way, I see that as a positive thing. We may find each other’s ideas confronting at times. But it’s a good healthy tension to have, because without that we could be just the same as everyone else.’ It is important to acknowledge that professional learning can result from ‘engaging with one not directly involved in the day to day routines of the school [who] is thus able to bring a new lens’ to the situation (Beveridge et al. 2005: 705). In this case, the university consultants were the outsiders who challenged the facilitators to rethink their practices.



Facilitating the facilitators

143

Support from site visits While they acknowledged the power of the workshops and conferences to inspire school staff, facilitators found their own visits to schools were a critical support factor for their work in the change process. These visits gave them the chance to respond to individual teachers and school leaders, while at the same time strengthening networks across schools. The visits also provided facilitators with information about the progress of the project at each school so they could provide specific resources to assist individual participants. Facilitators began to appreciate the value of listening to teachers. One explained that: We listen to the teachers and the principals about what they want and sometimes that takes us out of our comfort zone. But it’s an important part of the process too. We’re encouraging teachers to know each student in their classroom, to understand the context that their family life brings, all the things that impact on them as a learner. Well, the teachers are the learners as well and we have to listen to what they’re saying. That’s a challenge, but we’re committed to doing that. One facilitator explained that the positive responses she received from teachers motivated her to continue her visits. She said: ‘I think the enthusiasm of the teachers and the work they’re doing keeps me going. Some I’m not so impressed with and I think, “What have we done wrong there? Why aren’t they asking a deeper question?” But others have flown with it and it is amazing what they’ve done and that really inspires me to keep going.’ These personal relationships with teachers provided a great deal of professional pleasure for the facilitators. It gave them an opportunity to move beyond the relatively impersonal regional meetings and see the benefits of school-level support.

The nature of the Early Years Project There were particular features of the project itself that facilitators found to be exciting and mind-stretching for them. They needed to be able to help teachers work through the cyclic processes of practitioner inquiry, and at the same time be able to offer practical advice related to the focus of study for each individual. Therefore a visit to a school might include working with the kindergarten teacher on a social skills programme, chatting with the Year 2 teacher about organizing reading groups and responding to the deputy principal’s concerns about budget costs. Facilitators found that they had to be able to respond to school staff in an authentic and relevant way. ‘Sometimes just being a support for them, just to hear their frustrations – not get involved in it at all, but redirect them and help them come up with their own solutions. I think that was very helpful for a lot of schools.’

144

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

In addition, the flexible characteristics of practitioner inquiry enabled the facilitators to empower teachers through exploring their ideas and responding to them as individuals. They appreciated the contributions teachers made, and enjoyed the challenge of supporting teachers in their self-directed learning. The use of practitioner inquiry enabled teachers to identify their own focus for professional learning and the CEO facilitators gave them the tools to pursue their personal goals. It also led to a move away from the notion of ‘expert’ towards an acceptance of valuing ‘different contributions and complementary roles’ (McLaughlin and BlackHawkins 2004: 277). ‘Yes’ commented one facilitator: ‘I need to able to let go and say that I’m going to open my mind to new ideas with this project.’ Similarly, some school leaders showed increasing trust in the professional capabilities of their staff. One facilitator said the teachers responded positively when the principals encouraged them to change their regular practices. ‘It’s a school leader who is open to new ideas and perhaps being a bit of a risk taker and saying “I trust you as a teacher to go ahead”. That’s been really beneficial for the teachers because they have been given the green light to trial different things.’ The facilitators also recognized that the in-school support received by teachers and principals was a contributing factor for teacher engagement in the Early Years Project. ‘I think working at the school level is probably one of the most powerful professional development things you can do when it’s localized – your school, your needs, your kids.’ Capacity building at the individual and school level is important for sustainable change, and ongoing implementation support at the school level is one of the key variables for supporting the development of change capacity (Hopkins et al. 2011). ‘Building capacity essentially involves building relationships, building trust and building community’ (2011: 19). The facilitators were able to build reciprocal relationships with teachers and school-based change leaders through providing personal support for participants; they built trust over time by sustaining relationships based on respect and honesty; and they began to build a sense of community through the networking opportunities provided for participants.

Networking opportunities Facilitators identified the networking opportunities provided by the project events as a key feature that engaged participants. For example, the annual ‘start-up’ conference held at the beginning of each year gave teachers a great sense of excitement as they came together to learn about the project and gain inspiration and information from carefully chosen key speakers. It was seen ‘as a highlight’, ‘full of promise and participants could be part of something exciting’. One facilitator explained that ‘you get this great sense of excitement because you’re all talking and thinking about the same thing



Facilitating the facilitators

145

and I think that energy and that enthusiasm takes people back into their schools and it keeps bubbling along’. The regular regional meetings also provided networking opportunities. ‘I think the regional meetings were really important because people could get outside their schools and hear what others were doing. Teachers across schools and across the grades could get together and discuss their inquiry project.’ Sometimes facilitators were able to organize visits to other schools where staff might be exploring a similar question. For example, one said: ‘quite a few teachers told me that they really appreciated the opportunity to network with other teachers. Whether it was attending the regional meetings or visiting other schools, it was a highlight for them. Putting them in contact with people really worked well.’ Duffy (2006: 41) describes how school districts [or regions] can be seen as ‘rich networks of interrelationships and interdependencies’; this characteristic became more evident as the Early Years Project continued and then moved up a level to include relationships across the regions in the Learning Hubs.

Changes in professional practice This ‘lateral capacity building’ (Levin and Fullan 2008: 296) meant that facilitators and schools were learning from each other and, as a result, facilitators were able to reflect on their professional learning from the project. One facilitator explained that ‘understanding the inquiry approach and the use of provocations with teachers in schools has been a powerful learning experience for me. The professional dialogue both with teachers and CEO colleagues has both challenged my thinking and stimulated my interest. Hence my approach in collaborative planning and learning with teachers has improved.’ This influence on the professional practices of the facilitators was reflected by another who said that she had learned to ‘engage more purposefully as a critical friend in the area of early learning pedagogy’. She felt that she gained confidence in the key concepts of early years learning. She noted that ‘I have become insatiable in my reading about early years education. My dollars burn as I scour internet book shops for more literature.’ Personal experiences with the use of practitioner inquiry cycles also changed the professional practice of some facilitators as they began to use it in other aspects of their roles. One described how she was ‘contemplating using this approach for another teacher professional development initiative’. Another said ‘I have already begun to share this process with the rest of my regional team of advisers and consultants.’ It was evident that some of the facilitators who were guiding school staff through a process of change were also going through a process of change themselves. Rust and Freidus (2001: 10) note that facilitators may be pushed ‘into a state of disequilibrium’ and they also ‘need time and support … on an ongoing basis’. Adelman and Taylor (2007) echo

146

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

this concern for facilitator support and note that while there is emphasis on teacher professional growth, the facilitators should not be forgotten. In this project, regular meetings with the university consultants provided the support to enable facilitators to take up the challenge of nurturing change through practitioner inquiry. More recently, the affordances of new technologies (Cochran-Smith and Lytle 2009) have encouraged facilitators to support online learning platforms where teachers can communicate across schools and regions to share classroom practices and learn from one another.

Conclusion As ‘teams of champions’ (Adelman and Taylor 2007), the facilitators carried major responsibility for ensuring the effectiveness of the Early Years Project. It became apparent that their positive responses to the challenges of delivering support at school and regional level led to sustained professional learning opportunities for all participants. The CEO facilitators were encouraged by the university consultants to explore how they might do things differently and to try new ideas in practice. As ‘facilitators of the facilitators’ for this project, the university consultants found that these highly skilled professionals respected the professional knowledge of participants and worked with them to progress through cycles of practitioner inquiry. The shifts in thinking experienced by the facilitators were recognized in their comments about changes to their own professional practice. In this particular example of university collaboration, the relationship changed over time. Initially, it was quite structured. One facilitator noted that in the early days, ‘we hung on everything said by colleagues from the university’. Then as the facilitators became more confident, the university consultants were able to step back from direct involvement and took on a role described as ‘critical friends who ask the hard questions’. Now, although no longer engaged in the day-to-day decision-making about change infrastructure, the university consultants have maintained contact with the Catholic Education Office as progress continues. While some facilitators have moved to other positions, the project still continues to engage practitioners in improving their professional practices. Credit for this situation can be given to the models of facilitation used in this systemic development of practitioner inquiry, along with the valuable contribution made by the facilitators in their reshaping and reimagining of the early years of school.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

A system change process: Practitioner inquiry as a social practice Kate O’Brien

Introduction The Catholic Education Office (CEO) Sydney is responsible for 111 primary schools and 39 secondary schools, spread across three regional areas within the greater Sydney metropolitan area. The central office of the CEO is responsible for the development of policies, programmes, models of practice and resources necessary to meet the contemporary and diverse learning needs of all students and school communities. As a system of schools, the Archdiocese of Sydney is committed to a shared vision of continuous whole-of-school improvement, promoting a culture of evidence-based reflective practice for staff, students and the wider community. Conversations about the changing government policy in early childhood, the very nature of pedagogical practice required in education systems in the twenty-first century and a real desire to authentically engage students in the learning process, led to a journey towards a vision for change. In 2007, the CEO Early Learning Advisory Committee began to develop a position paper outlining the vision of early learning in the Archdiocese of Sydney. At the same time, the Australian government began the development of the first national early years curriculum guide for very young children. Known as Belonging, Being and Becoming – The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia (Australian Government Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), 2009), this document aimed to ‘extend and enrich children’s learning from birth to five years’ (2009: 5). The development of this document influenced the CEO’s

148

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

direction in the kindergarten to Year 2 classrooms (children aged five years to eight years old) as we attempted to ensure a seamless transition from prior-to-school to formal school experiences. The CEO Early Learning Advisory Committee represented each of three regional offices and their cluster of schools (up to forty primary schools), the central office, parents, teachers and principals. It was important that this committee represented the stakeholders in the early years learning community as these people would provide the influence required for the position paper to be brought alive through the realities within the learning environment. A project was designed (see Chapter 4) using the position paper as the provocation to reflect on, and align, classroom practice. What was important from the Advisory Committee’s perspective was that any project design needed participants to develop a shared understanding of the purpose and expectations of early learning and of the methodologies used during implementation of the project. There was tremendous excitement from the CEO central office personnel to drive a project that was significantly different to any other type of professional learning offered across the system of schools. It was at this stage of the project development that the CEO engaged staff from the Institute of Early Childhood (IEC) at Macquarie University to guide the project and to provide the expertise in early childhood pedagogy. An Early Years Project Planning Committee was formed which included members of the IEC, the CEO central office and representatives from the three regional offices. This partnership with the university staff grew over a seven-year period from that of a collaborative relationship to that of critical friends as the CEO took more responsibility for the running of the project.

The Early Years Project The project in each participating school included the principal as well as a classroom practitioner in kindergarten, Year 1 and Year 2 (the first three years of formal schooling). This small team were expected to become drivers for pedagogical change across the school. Transforming an organization, such as a school, requires clearly articulated aspirations, as well as the ability to generate energy and new ideas (Isern and Pung 2007). The Early Years Project was centred on the following processes: MM

collaboration as evidenced through professional learning communities

MM

inquiry and evidence-based practice, as evidenced through the process of practitioner inquiry



A system change process

149

MM

coaching and mentoring, as evidenced through collaborative school teams and Learning Hubs

MM

feedback and goal setting as evidenced in teacher professional performance goal setting.

Teachers and leaders grew as professionals through engagement in these processes.

A conceptual framework The development of teachers as learners requires specific, skilled, professional discourse supporting the growth of expert professionals who can deliver authentic learning to all students. Contemporary leadership practices are essential to develop a culture of leading and learning; this requires a commitment to supporting teachers in the day-to-day practices of learning and refining their craft. Figure 11.1 is a conceptual framework that captures the essence of the Early Years Project and the impact of teachers and leaders engaging with the practitioner inquiry process. The elements of the conceptual framework will be investigated in this chapter.

FIGURE 11.1  Conceptual framework for the Early Years Project.

150

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

A vision of leading and learning It was essential for the success of the Early Years Project that all stakeholders understood and shared the vision for leading and learning within project parameters. The vision of leading and learning needed to be experienced and to be visible in the relationships teachers and leaders had in and beyond the learning community. This collaborative practice was not just about pedagogy, but also about the shared moral purpose of the community. Understanding reflective practice, and in this instance using practitioner inquiry methodology, required a whole school approach to understand how children learn, and how the theory and practice together inform our pedagogy and the decisions that are made to ensure authentic learning experiences. The Early Years Project began by developing a deepening understanding of authentic learning; by this we meant learning that is relevant, purposeful and engaging where students are viewed as capable human beings with a thirst for knowledge and experience. The processes that enabled a deep understanding of the roles and responsibilities of learners and leaders about authentic learning were experienced through collaborative practice, practitioner inquiry and a pedagogy that grew from reflection in and on action. The growth in teacher and leader understanding of learning led to shared decision-making on whole-of-school practices to engage students in rigorous and fulfilling curriculum experiences.

Relationships As shown in the conceptual framework (Figure 11.1), relationships encircle the key elements of the change process as revealed by the Early Years Project. Fullan (2008: 25) explained that in any change process the system needs to create the conditions for employees to succeed; this includes how leaders help teachers to ‘find meaning, increased skill development, and personal satisfaction in making contributions that simultaneously fulfil their own goals and the goals of the organization’. It was important, therefore, that CEO central office members of the Project Planning Committee engaged in practitioner inquiry processes to develop relational trust. This contributed to an increased level of credibility, commitment and authenticity for the Project Planning Committee as everyone had a lived experience of the inquiry process, including the documentation of data and formation of theories. This meant that educational leaders could appropriately respond to teachers’ questions and frustrations, and an element of empathy was clearly evident. When these components were in place, the relational trust developed amongst staff and greater collaboration ensued.



A system change process

151

The inquiry being investigated by some Project Planning Committee members focused on understanding why some schools stayed in the project and others withdrew, which in itself impacted on relationships. As the system represented three different geographical regions, it was fair to say that there could possibly be three different contributing answers to any one question. In fact, for one region, the question was more aligned to why they were not joining the project. When leaders were asked why they had decided not to continue with the project, responses usually provided surface answers such as ‘it’s not meeting our needs’, or ‘we are beyond that in our practice’. Further investigation found that some teachers and school principals in the project were not able to find meaning and personal satisfaction in their provocation for change, as seen through their questions of inquiry. In some instances, teachers were not able to choose their own question of inquiry; rather, the principal decided the question. This obviously did not support teachers to fulfil their personal learning goals but rather those goals were imposed on them. This lack of autonomy resulted in a negative impact on relationships. Teachers became disheartened with the process and unmotivated to continue to find the data that answered the inquiry (see Chapter 6). Sachs (2003), who has written extensively on school-based research, believes that this issue stands at the centre of many successful or unsuccessful research attempts. She states that, ‘if the research questions are designed by outsiders, … then the research outcomes often have little effect on the classroom practices of teachers and the learning outcomes of students in schools’ (2003: 83–4). From a project design perspective, this issue was influencing the success of the project. Clearly, the practitioner inquiry methodology required deeper understanding by participants. The value of teachers owning their learning through their personal research questions needed to be acknowledged and promoted more widely. An environment of high relational trust is required in order for teachers to be risk-takers and to modify their classroom practices. Some schools left the project due to a disconnection between their understanding of the vision for the early learner and the reality in the classroom and school, often evidenced in low levels of relational trust. School organizational structures needed to enable and support the process of practitioner inquiry and the changes evident in the learning environment. Creating the conditions for authentic learning within the school as expressed in the CEO Early Learner position paper (Catholic Education Office, Sydney 2010) required principals and teachers to do things differently and to share in the decisions that impacted on changes initiatives.

152

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

Practitioner inquiry The process of practitioner inquiry is one of the key elements nestled within relationships in the conceptual framework. The Early Years Project was designed to continue the focus on whole-of-school improvement where teachers worked collaboratively to investigate effective practices. They learnt to gather and use data from their learning environment to inform their practice, and establish where they were at one point of time and where they would like to be in the future. As Malaguzzi (1998: 82) said, ‘stand aside for a while and leave room for learning, observe carefully what children would do, and then, if you have understood well, perhaps teaching will be different from before’. The methodology used for this practice was practitioner inquiry which is designed for practitioners to ask questions, to reflect on their practice, and to go deeper into the reality of the school day and the moment of learning. Practitioner inquiry is described by Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009) as the way professionals move beyond the well-rehearsed ‘reflective practices’ of good classroom teaching to adopt a more focused, critically informed questioning approach to their professional practice and student learning. As Groundwater-Smith and Mockler (2006: 107) note: ‘those involved in practitioner inquiry are bound to engage with both “theoretical” and “practical” knowledge, moving seamlessly between the two’. The process of practitioner inquiry can be seen in the definition of reflection-in-action described by Schön (1983) which involves practitioners looking to their experiences, connecting with their feelings, and attending to their theories in use. It involves creating new understandings to inform actions in the situation that is developing. Schön (1983: 68) explained that the ‘practitioner allows himself [sic] to experience surprise, puzzlement, or confusion in a situation which he finds uncertain or unique. He reflects on the phenomenon before him, and on the prior understandings which have been implicit in his behaviour. He carries out an experiment which serves to generate both a new understanding of the phenomenon and a change in the situation.’ The processes of practitioner inquiry established the foundations for developing a culture of reflective practice in our schools. The extent of reflective practice, however, was influenced strongly by the actions of the school leaders. Duignan (2002) argues that leaders must influence ‘self’ through the habit of reflective practice and the desire for self-improvement. A fundamental point here is that for leaders to influence others, they have to be capable and credible as individuals and as professionals. The journey of the Early Years Project provided the Project Planning Committee with a deeper and more extensive understanding of this concept as it created both the opportunity and the challenge to address concerns of pedagogy in the early years learning environment. The design of the Early Years Project reiterated the expectation that all students are capable of improvement as long as the conditions and the



A system change process

153

resources are there to support them; that the learning environment should provide rich and engaging opportunities; that teachers should collaborate as team members, especially in developing understandings related to best practice and the current expectations of the curriculum. This was enabled through the commitment of leadership teams who would be the ‘leading learners’ of their school (Robinson 2007: 16). From a system perspective, the aim was to enhance the role of the principal as instructional leader in order to improve student learning outcomes by focusing on learning that is authentic, ‘learning that enables learners to encounter the meanings embedded in the curriculum about the natural, social and cultural worlds they inhabit, and at the same time, find themselves in and through those very encounters’ (Starratt 2007: 165). This was highlighted in the CEO Early Learner position paper which states that: Research by Bronfenbrenner (2005) on human development emphasizes the importance of providing early learners with multiple experiences of familiar settings in relation to their family and home, school, community and society. Positive interactions amongst these different environments are key to a child’s development. The early years are an opportune time where primary educators take an active role in the young learner’s construction and acquisition of learning and understanding. This is a time when school communities are able to carefully nurture and guide the child’s intellectual, emotional, physical, social, spiritual and moral potential. (CEO Sydney 2010: inside cover) School improvement literature consistently emphasizes that although effective leaders indirectly exercise influence on the capacity of schools to improve student learning outcomes, this influence does not necessarily derive from senior managers, but can be attributed partly to the strengths of middle leaders and teachers (Leithwood, Jantzi and Steinbach 1999). While it is the quality of classroom teaching that most strongly influences levels of pupil motivation and achievement, it has been demonstrated that it is the quality of leadership that determines the motivation of teachers and the quality of teaching in the classroom (Reeves 2008; Sergiovanni 1999). Data from Reeves’ (2008) studies suggest that where there is a high degree of teacher and leadership efficacy, the gains in student achievement are up to more than three times greater. There was an acknowledgement in the Early Years Project that teachers needed to experience deep engagement with the intrinsic satisfaction of their work, not only with the students, but also with each other and colleagues in designated leadership positions (Beatty 2007). This focus on the learning relationship between colleagues and leaders became one of the most creative tensions for the Project Planning Committee and influenced the levels and depth of dialogue necessary for meaningful collaborative

154

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

practice. Collaborative practice does not just happen on its own; it requires a commitment from the school community to fully engage in a structured and systematic way with a clear focus on the learning agenda.

Improving pedagogy Another element embraced by relationships in the conceptual framework is the focus on improving pedagogy. Starratt (2004: 55) states that an educational leader ‘is responsible for cultivating a caring and productive learning environment within the school for all students’, and concurs with Bonnet and Cuypers (2003) that the educational leader has a responsibility for devising learning activities that connect authenticity in learning with responsibility for the content students are learning. While teachers are responsible for the quality of their pedagogy, educational leaders are also responsible for ensuring quality teaching by all teachers. The Early Years Project aimed to connect the mission and vision of being Catholic with the transformation of learning. Transformation is described as teachers sowing the seeds for the future, where the learner becomes a fuller, richer, deeper human being and schools are places where students gain the knowledge, skills and attitudes to critically engage with society as they become effective global citizens. The project provided a framework for teachers to share their knowledge, skills and attitudes with each other. Practitioner inquiry enabled participants to see the value of collaboration in the interactions between teachers and leaders. This aspect of transparently sharing practices required support and encouragement as it provided practitioners with both challenges and possibilities. As the Early Years Project was evaluated each year, it became clearer that teachers needed to openly share those practices that worked in their learning environment. This sharing enabled teachers to critically reflect on their practice and to build on their ideas from the insights of others. Positive peer interaction assisted in breaking down the silos that are often created when teachers work alone in classrooms; however, this needed leaders in schools to ‘provide the direction, to create the conditions for effective peer interaction, and intervene along the way when things were not working as well as they could’ (Fullan 2008: 49). When teachers collaborate with a shared moral purpose, they build their capacity to engage in a critical discourse focused on results. They learn the language of non-judgmentalism, which Fullan (2008) believes is the secret of change. Building teachers’ confidence to share their knowledge about what works was a tremendous challenge in the Early Years Project and one of the most rewarding. In encouraging practitioners to focus on the children’s learning, it was important that classroom instruction became the core of inquiry and that clear documentation was used to determine areas of students’ strengths and



A system change process

155

weakness. Here, we were focused on improving classroom instruction and validating those processes that created a more precise data-driven strategy responding to the learning needs of individual students. This required practitioners to develop highly personalized classroom programmes and to document the children’s learning. Whilst as a system of schools the Early Years Project supported the day-to-day transformation of learning for students, the project proved extremely effective for refining and focusing the target of inquiry on student learning outcomes in reading and mathematics. A key component of the change process here was the shared decision-making that grew from the evidence-based practice in reading and mathematics. School leaders were able to use the data collected by teachers and themselves to open up conversations about what the data was highlighting in students’ ability in literacy and numeracy. This often led to further and deeper conversations about shared practice at the whole-school level.

A shared understanding of authentic learning A major turning point in the Early Years Project illustrates another element of the conceptual framework. Three years into the project’s implementation a decision was made by the system-wide Early Years Advisory Committee to focus questions of inquiry in the areas of literacy and numeracy. At this stage, assumptions were being made about the pedagogy of reading and mathematics. These assumptions reinforced the need to address these key areas in a manner where children could seek meaning and connections through sustained authentic learning experiences. A dilemma was created, however, where schools felt the external pressures of system administrators and leaders who appeared not to fully understand the project’s desired outcomes. This pressure impacted on decision-making at the school level which, in turn, impacted on learning environments. Some schools began abandoning newly created learning environments where students were able to make meaningful connections with life experiences and prior learning through inquiry. These classrooms often appeared less structured, and were more creative and child-centred, but some schools felt the need to return to traditional models of pedagogy and the formal structure of schedules and subject isolation. This seemed unfathomable and incomprehensible to members of both the Early Years Advisory Committee and the Project Planning Committee. However, this was the reality; there was tension between two approaches. One approach was the creation of a learning environment considered to be the third teacher (Gandini 2011), where students had a voice and choice in their learning pathway, areas of investigation were created to entice the imagination, resources were provided for children to build and discover their own theories of learning, and learning

156

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

the skills (e.g. reading) was still necessary to fully engage in purposeful, meaningful and fulfilling experiences. The second approach was to return to a more traditional formal setting where students were placed in groups according to teacher decisions and provided with ‘busy work’ at their desks, and withdrawn for guided reading sessions. It became apparent to the Project Planning Committee that many schools were succumbing to external pressures and the responsibility of ensuring that all students covered the curriculum in a formal manner. These pressures were often related to incorrect assumptions about what the system required. However, where collaborative practices were firmly established in some schools, there was evidence of strong relational trust between the leaders and the teachers. This meant that rigorous debate about learning remained the focus of the decision-making. Starratt (2004: 64) argues that ‘without a broad vision of what authentic learning is, administrators cannot lead, nor can they muster the moral passion needed to engage the school community in the arduous yet exhilarating work of making authentic learning a reality’. The question of how we maintained our focus on this became a priority. The sharing of practice through the Learning Hubs (see Chapter 4) addressed some of these concerns, as did the annual end-of-year celebrations where leaders and teachers shared the evidence of change through their experiences with the practitioner inquiry process. One teacher, in sharing her learning, recalled the experience of engaging in practitioner research: ‘I have collected data, researched and [have] written a transition programme for next year all due to the knowledge, understanding, skills and confidence I gained through the practitioner inquiry process.’ This collaborative practice of sharing their learnings assisted teachers in developing skills of reflection, inquiry and discussion and increased their confidence to discuss their pedagogy. It was strong evidence that teachers were taking responsibility for their own learning in a manner that was relevant and meaningful to them, which was both exhausting and exhilarating. Central to collaborative practice was the relational trust being developed through the authentic support of the leaders in the school. Because the leaders were also engaging in the process of practitioner inquiry, they fully understood the need to discuss and analyse the data with others.

Collaborative practice The final element embedded in relationships in the conceptual framework refers to collaborative practice. This involves a genuinely open system, the sharing of knowledge and the empowerment of teachers by the principal. It is the process of working side by side with colleagues towards the common mission of the school. It requires a leader who believes in the processes of collaborative practice and who is prepared to empower others with the



A system change process

157

skills of collaboration. Fundamentally, the collaborative processes espoused in the project impacted on every member of the school community. Essentially, the aim was for principals and teachers to work collaboratively to achieve a deep understanding of the inquiry process in establishing professional learning goals that explicitly related to student learning. In addition, the opportunity to share provocations and engage in ‘purposeful peer interaction’ (Fullan 2008: 45) also supported the view of CEO central office staff that a degree of cohesion and focus can be achieved when school leadership teams and teams of teachers work together to improve student learning outcomes. Fullan (2008: 45) argues that ‘positive purposeful peer interaction’ works effectively when three conditions are in place. These are (i) when the larger values of the organization and those of individuals and groups mesh; (ii) when information and knowledge about effective practices are widely and openly shared; and (iii) when monitoring mechanisms are in place to detect and address ineffective practices. At the beginning of each year a conference was held for all participants in the Early Years Project. This was a major gathering for all participants where the purpose of the Early Years Project was clearly defined and linked to the mission and vision of CEO Sydney. A compelling reason for starting the project with a major conference was to assist teachers and leaders to connect personally to the curriculum and to deepen their understanding of the developmental needs of the early learner. Presentations at the conference acknowledged the early learner as a spiritual being, with a natural capacity for curiosity, imagination and wonder, created in God’s image and likeness and that all of God’s creation is essentially good. We ultimately believe this as a faithbased organization and we therefore have a responsibility to ensure that our learning environment is also supportive of nurturing young children’s sense of wonder (attentive observation) which draws them to both contemplation and activity as a part of their growth and development. As a system of Catholic schools, we are committed to facilitating the development of the whole person, and to do this in a way that is challenging and engaging. In essence, these conferences were attending to Fullan’s (2008) concept of connecting peers with purpose, when the larger values of the organization and those of individuals and groups mesh, which is an essential component of any change process.

Shared decision-making Although it sits outside the embrace of relationships, shared decision-making is a natural outcome of the key elements in the conceptual framework. The Early Years Project always envisaged schools where leaders and teachers shared the decision-making and this in turn impacted on the development

158

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

of shared leadership and authentic learning. Data collected through the project and, in particular, through the practitioner inquiry process, alluded to changes in the culture of schools, from being tentatively relational and hierarchical, to being strongly relational and inclusive, with shared leadership and shared decision-making processes firmly in place. The opportunity to engage in professional dialogue with colleagues raised expectations about learning, clarified values, challenged assumptions and developed feelings of collegiality, while at the same time providing opportunities for shared decision-making about learning. Duignan (2006: 107) believes that shared leadership is ‘a product of the ongoing processes of interaction and negotiation amongst all school members as they construct and reconstruct a reality of working productively and compassionately together each day’. He views leadership as the ‘shared communal phenomenon derived from the interactions and relationships of groups’ (2006: 107). Participation in the Early Years Project provided an opportunity to change practices of how decisions were made in the school, shifting from often being isolated and disconnected to collaborative and inclusive. This resulted in a strong sense of shared responsibility and an increase in teacher status.

The Early Years Project and leadership As has become evident in this chapter, a key component of the Early Years Project focused on encouraging leaders to be actively engaged in the transformation of learning in the schools. Robinson’s (2007) research on school leadership and student outcomes, Identifying What Works and Why, supported the significance of leadership participation in the Early Years Project. He found that school leaders who promote and participate in teacher learning and development have an educationally significant impact on student outcomes (for example, see Chapter 5). On the reverse side of this coin, teachers in the Early Years Project who didn’t have the commitment of school leadership teams tended to revert to a familiar style of teaching. Understandably, they tended to reintroduce comfortable and proven traditional practices rather than face the challenges of change without school leadership support. As the project progressed, misconceptions also appeared about appropriate pedagogy for the early years learning environment and the nature of explicit teaching. Assumptions were made about how children learn to read and about the teaching of mathematics. This tension was linked to understanding the CEO Early Learner position paper (CEO Sydney 2010) as a statement of pedagogical approaches suitable to a specific stage of learning development, rather than being a paper describing how literacy and numeracy were to be taught. Pressure points were also coming from leading administrators in the CEO to attend to explicit teaching in a more



A system change process

159

formal manner through the Early Years Project. Indeed the CEO Early Learner position paper clearly states the ‘early learner has innate capabilities that are expressed in an environment where there is explicit teaching’ (2010). In Australia, the education sector was experiencing tremendous pressure on funding and this also created uncertainty for the future of the project which was funded on a year-by-year basis. The Project Planning Committee began to more fully appreciate the need to actively engage with system leaders across the three regions to explain the Early Years Project and highlight the embedded high expectations of student learning. There appeared to be a gap in knowledge and understanding of the theory espoused in the Early Learner position paper and the practice expected at the classroom level. The results of standardized reading tests were questioned and principals felt the need to conform to the gentle pressure of system administrators. The Early Years Advisory Committee also felt this pressure and further engaged with the IEC as critical friends to stay focused on the project deliverables. Even the newly developed national government policy of the Early Years Learning Framework for Australia was incongruent with government policy in the later years of schooling. The impact of government policy on curriculum, standards and targets, monitoring, assessment and reporting often meant that teachers and leaders were challenged to maintain a balance between supporting the full humanity of the individual in an authentic way and meeting the perceived external expectations and requirements from stakeholders (Fink 2005; Starratt 2007). School leaders are often placed in a paradoxical position in their decision-making, as they try to support authentic learning in their schools in the midst of pressures from administrators to maintain the status quo. The Early Years Project required a leap of faith to stay focused on the student as the learner, as well as delivering an academically-sound learning experience that built on the child’s life experiences, with active involvement of parents, caregivers and significant others in the learning process. Duignan (2006) states that the kind of change and improvement required to deliver desirable student learning outcomes through the transformation of the learning process needs shared moral purpose. It is not enough to have a broad aspiration for shared moral purpose. There needs to be clarity and detail in the way that such moral purpose is understood, and in particular about the values that underpin it (Bezzina 2007). This was an area that the Project Planning Committee needed to readdress. It became imperative to continuously revisit the CEO’s vision for the early learner and the position paper that outlined what this might look like in practice. Members of the system-wide Early Years Advisory Committee needed to speak out and support the vision at every opportunity. It required a strategic approach to ensure staff at all levels of CEO administration understood the vision and appreciated the examples of improved practice that were a result of practitioner inquiry. Whilst Fullan (2003: 41) emphasizes that the ‘moral

160

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

imperative of the principal includes leading a deep cultural change that mobilizes the passion and commitment of teachers, parents, and others’, the Project Planning Committee needed administrative leaders at all levels of the CEO to commit to leading this deep cultural change.

Conclusion The Early Years Project provided many lessons for the system; these have led to a more cohesive approach to professional learning across the 150 primary and secondary schools in the Archdiocese of Sydney. The most important change has been an increased appreciation of the power of professional learning focused on the students and their development and situated within the school context. Our experiences reinforced the suggestion that our education system was in need of a more constructivist approach for both teachers and students (Brooks and Brooks 1993). The Early Years Project took up the challenge to design professional development for educators that recognized learning as a process of making sense of information and experiences in the school context. Indeed Hord and Sommers (2008) would say that knowledge is most fruitful in a social context, and our experience with the Early Years Project reinforced this key point for CEO system leaders. The complexities of engaging in the discourse of pedagogical practice while implementing practitioner inquiry processes and sharing new insights proved one of the most complex components within the execution of the Early Years Project. System projects of the future will be based on in-school professional learning accompanied by an action research component. The inquiry process will be owned by practitioners at all levels of the organization and will be linked to system and school goals for improvement. It is essential that school principals and other leaders have the same experiences of research in teacher inquiry as teachers in the classroom. The real learning in this project came through the social discourse where understandings were deepened and practices changed as understandings grew.

CHAPTER TWELVE

Professional learning through practitioner inquiry: Springboarding the future It’s not surprising that interest in practitioner inquiry has been growing alongside an increasing complexification of educational endeavours. In their reflections on three waves of change that have moved through eras of state support and market competition, Hargreaves and Shirley (2009: x) looked at prosperous democracies that are ‘successful knowledge societies’, and proposed a ‘fourth way’ to approach educational and social change, one which might support deep ‘transformations in the quality of teaching and learning that can produce higher-order thinking skills and develop deeper virtues and values’ (2009: xii). These noble goals are approached through a professionalism which values ‘high quality teachers, positive and powerful professional associations, and lively learning communities’ (2009: 88). These characteristics coalesce in ways that resonate with those of practitioner inquiry: ‘When teachers have structured opportunities to explore the nitty-gritty challenges of their practice through thoughtful exchanges with colleagues and in relation to relevant research, they rediscover the passion for learning and their own personal and professional growth that brought them into teaching in the first place’ (2009: 93). In considering a similar educational landscape, Groundwater-Smith and Campbell (2010: 200) noted that: Professional learning for too long has been the province of those charged with the ‘professional development of teachers’. The practice supposes that there is a body of knowledge and a contingent of those who ‘know’ that can be visited upon teachers in order to develop them into more effective practitioners. It is a process whereby an agenda is pressed upon teachers, rather than one in which they themselves have a degree of agency. Countering this approach is the contextual inquiry process as described in this book, a process that acknowledges the socially situated nature

162

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

of learning (White 2010). In a related review of issues and professional learning approaches in the early childhood sector, Nuttall and Edwards (2009) explored multiple topics including history, politics, ethics, relationships and professionalism. In their conclusion, they noted that: If researchers in early childhood education are to better understand the learning of children, families, students of early childhood teacher education, and, indeed, of early childhood academics themselves, there need to be more ‘voices from the field’ fore-grounded in discourses of continuing professional learning. There are many aspects of how adults learn in early childhood education that remain poorly understood, despite the willingness of practitioners to share their perspectives. (Nuttall and Edwards 2009: 136) These exhortations provide an opportunity to bring a consideration of methodology around to the use of narrative as a professional learning vehicle when embedded in teachers’ work as professional research. This is the tack taken by Bold (2012) in her conclusions around reporting research grounded in narrative methodologies. She incorporates the work of Heikkinen, Huttunen and Syrjӓlӓ (2007) in a consideration of the strength surrounding practitioner research (under the umbrella of the ‘validity’ of action research), noting that some authors portray practitioner approaches to research as ‘soft’, as less rigorous or intellectually defensible than more traditional approaches to research and measurement. It is important to acknowledge these concerns, while not being defensive about the benefits of approaches such as practitioner inquiry, but also not ignoring that the label can be used for work which may be hasty, ill-conceived or superficial. In addressing these concerns from Bold’s perspective of action research, the principles against which practitioner inquiry can be considered are: 1 the principle of historical continuity: action research is part of a

2 3

4

5

historical evolution and recognises the previous events leading to a current position the principle of reflexivity: the researcher is aware of how reality is being represented within the narrative texts produced the principle of dialectics: truth is constructed through interaction, the credibility of the research, how well others’ voices are represented the principle of workability: the action research gives rise to change within the researchers and their processes or within the context and other participants the principle of evocativeness: the research demonstrates the ability to awake and provoke new thinking. (Bold 2012: 175)



Professional learning through practitioner inquiry

163

From this perspective, ‘validity’ is considered in terms of relevance and authenticity, of ‘field validity’, that is, that the work is clearly situated in its context as recognized by participants and accepted as worthwhile. These principles will be revisited subsequently against the backdrop of an illustrative example to help elucidate possibilities for establishing strength of process in practitioner inquiry initiatives. This book is an effort to help address an imbalance in writings about professional learning by including a wide variety of vignettes and case studies that foreground the voices and perspectives of people central to learning initiatives. To further that endeavour, this chapter will firstly contextualize and then build on an extended case study by a ‘willing practitioner’, a university-qualified early childhood teacher who ‘put her hand up’ to participate in a series of professional learning circles on the roles, responsibilities and strategies that might be employed by an educational leader in an Australian children’s service. The role of ‘educational leader’ had become enshrined in the politics of Australian practice under the umbrella of the National Quality Framework that was initiated by a Rudd Labor government in 2009 and maintained by subsequent Federal governments as a productive and useful way to help work towards quality practice in early childhood settings. The position was described in terms of one requirement in Element 7 (Leadership and Service management) of the National Quality Standard (Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority – ACECQA 2011) as follows: ‘provision is made to ensure a suitably qualified and experienced educator or co-ordinator leads the development of the curriculum and ensures the establishment of clear goals and expectations for teaching and learning’ (Element 7.1.4). This can translate as each service having an educational leader with responsibility for provision of curriculum direction and ensuring that children in the setting achieve the outcomes of the approved learning framework. While highly commendable, this directive caused considerable unrest in a sector anxious about regulation and accountability (see Fleet et al. 2015). Many sites were poorly prepared for this development, although the sector had been requesting a similar recognition of pedagogical leadership for some time. As sites began to introduce this role, inexperienced people were finding themselves with more responsibility than they had expected, working with adults rather than with children, in a shifting political context. Such a landscape is an ideal setting for practitioner inquiry initiatives as it addresses an area of genuine concern, can be owned by the people most affected by the change, and has structural capacity to empower participants to achieve both pedagogical and leadership goals. Groundwater-Smith and Campbell (2010: 201) remind us that ‘professional agency lies at the heart of the various forms of practitioner inquiry … Partly the issue of teacher agency rests upon the nature of the relationship between teachers as practitioner researchers and those who may support

164

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

them’. In this case, the support was offered by a regional professional development group (known as the Australian Capital Territory Professional Support Coordination unit – ACT PSC), who employed trusted, familiar outside facilitators to offer a practitioner inquiry-based project to assist in the growth of local educational leaders. The following narrative will be told in the context of key elements of the practitioner inquiry framework and explained through one educator’s experience. This change thinker’s growth as an educational leader is threaded throughout the explanation although, for this purpose, the focus is on scaffolding practitioner inquiry as a change vehicle, rather than an exploration of the role of the educational leader. At the time of this study, Kylie Buckley, a university qualified early childhood teacher, was employed as a preschool teacher in a workplace childcare centre, and was also in the position of the nominated educational leader. The Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) Caretaker’s Cottage Childcare Centre is a forty-eight-place site in Canberra, an employersponsored service providing education and care to children of employees of the Australian Sports Commission, an Australian government agency that develops, supports and invests in sport at all levels. Set in native bushland, The Cottage has recently celebrated its twentieth anniversary and is well established in the community. Kylie had worked in long day care for over fourteen years in a variety of roles as she studied to further her qualifications. After completing her Bachelor of Early Childhood Teaching degree, she became the preschool teacher and, subsequently, has also been the educational leader at The Cottage. She is a committed professional having been the recipient of the Educational Leader Award at the 2012 ACT Children’s Services Awards, an Australia Day Award for Excellence in her field from the Australian Sports Commission in 2013, and one of five finalists for the 2014 Hesta Early Childhood Awards for an Outstanding Young Graduate. Kylie is passionate about educators producing pedagogical documentation, and also in being part of practitioner inquiry projects, including a ‘partnerships with families’ practitioner inquiry project mentored by another academic colleague. In reflecting on pathways that can lead to the open-mindedness necessary for effective practitioner inquiry, it is helpful to listen to some of Kylie’s story. She began her educator journey as an assistant: There are many discussions and events I have experienced that have led me on my journey, however there is one that still to this day sticks in my head; to me it represents my turning point from being a staff member to becoming an educator. I remember working in the preschool room – at the time I was still working in all the rooms as an assistant – there were a group of children painting and they had put the paper on the floor and they were using their hands and arms to paint. I still remember just being about to say ‘what are you doing, use the paintbrushes’ and I stopped myself; instead I just said: ‘what are you doing?’ The children responded



Professional learning through practitioner inquiry

165

telling me about what they were painting and I thought for a second and said to myself, ‘well they aren’t doing any harm – I can’t see why not’. So I replied ‘looks very interesting’. I then moved on to interact with another group of children. The room leader then came over and the children told her ‘Kylie said we could’; the room leader came over to question my decision and I responded with, ‘well, why not? It can be cleaned up’. I then saw her reassess the situation and she agreed. This decision and discussion gave me the confidence to say that I can question and lead different thought processes. As she was intrigued by the potential of pedagogical documentation as an effective tool for scaffolding professional learning, teacher planning, family liaison and child memory-keeping (see Fleet, Patterson and Robertson 2006, 2012), she was anxious to support her colleagues in using their efforts to document children’s learning in a more effective manner than had happened in the past. She developed, therefore, a ‘question’ with this focus as part of her participation in Circles of Practitioner Inquiry (regular monthly workshops with similarly minded colleagues from other children’s services, facilitated by outside educational consultants). The notion of the ‘open individual’ is key here; the participant needs to see herself as a learner. As Kylie wrote in her self-reflection: My whole journey has been motivated by achieving goals and pushing the envelope in the early childhood industry. Being a preschool teacher and an educational leader isn’t just a job to me, it is my career – an aspect of my life I want to thrive in. I want to be a part of children’s and educators’ journeys of discovery and understanding. This is what makes me want to continue challenging practice and undertaking further learning. When I get excited about research or ideas for improvement I am always enticing others to join and discuss options. Over the years this has instinctively lead me to be a mentor and a leader as I challenge the norm, ask questions that provoke thought, and initiate discussion. In this case, the core elements (see Table 12.1) around infrastructure support and employer attitudes were essential to enable Kylie to be positioned to take advantage of the opportunities offered through the Circles of Inquiry. (Her use of the word ‘industry’ – which is fairly common – was later questioned in discussion, as the sector benefits from being considered as a site for human services rather than implying a factory-line business model). In remembering the sequence of events, Kylie reported: Due to documentation being a keen interest of mine I guess I quickly became an expert in this area at the Cottage. After discussion with all senior educators the director asked if I would like to become the educational leader. On accepting the position I felt reassured, as the director

166

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

said that I had already been doing the role for such a long time, it’s just that now I would have the title. So I officially had the title and not a lot changed at first. I continued planning meetings to discuss the Early Years Learning Framework, documentation and reading articles. I have found that when you have meetings which are relevant and of interest, the response, conversations and outcomes are remarkable. As time passed and strategies were explored, it became clear to Kylie that her efforts to improve practice were having visible results. For example, she reported this after one of her local meetings with colleagues to support their work with pedagogical documentation: One educator came to me the next day after the meeting enthusiastic and ecstatic with her achievement with the documentation that day. She spent time telling me about how she really thought about the pictures she was taking, the language she used to document, the links to the Early Years Learning Framework and the analysis of the learning that took place. This then led to further discussions between educators as they showed each other their documentation. Kylie’s approach to this project reflects the criteria offered by Henderson et al. (2012: 4): ‘Teacher research is systematic in that teachers follow specific procedures and carefully document each step of the process – from formation of a question, through data collection and analysis, to conclusions and outcomes.’ This was indeed the case. So, by the end of the facilitated sessions, this was Kylie’s recommendation to others: I am learning to stay focused on one topic at a time and the project is a great way to go about this. When going through the process for the first time it can seem like a difficult one, however it is easy and simple. The hardest part is coming up with the question. You need to remember to keep it simple and specific. Ask yourself what you are really aiming to achieve. The project has had a big impact on my role and my practice. It has made me reflect, be open-minded; you never know what to expect. Educators will surprise you. You need to ask questions and be curious. I’d encourage you to take the step and have a go! The components involved in this example of employing practitioner inquiry as a springboard for change are summarized in Table 12.1.



Professional learning through practitioner inquiry

167

Table 12.1  Components of practitioner inquiry Core element

The example

The context

The experience

Authentic situation for change

Evolution of the mandatory role of educational leader.

An appropriately qualified and experienced educator was appointed to the role.

Being familiar with the site, Kylie embraced the opportunity to begin to enact the role.

Open individual ‘My journey began with my intrinsic nature and curiosity for enhancing the way children learn and develop.’

‘I was constantly encouraged to question and discover ways children can learn and how I can enhance their learning.’

‘There were always discussions within the Cottage about ways to improve and being innovative especially when it came to documentation.’

With a disposition to collaborate, Kylie volunteered for a professional learning workshop series on the role of the educational leader.

Supportive employer

Responsive to educators’ requests for professional support.

‘I see that the educators I have worked with and currently work with have played a large part in my journey.’

In a culture of collaboration, the employer supported Kylie’s request.

Enabling infrastructure

Time was provided for participation in a locally accessible venue.

A high quality service valued professional development of staff.

Replacement arrangements were made to enable Kylie to attend/ participate.

Structured facilitation

Tendered outside workshop facilitators scaffolded cyclical processes over eight month period.

A group of ten educators (and two facilitators) met monthly with assigned tasks between sessions.

‘For me the discussions and questions asked during the project gave me clarification and a more defined path of where I want to go with this role.’

168

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

Core element

The example

The context

The experience

Potential for participant agency

Questions of inquiry were self-chosen.

Questions were workshopped by the group for both practicality and meaningful focus.

‘I decided that my question would be, ‘Do the one-hour meetings with educators impact on pedagogical documentation?’ as this is something I wanted to determine in order to carry on my role.’

Committed participants

Willing to attend and complete project tasks.

Each session included reports back from participants on progress with data collection and analysis.

‘I collected data such as surveys, marked documentation against criteria and drew up tables detailing vignettes from educators.’

Practical applications

‘This then Theoretical input Evidence-based made locally relevant. practice was critiqued allowed me to in a safe environment. determine the next change I wanted to implement.’

Cyclical structures

Expectations of Opportunities to revisit new ideas and growth enabled experimentation with strategies. multiple possibilities.

Expectations of engagement in a nurturing climate

Participant sharing at monthly learning circles supported individual efforts.

Facilitated scaffolding provided expectations of success in an invitational environment.

‘Once I had collected all the data I then did an analytic reflection, determining exactly what was happening and resulting factors.’ Kylie attended every scheduled session and participated in optional intrasession email conversations.



Professional learning through practitioner inquiry

169

These elements, when viewed in combination, can be seen to embrace some of the positive characteristics of educational change as highlighted in Chapter 2: MM

promotion of collegial support and encouragement as envisioned in a learning community

MM

generation of locally-relevant knowledge

MM

empowerment of educators through choice of investigation focus

MM

increased professional confidence and competence.

Finally, Kylie’s enthusiasm for the project and her growth through practitioner inquiry resonates with findings from another practitioner inquiry project in Canberra, facilitated by colleagues (Degotardi, Semann and Shepherd 2012: 51): Given the constraints that were identified by participants at the commencement of the project, it was encouraging to note the number of the practitioners who reported a positive change in their attitudes towards their work at its conclusion. Their responses suggest an increase in teaching confidence. Some participants also reported a sense of professional empowerment and agency that they had already taken to their workplace and hoped to take into the future. By embracing a leadership and advocacy role, the findings suggest that participation in the project instilled an enhanced sense of professional self-worth. As that study engaged participants with prime responsibility for working with infants and toddlers, the reported professional enhancement was particularly valuable for an educational sector that can be under-represented in professional initiatives. At this point, it may be helpful to revisit the principles introduced earlier in the chapter as offered by Bold (2012), seen as enacted through this mini case study, in the context of the multiple examples included earlier. Firstly, considering the criteria of ‘historical continuity’: the example of Kylie’s experience in learning to be an effective educational leader demonstrates compatibility on two levels. First, as an individual she had pursued other forms of inquiry initiatives previously and was committed to learn more through this process. Second, the local sector – as represented by the regional professional learning arm (ACT PSC) – was committed to, and offered recurring cycles of, professional inquiry projects through outside consultant facilitation. The historical context of this particular piece of practitioner inquiry was established clearly in the narrative; the potential for sustainability was also embedded in the supportive infrastructure available to participating educators. The second criterion of reflexivity is met at a ‘common sense’ level, in the reflective nature of Kylie’s analysis of participation. The definition provided

170

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

by Bold refers to ‘the researcher’ – which was assuming an outside person, who in this case could be considered to be the chapter authors in dealing with the data being offered, and/or Kylie’s researching of her own practice. In either (or both) cases, the call to represent ‘reality’ is problematic because the perspective being taken here deals with multiple realities. Therefore, this criterion, while being deemed to be ‘met’, is being reinterpreted. Thirdly, the ‘principle of dialectics’ encounters the same difficulty as the previous point – that of the proposing of one ‘truth’. If multiple truths are reconstructed as ‘meaningfulness’, criteria relating to the construction of meaningfulness through interaction, credibility of the research and representation of multiple voices (in this case, across chapters), has been met. The ‘principle of workability’ is clear in Kylie’s narrative, and is reflected in the changes in workplace approaches to the actions of the educational leader, as explained in her larger project, but not detailed here, as the contents (nature of meetings with colleagues, construction of a template for assisting the consideration of documentation being developed, and so on) are not relevant to the critique of the process itself which is unfolding in this chapter. What is relevant, however, is the presence of a ‘critical mass’ of educators in the local sector who were embracing the potentials offered through practitioner inquiry. Finally, the ‘principle of evocativeness’, as with the first principle, can be interpreted through two lenses. Firstly, as a change thinker, the practitioner has clearly been empowered through the change initiative and has re-visioned her approach to professional practice. The second lens is ‘in the air’ – that is, up to the reader to decide if these ideas have been presented in a way to engage, challenge and provoke. This consideration of the criteria of narrative as an effective research frame returns us to a consideration of the shape of practitioner inquiry itself. In earlier chapters, we’ve explained how practitioner inquiry promotes self-confidence and a sense of professional agency. We’ve noted how it enables participants to develop and deepen new understandings and practices to improve outcomes for children and their families. As previously described, practitioner enquiry features a continuous spiral of input, action and reflection where ideas are explored in a variety of ways and subsequently revisited for increasing clarity, with locallycontextualized data underpinning professional decision-making. This practice is seen to interact with the characteristics of successful educational change initiatives that include collegial support in a learning community, locally relevant knowledge, educator empowerment and increased professional confidence and competence. These factors are evidenced in Kylie’s mini case study. The four principles (above) have been framed in the context of adult learning principles. We have avoided an implication that there is one approach to principles or practice as so much is contextually framed, culturally shaped and politically impacted. Nevertheless, some principles



Professional learning through practitioner inquiry

171

of adult learning should be forefront in these considerations as explained previously in Chapter 2: MM

building on learner strengths provides stepping-stones for growth

MM

embedding processes in social constructivism strengthens capacity and enables peer support

MM

researching content related to their own practices engages participants in deep learning

MM

acknowledging particular sociopolitical contexts increases likelihood of relevance

MM

including recursive cycles of investigation and analysis provides time for learners to enter a cycle at personally meaningful points

MM

persistence with challenging processes is enhanced when situated within trusting supportive relationships.

There are, nevertheless, cautions with unbounded enthusiasm for pursuing educational change initiatives through practitioner inquiry projects. Some have been highlighted in Chapter 6. Of other potential pitfalls, one is the tendency for superficiality and jovial goodwill masquerading as intellectual investigation. In facing this challenge, it is helpful to listen to bell hooks (2010: 185): The vital link between critical thinking and practical wisdom is the insistence on the interdependent nature of theory and fact coupled with the awareness that knowledge cannot be separated from experience. And ultimately there is the awareness that knowledge rooted in experience shapes what we value and as a consequence how we know what we know as well as how we use what we know. Another pitfall is lack of clarity of purpose. If participants do not know why they are being asked to use inquiry methods or what the intended outcomes are expected to be, there will be neutral compliance at best and active resistance at worst. Those planning to instigate change processes through practitioner inquiry are reminded of the leadership components, which require both transparency and vision, in ‘taking the team with you’ as the project evolves and is supported through subsequent cycles of supported investigations. A further potential problem resides with the results of those investigations. As Groundwater-Smith and Campbell (2010: 205) remind us: ‘Too often dissemination of practitioner enquiry is constructed as a means of celebration rather than genuine interrogation of results. This is partly due to the increasing domestication of practitioner enquiry as an implementation tool …’. These authors offer their critiques as a ‘counterweight’ to

172

ENGAGING WITH EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

the commercial publishers who offer marketing/downloadable solutions to classroom ‘problems’, and suggest that the structure of practitioner inquiry offers a more authentic vehicle for solutions to educational challenges. The examples in this publication extend that conversation and confront some of the institutional and political realities that surround teachers’ endeavours to meet the challenges in today’s educational workplaces and to fulfil their commitments to children and their families within the fields of their responsibilities and influence. While we value the celebrations that accompany effective practitioner inquiry partnerships, issues of sustainability and employer ‘buy-in’ continue to persist as challenges for those wishing to pursue authentic means of professional learning. Those wishing to embark on journeys with the tools of practitioner inquiry must also value the relationships that underlie success, the infrastructure required for sustainability, and commit to personal professional long-term engagement with the component processes. This is not a ‘drop-in/ drop-out’ or ‘fly-in/fly-out’ solution to the challenges that will continue to emerge in sites committed to education (at all levels). Intellectual engagement and professional commitment must accompany well-supported initiatives that recognize individual agency and ‘teacher voice’ as well as expecting the unexpected and being willing to grow alongside those who are carrying the weight of the investigations. Leaders must not only lead, but must participate in the processes in order to share in the benefits that are inevitable, if the principles and cyclical strategies of practitioner inquiry are enabled to thrive. Finally, in looking at these considerations through the lens of ‘the fourth way of change’ (Hargreaves and Shirley 2009), as was introduced at the beginning of this chapter, it is possible to imagine an educational future in which change initiatives will embed components of practitioner inquiry, and individual agency in the unfolding sequences will be valued as highly as systemic infrastructure. It is not too difficult to imagine that the people who inhabit change projects are prioritized alongside the processes that support efforts to enhance contextually-relevant optimal forms of teaching and learning. As several examples of that vision have been shown to be happening by educators in these pages, there is hope that their footsteps can be a path for others to follow.

GLOSSARY

Childcare/Long day care: Group-based setting for young children, usually from six months of age to formal school entry, often available from 7 or 8 am to 6 pm, subject to state and national government regulation and accreditation, originally developed to support working families and increasingly sought for quality provision of care; programme structures and nature of educational provision varies with state and territory requirements for ratios and qualifications of staff; see Prior-to-school settings. Children’s services: Definition depends on usage – may refer to health- or education-related provisions for those legally defined as ‘children’; in an education-related context, may be equivalent to ‘children’s settings’; see Prior-to-school settings. Day care: See Childcare. Early childhood education: Internationally considered to be the pedagogy associated with children from birth to eight years of age, though may be interpreted locally as referring to children before school age. Early Years Learning Framework: Australia’s first national early childhood curriculum guide which is part of the National Quality Standard within the National Quality Framework; guiding educators in prior-to-school settings in their planning and assessment of

children’s learning. The Framework consists of principles, practices and learning outcomes related to children’s effective communication, sense of identity, well-being, connection to their world and sense of themselves as confident, involved learners. It is a point of reference for assessments of quality (accreditation ratings), but is not in itself a mandatory curriculum. Educator: Variously referred to as ‘teachers’, ‘practitioners’ or ‘staff’, this is the preferred term in Australia for those with legal responsibility for the education and well-being of young children in group settings, usually associated with at least a two-year post-school qualification, with senior staff being degree qualified. Facilitator: A consultant or academic engaged to assist educators in working towards a goal by supporting individuals and/or groups to pursue complex tasks through conversation, reflection and investigation (both within and between meetings), while negotiating appropriate time, resources and personnel; may be from within or outside of a setting or organization. Kindergarten: Definition depends on usage – each Australian state/ territory varies in terminology; authors define whether they are referring to an optional group setting in the year prior to the

174 Glossary

beginning of formal schooling, targeting foundation education and group learning behaviours for four-year-olds (referred to as ‘Pre-Prep’ in some areas) or for the first year of formal/mandatory schooling as required by respective state/territory Departments of Education. In either case, the setting may be fee-paying for families (privately run – as a single or multi-site business by a family, organization or religious body, either for profit or cost-recovery), community-based (not-for-profit services run by parent-management and/or supported by local government), or government– provided (e.g. the first year of schooling in a free/‘public’ local school). Learning circles: A place where practitioners come together with a facilitator regularly (for example, once a month). Learning circle time allows practitioners to contemplate their current practices, discuss what they would like to change and engage critically in group processes; the group (usually eight to twelve people) discuss their thinking, data and what they still want to learn about or continue investigating. NAPLAN: The annual National Assessment Program for Literacy and Numeracy for learners in school Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 as developed by the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) in association with both government and non-government authorities. These tests are one component of assessment which is not expected to replace ongoing teacher assessment in these and other areas of learning. National Quality Framework (NQF): Introduced in 2011 by the Australian Government, the NQF

is a policy commitment to provide better educational outcomes for children in prior-to-school settings; it includes the National Law and Regulations as well as the National Quality Standard (see below). National Quality Standard (NQS): Sitting within the Australian National Quality Framework for young children, the NQS includes a five point rating system across seven areas of quality provision, including standards for the Educational programme and practice, Children’s health and safety, Physical environment, Staffing arrangements, Collaboration with families, Relationships with children and Leadership. Paraprofessionals: Definition depends on usage – may refer to educators qualified/partially qualified to Diploma level or ‘in training’, or to those assisting from other Human Services; workers with experience or preparation other than university-based degrees. Preschool: Group setting for young children’s group-based education, subject to national regulation regarding ratios, physical environment, qualifications of staff and programming, as well as protocols for service management and leadership. Currently in Australia, four-year-olds are entitled to fifteen hours per week, with some services offering ‘preschool provision’ from nine to three daily with four-year-old children attending for a varying number of days and times depending on family situations, sometimes with the provision of extended hours care at either end of the day. Some settings offer half-day programmes for three-year-olds and may offer an accompanying ‘Playgroup’ for

Glossary younger children accompanied by a family member once or twice a week. Primary education: Each State (New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria, Western Australia) and Territory (Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory) has overarching responsibility for formal education of children aged five to twelve years. The education departments oversee funding, curriculum and regulation of public and private schools within their jurisdiction. Each State and Territory is responsible for enacting the Australian Curriculum, which is mandated at a national level and sets standards and outcomes for all children to achieve. Prior-to-school settings: Diverse opportunities for group-based education for young children in a regulated environment in the years before entrance into the mandated education system; an umbrella term that includes preschools (which are called kindergartens in some areas) and long day care programmes (see Childcare), variously known as ‘long day’ and ‘short day’ programmes including educators with various levels of qualification. Professional development: See Professional learning. Professional learning: Ongoing education which is often referred to as ‘professional development’, but is a term implying agency of

175

the adult learner, in contexts that may be individually chosen or workplace sponsored, to extend knowledge and skills in the focus area. While individuals may create their own study opportunities or enrol in programmes to gain formal qualifications, the term is also used to apply to ongoing growth and support programmes and/or sessions offered by employers and/ or organizations to enhance the workforce. Teacher: Definition depends on usage – usually applies to a three- or four-year university-qualified educator, but may include Diplomaqualified educators and, informally, may include other members of the community including children and their families. Vocational college: A post-school (tertiary) educational sector which, in Australia, includes both government funded Colleges of Technical and Further Education Colleges and private for-profit institutions; approximately equivalent to the Junior College system in the United States. Year 1/Year 2: Approximately equivalent to First Grade or Second Grade (and so on) in other systems; refers to the years of formal (institutionalized) schooling that follow an introductory year within the mandated national education system (often known as ‘Prep’ or ‘kindergarten’).

REFERENCES

Abramson, S. (2012), ‘Co-Inquiry: Documentation, Communication, Action’, in G. Perry, B. Henderson and D. Meier (eds), Our Enquiry, Our Practice: Undertaking Supporting and Learning From Early Childhood Teacher Research(ers), 147–57, Washington, DC: NAEYC. Adelman, H. and L. Taylor (2007), ‘Systemic Change for School Improvement’, Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation 17 (1): 55–77. Albrecht, K. M. and B. Engel (2007), ‘Moving Away from a Quick-fix Mentality to Systematic Professional Development’, Young Children 62 (4): 18–25. Apte, J. (2009), ‘Facilitating Transformative Learning: A Framework for Practice’, Australian Journal of Adult Learning 49 (1): 169–89. Arthur, L., B. Beecher, E. Death, S. Dockett and S. Farmer (2015), Programming and Planning in Early Childhood Settings, 6th edn, Melbourne: Cengage Learning. Aubusson, P., R. Ewing and G. Hoban (2009), Action Learning in Schools: Reframing Teachers’ Professional Learning and Development, New York and London: Routledge. Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (2011), ‘Guide to the National Quality Standard’. Available online: http://www.acecqa.gov.au/ Quality-Areas (accessed August 2015). Australian Government Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) (2009), Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia, Canberra: Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations for COAG. Beatty, B. (2007), ‘Feeling the Future of School Leadership: Learning to Lead With the Emotions in Mind’, Leading and Managing 13 (2): 44–65. Berger, J., K. Boles and V. Troen (2005), ‘Teacher Research and School Change: Paradoxes, Problems and Possibilities’, Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (1): 93–105, doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.11.008. Beveridge, S., S. Groundwater-Smith, S. Kemmis and D. Wasson (2005), ‘Professional Learning That Makes a Difference: Successful Strategies Implemented by Priority Action Schools’, Journal of In-service Education 31 (4): 697–710, doi:10.1080/13674580500200301. Bezzina, M. (2007), ‘Moral Purpose and Shared Leadership: The Leaders Transforming Learning and Learners – Pilot Study’, presentation at the ACEL Research Conference, Sydney, Australia. Biddle, J. (2012), The Three R’s of Leadership: Building Effective Early Childhood Programs Through Relationships, Reciprocal Learning, and Reflection, Ypsilanti: High Scope Press and Washington, DC: NAEYC. Billet, S. (2010), ‘Lifelong Learning and Self: Work, Subjectivity

178 References

and Learning’, Studies in Continuing Education 32 (1): 1–16, doi:10.1080/01580370903534223. Blackmore, J. (1999), Troubling Women: Feminism, Leadership and Educational Change, Buckingham: Open University Press. Bold, C. (2012), Using Narrative in Research, Los Angeles: Sage. Bonnet, M. and S. Cuypers (2003), Breaking the Silence: Overcoming the Problem of Principal Mistreatment of Teachers, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Borko, H. (2004), ‘Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the Terrain’, Educational Researcher 33 (8): 3–15. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979), The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994), ‘Ecological Models of Human Development’, in M. Gauvain and M. Cole (eds), Readings on the Development of Children, 37–43, New York: Freeman. Brooks, J. and M. Brooks (1993), In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms, Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Campbell, A. (2003), ‘Teachers’ Research and Professional Development in England: Some Questions, Issues and Concerns’, Journal of In-service Education: Professional Development in Education 29 (3), doi:10.1080/13674580300200281. Campbell, A. and O. McNamara (2007), ‘Ways of Telling: The Use of Practitioners’ Stories’, in A. Campbell and S. Groundwater-Smith (eds), An Ethical Approach to Practitioner Inquiry, 99–112, New York: Taylor & Francis e-Library. Campbell, A. and O. McNamara (2010), ‘Mapping the Field of Practitioner Research: Inquiry and Professional Learning in Educational Contexts’, in A. Campbell and S. Groundwater-Smith (eds), Connecting Inquiry and Professional Learning in Education: International Perspectives and Practical Solutions, 10–25, London: Routledge. Cardno, C. and B. Reynolds (2009), ‘Resolving Leadership Dilemmas in New Zealand Kindergartens: An Action Research Study’, Journal of Educational Administration 47 (2): 206–26, doi:10.1108/09578230910941057. Castle, K. (2012), Early Childhood Teacher Research: From Questions to Results, New York: Routledge. Catholic Education Office, Sydney (2010), ‘The Early Learner: Position Paper’, Unpublished document, Sydney: Catholic Education Office. Catholic Education Office, Sydney (2011), ‘Personnel Performance: Planning and Review’, Unpublished document, Sydney: Catholic Education Office. Cheeseman, S. (2011), ‘Belonging, Being and Becoming: Opportunity or Accountability?’ Keynote address at Building Quality Practice: Implementing the Early Years Learning Framework and Quality Assurance Requirements Conference, Sydney University, 2 April 2011. Clark, A. and P. Moss (2011), Listening to Young Children: The Mosaic Approach, 2nd edn, NCB: London. Cochran-Smith, M. and S. Lytle (1993), Inside/Outside: Teacher Research and Knowledge, New York: Teachers College Press. Cochran-Smith, M. and S. Lytle (2007), ‘Everything’s Ethics: Practitioner Inquiry and University Culture’, in A. Campbell and S. Groundwater-Smith (eds), An

References

179

Ethical Approach to Practitioner Inquiry, 24–41, New York: Taylor & Francis e-Library. Cochran-Smith, M. and S. Lytle (2009), Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for the Next Generation, New York: Teachers College Press. Colmer, K., M. Waniganayake and L. Field (2014), ‘Leading Professional Learning in Early Childhood Centres: Who are the Educational Leaders?’ Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 39 (4): 103–13. Connelly, F. M., D. J. Clandinin and M. F. He (1997), ‘Teachers’ Personal Practical Knowledge on the Professional Knowledge Landscape’, Teaching and Teacher Education 13 (7): 665–74, doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(97)00014-0. Creswell, J. W. (2013), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. Choosing Amongst Five Approaches, 3rd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Day, C. and A. Townsend (2007), ‘Ethical Issues for Consultants in Complex Collaborative Action Research Settings: Tensions and Dilemmas’, in A. Campbell and S. Groundwater-Smith (eds), An Ethical Approach to Practitioner Inquiry, 42–61, New York: Taylor & Francis e-Library. Degotardi, S., A. Semann and W. Shepherd (2012), ‘Using Practitioner Inquiry to Promote Reflexivity and Change in Infant-Toddler Early Childhood Programs’, in P. Whiteman and K. De Gioia (eds), Perspectives, Places and Practices, 36–57, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Duffy, F. (2006), ‘The Process of Systemic Change: Step-Up-To-Excellence: A Protocol for Navigating Whole-System Change in School Districts’, Tech Trends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning 50 (2): 41, doi:10.1007/s11528-006-7585-y. Duignan, P. (2002), ELIM Program, ACU National/Parramatta Catholic Education Office, Unpublished document, Sydney: Catholic Education Office. Duignan, P. (2006), Educational Leadership: Key Challenges and Ethical Tensions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edwards, C., L. Gandini and G. Forman (eds) (1998), The Hundred Languages of Children: The Reggio Emilia Approach – Advanced Reflections, 2nd edn, Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing. Edwards, C., L. Gandini and G. Forman (eds) (2012), The Hundred Languages of Children: The Reggio Emilia Experience in Transformation, 3rd edn, Santa Barbrara, CA: Praeger. Elliott, G. (2011), ‘Creating Spaces for Practitioner Research: Strategic Leadership to Create a Third Space for Practitioner Enquiry in an Authentic Professional Learning Community’, in N. Mockler and J. Sachs (eds), Rethinking Educational Practice Through Reflexive Inquiry. Essays in Honour of Susan Groundwater-Smith, 89–104, London: Sage. Evans, L. (2014), ‘Leadership for Professional Development and Learning: Enhancing our Understanding of How Teachers Develop’, Cambridge Journal of Education 44 (2): 179–98, doi:10.1080/0305764X.2013.860083. Evans, M., P. Lomax and H. Morgan, (2000), ‘Closing the Circle: Action Research Partnerships Towards Better Learning and Teaching in Schools’, Cambridge Journal of Education 30 (3): 405–19, doi:10.1080/713657160. Fink, D. (2005), ‘Developing Leaders for the Future Not the Past’, in M. J. Coles and G. Southworth (eds), Developing Leadership: Creating the Schools of Tomorrow, 1–20, Maidenhead: Open University Press. Fleer, M. and A. Kennedy (2006), ‘Quality – Always Unfinished Business’, in

180 References

M. Fleer, S. Edwards, M. Hammer, A. Kennedy, A. Ridgway, J. Robbins and L. Surman (eds), Early Childhood Learning Communities: Socio-Cultural Research in Practice, 209–27, Frenchs Forest, Sydney: Pearson. Fleet, A. (2007), DECS Child Care Practitioner Research Project-Cycle 2 (2005/2006) Final Report, Sydney: Institute of Early Childhood, Macquarie University. Fleet, A. and C. Patterson (2001), ‘Professional Growth Reconceptualized: Early Childhood Staff Searching for Meaning’, Early Childhood Research and Practice 3 (2). Available online: http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v3n2/index.html (accessed July 2015). Fleet, A. and C. Patterson (2009), ‘A Timescape: Personal Narratives-Professional Spaces’, in S. Edwards and J. Nuttall (eds), Professional Learning in Early Childhood Settings, 9–25, Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Fleet, A and P. Winter, (2004), ‘The Impact of Practitioner Research on Curriculum Quality in the Early Years’, presentation at 14th European Early Childhood Education Research Association Conference, Malta. Fleet, A., K. De Gioia and C. Patterson (2008), ‘Early Years Collaborative Practitioner Enquiry Project, Progress Report’, Ryde: ACCESS MQ. Fleet, A., C. Patterson and J. Robertson (eds) (2006), Insights: Behind Early Childhood Pedagogical Documentation, Mt Victoria, NSW: Pademelon Press. Fleet, A., C. Patterson and J. Robertson (eds) (2012), Conversations: Behind Early Childhood Pedagogical Documentation, Mt Victoria, NSW: Pademelon Press. Fleet, A., R. Soper, A. Semann and L. Madden (2015), ‘The Role of the Educational Leader: Perceptions and Expectations in a Time of Change’, Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 40 (3): 29–37. Fullan, M. (1999), Change Forces: The Sequel, London: Falmer Press. Fullan, M. (2001a), The New Meaning of Educational Change, 3rd edn, New York: Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. (2001b), Leading in a Culture of Change, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Fullan, M. (2002), ‘The Change Leader’, Educational Leadership 59 (8): 16–20. Fullan, M. (2003), The Moral Imperative of School Leadership, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Fullan, M. (2005), Leadership and Sustainability: System Thinkers in Action, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Fullan, M. (2006a), Change Theory: A Force for School Improvement, Centre for Strategic Education, Seminar Paper No. 157, November 2006, Victoria, Australia. Fullan, M. (2006b), ‘The Future of Educational Change: System Thinkers in Action’, Journal of Educational Change 7 (3): 113–22, doi10.1007/ s10833-006-9003-9. Fullan, M. (2008), The Six Secrets of Change: What the Best Leaders Do to Help Their Organisations Survive and Thrive, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Fullan, M. (2011), The Moral Imperative Realized, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Fullan, M., C. Cuttress and A. Kilcher (2009), ‘Eight Forces for Leaders of Change’, in M. Fullan (ed.), The Challenge of Change: Start School Improvement Now, 2nd edn, 9–20, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

References

181

Gandini, L. (2011), ‘Connecting Through Caring and Learning Spaces’, in C. Edwards, L. Gandini and G. Forman (eds), The Hundred Languages of Children: The Reggio Emilia Experience in Transformation, 3rd edn, 317–41, Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Gillanders, C., E. Mason and S. Ritchie (2011), ‘First School – An Approach that Prepares Pre-K to 3 Educators to Effectively Interpret and Respond to School Data’, Young Children 66 (6): 12–19. Glazer, E. and M. Hannafin (2006), ‘The Collaborative Apprenticeship Model: Situated Professional Development within School Settings’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 22 (2): 179–93, doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.09.004. Goodfellow, J. and H. Hedges (2007), ‘Practitioner Research “Centre Stage”: Contexts, Contributions and Challenges’, in L. Keesing-Styles and H. Hedges (eds), Theorising Early Childhood Practice: Emerging Dialogues, 187–210, Castle Hill, Sydney: Pademelon Press. Gordon, S. (ed.) (2008), Collaborative Action Research: Developing Professional Learning Communities. New York: Teachers College Press. Greene, M. (2002), ‘Foreword’, in L. Lambert, D. Walker, D. Zimmerman, J. Cooper, M. Lambert, M. Gardner and M. Szabo (eds), The Constructivist Leader, 2nd edn, i–x, New York: Teachers College Press. Groundwater-Smith, S. and A. Campbell (2010), ‘Joining the Dots: Connecting Inquiry and Professional Learning’, in A. Campbell and S. GroundwaterSmith (eds), Connecting Inquiry and Professional Learning in Education: International Perspectives and Practical Solutions, 200–6, London: Routledge. Groundwater-Smith, S. and N. Mockler (2005), ‘Practitioner Research in Education: Beyond Celebration’, presentation at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, July 2005, Cairns, Australia. Groundwater-Smith, S. and N. Mockler (2006), ‘Research that Counts: Practitioner Research and the Academy’, in J. Blackmore, J. Wright and V. Harwood (eds), Review of Australian Research in Education, Special Edition of Review of Australian Research in Education, 6, 105–18. Groundwater-Smith, S. and N. Mockler (2009), Professional Learning and Development in Schools and Higher Education, vol. 2, doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9417-0. Groundwater-Smith, S., J. Mitchell, N. Mockler, P. Pointe and K. Rönnerman (2013), Facilitating Practitioner Research: Developing Transformational Partnerships, New York: Routledge. Groundwater-Smith, S., R. Ewing and R. Le Cornu (2015), Teaching: Challenges and Dilemmas, 5th edn, Melbourne: Cengage Learning. Hadley, F. (2012), ‘Rethinking Pedagogical Practices: How can Teachers in Early Childhood Settings be Supported Professionally to Examine their Practices?’ in P. Whiteman and K. De Gioia (eds), Children and Childhoods 1: Perspectives, Places and Practices, 16–35, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Hadley, F., M. Waniganayake and W. Shepherd (2015), ‘Contemporary Practice in Professional Learning and Development of Early Childhood Educators in Australia: Reflections on What Works and Why’, Professional Development in Education 41 (2): 187–202, doi:10.1080/19415257.2014.986818. Hahs-Vaughn, D. and K. Yanowitz (2009), ‘Who is Conducting Teacher Research?’ Journal of Educational Research 102 (6): 415–24.

182 References

Handy, C. (1989), The Age of Unreason, Watertown, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Hargreaves, A. (2001), ‘Emotional Geographies of Teaching’, Teachers College Record 103 (6): 1056–80. Hargreaves, A and M. Fullan (1998), What’s Worth Fighting for in Education? Ontario: Open University Press. Hargreaves, A and D. Shirley (2009), The Fourth Way: The Inspiring Future for Educational Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Heikka, J., M. Waniganayake and E. Hujala (2013), ‘Contextualising Distributed Leadership Within Early Childhood Education: Current Understandings, Research Evidence and Future Challenges’, Educational Management, Administration and Leadership 41 (4): 30–44. Heikkinen, H., R. Huttunen and L. Syrjӓlӓ (2007), ‘Action Research as Narrative: Five Principles for Validation’, Educational Action Research 15 (1): 5–19, doi:10.1080/09650790601150709. Henderson, B., D. Meier, G. Perry and A. Stremmel (2012), ‘The Nature of Teacher Research’, in G. Perry, B. Henderson and D. Meier (eds), Our Inquiry, Our Practice. Undertaking, Supporting and Learning From Early Childhood Teacher Research(ers), 3–10. Washington, DC: NAEYC. Hoban, G., T. Herrington, L. Kervin, R. Ewing, J. Anderson and D. Smith (2010), ‘Final Report of Evaluative Inquiry Into the Sustainability of Professional Learning Through School-Based Action Learning’, in A. Campbell and S. Groundwater-Smith (eds), Action Research in Education, Vol. 3: Key Examples of Action Research in Schools with Different National Settings, 103–20, London: Sage. Holmes, K., J. Clement and J. Albright (2013), ‘The Complex Task of Leading Educational Change in Schools’, School Leadership and Management 33 (3): 270–83, doi:10.1080/13632434.2013.800477. hooks, b. (2010), Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom. New York: Routledge. Hopkins, D., A. Harris, L. Stoll and T. Mackay (2011), ‘School and System Improvement: State of the Art Review’, Keynote presented at 24th International Congress of School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Cyprus. Hord, S. M. (2009), ‘Professional Learning Communities’, Journal of Staff Development 30 (1): 40–3. Hord, S. M. and W. A. Sommers (2008), Leading Professional Learning Communities: Voices from Research and Practice, California: Corwin Press. Hulme, R. and D. Cracknell (2010), ‘Learning Across Boundaries: Developing Trans-Professional Understanding Through Practitioner Inquiry’, in A. Campbell and S. Groundwater-Smith (eds), Connecting Inquiry and Professional Learning in Education. International Perspectives and Practical Solutions, 53–67, New York: Routledge. Isern, J. and C. Pung, (2007), ‘Driving Radical Change’, McKinsey Quarterly. Available online: http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/organization/driving_ radical_change (accessed 17 April 2015). Kemmis, S., C. Edwards-Groves, J. Wilkinson and I. Hardy (2012), ‘Ecologies of Practices’, in P. Hager, A. Lee and A. Reich (eds), Practice, Learning and Change: Practice-Theory Perspectives on Professional Learning, 33–50, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

References

183

Kilgallon, P., C. Maloney and G. Lock (2008), ‘Early Childhood Teachers Coping With Educational Change.’ Australian Journal of Early Childhood 33 (1): 23–7. Kinsella, E. and A. Pittman (2012), Phronesis as Professional Knowledge: Practical Wisdom in the Professions, Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Knowles, M. S., E. Holton and R. Swanson (2005), The Adult Learner: The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 6th edn, Burlington, MA: Elsevier. Koellner, K. and J. Jacobs, (2015), ‘Distinguishing Models of Professional Development: The Case of an Adaptive Model’s Impact on Teachers’ Knowledge, Instruction, and Student Achievement’, Journal of Teacher Education 66 (1): 51–67, doi:10.1177/0022487114549599. Kotter, J. and L. Schlesinger (2008), ‘Choosing Strategies for Change’, Harvard Business Review 86 (7): 130–9. Laevers, F. (2006), ‘Making Care and Education More Effective Through Wellbeing and Involvement: An Introduction to Experiential Education’, presentation for DECS, Adelaide 2006, Leuven: Research Centre for Experiential Education. Lambert, L. and D. Walker (2002), ‘Constructing School Change – School Stories’, in L. Lambert, D. Walker, D. Zimmerman, J. Cooper, M. Lambert, M. Gardner and M. Szabo (eds), The Constructivist Leader, 2nd edn, 127–63, New York: Teachers College Press. Lave, J. and E. Wenger (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leithwood, K., D. Jantzi and R. Steinbach (1999), Changing Leadership for Changing Times, Buckingham: Open University Press. Levin, B. (2007), ‘Sustainable, Large-Scale Education Renewal’, Journal of Educational Change 8 (4): 323–36, doi:10.1007/s10833-007-9041-y. Levin, B. (2008), How to Change 5000 Schools: A Practical and Positive Approach for Leading Change at Every Level, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Levin, B. and M. Fullan (2008), ‘Learning About System Renewal’, Educational Management, Administration and Leadership 36 (2): 289–303, doi:10.1177/1741143207087778. Logue, M. (2006), ‘Teachers Observe to Learn: Differences in Social Behavior of Toddlers and Preschoolers in Same-age and Multiage Groupings’, Young Children 61 (3): 70–6. Lui, K. (2009), ‘Impact of Holistic Method on Teacher Candidates’ Self-efficacy’, presentation at the 18th Annual Conference of the Global Awareness Society International, Washington DC. MacNaughton, G. (2001), Doing Early Childhood Research, Crows Nest, Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Malaguzzi, L. (1998), ‘History, Ideas, and Basic Philosophy: An Interview with Lella Gandini’, in C. Edwards, L. Gandini and G. Forman (eds), The Hundred Languages of Children: The Reggio Emilia Approach – Advanced Reflections, 2nd edn, 49–97, Connecticut: Ablex Publishing. Manning-Morton, J. (2006), ‘The Personal is Professional: Professionalism and the Birth to Threes Practitioner’, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 7 (1): 42–52, doi:10.2304/ciec.2006.7.1.42.

184 References

Margonis, F. (1998), ‘The Demise of Authenticity’, in S. Tozer (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1998, 248–57, Urbana: Philosophy of Education Society. Margonis, F. (2012) ‘In Pursuit of Respectful Teaching and Intellectually-Dynamic Social Fields’, in G. J. J. Biesta (ed.), Making Sense of Education: Fifteen Contemporary Educational Theorists in Their Own Words, 5–12, Dordrecht: Springer. Maton, K. (2003), ‘Reflexivity, Relationism and Research: Pierre Bourdieu and the Epistemic Conditions of Social Scientific Knowledge’, Space and Culture 6: 52–65, doi:10.1177/1206331202238962. Mayo, C. (2012), ‘Philosophy of Education is Bent’, in G. J. J. Biesta (ed.), Making Sense of Education: Fifteen Contemporary Educational Theorists in Their Own Words, 43–8, Dordrecht: Springer. McCormack, A., J. Gore and K. Thomas (2004), ‘Learning to Teach: Narratives from Early Career Teachers’, presentation at the Australian Association for Research in Education. Available online: www.aare.edu.au/data/ publications/2004/mcc04697.pdf (accessed January 2016). McLaughlin, C. and K. Black-Hawkins (2004), ‘A Schools–University Research Partnership: Understandings, Models and Complexities’, Journal of In-Service Education 30 (2): 265–284, doi:10.1080/13674580400200245. McLaughlin, M. and D. Mitra (2001), ‘Theory-Based Change and Change-Based Theory: Going Deeper, Going Broader’, Journal of Educational Change 2 (4): 301–23. Mills, G. (2013), Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher, 5th edn, Boston, MA: Pearson. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Childcare Research Network (2002), ‘Childcare Structure ® Process ® Outcome: Direct and Indirect Effects of Childcare Quality on Young Children’s Developments’, Psychological Science 13 (3): 199–206. Nelson, P. J. (2015), ‘Intelligent Dispositions: Dewey, Habits and Inquiry in Teacher Education’, Journal of Teacher Education 66 (1): 86–97, doi:10.1177/0022487114535267. Nolan, A. and J. Sim (2011), ‘Exploring and Evaluating Levels of Reflection in Pre-Service Early Childhood Teachers’, Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 36 (3): 122–30. Nuttall, J. and S. Edwards (2009), ‘Future Directions in Researching Professional Learning in Early Childhood Settings’, in S. Edwards and J. Nuttall (eds), Professional Learning in Early Childhood Settings, 131–8, Rotterdam Netherlands: Sense Publishers. O’Connor, K. and H. Greene (2004), Action Research: A Tool for Improving Teacher Quality and Classroom Practice, Greenville, NC: East Carolina University. Ontario Principals’ Council (2009), The Principal as Professional Learning Community Leader, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2006a), Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care, Paris: OECD. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2006b), Starting Strong III: A Quality Toolbox for Early Childhood Education and Care, Paris: OECD. Orland-Barak, L. (2009), ‘Unpacking Variety in Practitioner Inquiry on Teaching

References

185

and Teacher Education’, Educational Action Research 17 (1): 111–19, doi:10.1080/09650790802667485. Parnell, W. (2012), ‘Experiences of Teacher Reflection: Reggio Inspired Practices in the Studio’, Journal of Early Childhood Research 10 (2): 117–33. Patterson, C., E. McCauley and A. Fleet (2012), ‘Leading Change From the Inside: A Braided Portrait’, Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives 14 (1): 58–74, doi:10.1080/14623943.2012.732938. QSR International Pty Ltd (2011), QSR International: NVivo 9. Available online: http://www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo.aspx (accessed 15 June 2011). Randell, V. (2006), ‘Who Knew There Was So Much to a Nappy Change …?! One Centre’s Experience of Participating in the Childcare Practitioners’ Inquiry’, Early Childhood Australia SA Branch Newsletter 2: 2. Reason, P. and H. Bradbury (2006), ‘Introduction: Inquiry and Participation in Search of a World Worthy of Human Aspiration’, in P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds), Handbook of Action Research, (Concise paperback edn), 1–14, London: Sage. Reason, P. and H. Bradbury (2008), ‘Introduction’, in P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds), The Sage Handbook of Action Research: Participatory Inquiry and Practice, 2nd edn, 1–11, London: Sage. Reed, M. (2015), ‘A Provocation Examining Ways to Articulate the Voice of Early Childhood Practitioners’, presentation at the European Early Childhood Education Research Association Conference (EECERA), 7–10 September, Barcelona, Spain. Reeves, D. (2008), ‘Leadership and Learning’, Australian Council for Educational Leaders Monograph Series 43, NSW, Australia. Robinson, V. (2007), ‘School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works and Why’, Australian Council for Educational Leaders Monograph Series 41, NSW, Australia. Rogoff, B. (1990), Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context, New York: Oxford University Press. Rust, F. (2007), ‘Action Research in Early Childhood Contexts’, in J. A. Hatch (ed.), Early Childhood Qualitative Research, 95–108, New York: Routledge. Rust, F. and H. Freidus (2001), Guiding School Change: The Role and Work of Change Agents, New York: Teachers College Press. Ryan, S., A. Hornbeck and E. Frede (2004), ‘Mentoring for Change: A Time Use Study of Teacher Consultants in Preschool Reform’, Early Childhood Research and Practice 6 (1), online journal. Available online: http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v6n1/ index.html (accessed July 2015). Sachs, J. (2003), The Activist Teaching Profession, Buckingham: Open University Press. Saevi, T. (2012), ‘Lived Relationality as Fulcrum for Pedagogical-Ethical Practice’, in G. J. J. Biesta (ed.), Making Sense of Education: Fifteen Contemporary Educational Theorists in Their Own Words, 27–33, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Sawyer, R. and J. Greeno (2009), ‘Situativity and Learning’, in P. Robbins and M. Aydede (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition, 347–67, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schmuck, R. A. (1997), Action Research: Practical Action Research for Change, Illinois: Skylight Professional Development.

186 References

Schnellert, L., D. Butler and S. Higginson (2008), ‘Co-constructors of Data, Co-constructors of Meaning: Teacher Professional Development in an Age of Accountability’, Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (3): 725–50, doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.04.001. Schön, D. A. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, New York: Basic Books. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1999), Rethinking Leadership: A Collection of Articles, Illinois: Skylight Professional Development. Sidorkin, A. M. (2012), ‘On the Essence of Education’, in G. J. J. Biesta (ed.), Making Sense of Education: Fifteen Contemporary Educational Theorists in Their Own Words, 93–9, Dordrecht: Springer. Stake, R. (1995), The Art of Case Study Research, London: Sage. Starratt, R. J. (2004), Ethical Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Starratt, R. (2007), ‘Leading a Community of Learners: Learning to be Moral by Engaging the Morality of Learning’, Educational Management Administration & Leadership 35 (2): 165–83, doi:10.1177/1741143207075387. Stoll, L. (2010), ‘Connecting Learning Communities: Capacity Building for Systemic Change’, in A. Hargreaves, A. Leiberman, M. Fullan and D. Hopkins (eds), Second International Handbook of Educational Change, 469–84, Dordrecht: Springer. Stremmel, A. (2007), ‘The Value of Teacher Research: Nurturing Professional and Personal Growth Through Inquiry’, Voices of Practitioners 2 (3): 1–9. Available online: http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/vop/Voices-Stremmel(1). pdf (accessed January 2016). Stremmel, A. (2012), ‘Reshaping the Landscape of Early Childhood Teaching Through Teacher Research’, in G. Perry, B. Henderson and D. Meier (eds), Our Enquiry, Our Practice: Undertaking Supporting and Learning From Early Childhood Teacher Research(ers), 107–16, Washington, DC: NAEYC. Sumsion, J. (2005), ‘Putting Postmodern Theories into Practice in Early Childhood Teacher Education’, in J. Sutterby (ed.), Practical Transformations and Transformational Practices: Globalization, Postmodernism and Early Childhood Education, 193–216, New York: Elsevier. Sumsion, J., S. Barnes, S. Cheeseman, L. Harrison, A. Kennedy and A. Stonehouse (2009), ‘Insider Perspectives on Developing Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia’, Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 34 (4): 4–13. Sumsion, J., J. L. Brownlee, S. Ryan, K. Walsh, A. Farrell, S. Irvine, G. Mulhearn and D. Berthelsen (2015), ‘Evaluative Decision-Making for High Quality Professional Development: Cultivating an Evaluative Stance’, Professional Development in Education 41 (2): 419–32, doi:10.1080/19415257.2014.989 257. Thayer-Bacon, B. (2012), ‘Nurturing a Democratic Community in the Classroom’, in G. J. J. Biesta (ed.), Making Sense of Education: Fifteen Contemporary Educational Theorists in Their Own Words, 63–9, Dordrecht: Springer. Timperley, H. and J. Parr (2010), Weaving Evidence, Inquiry and Standards to Build Better Schools, Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER Press. Timperley, H., A. Wilson, H. Barrar and I. Fung (2007), Teacher Professional

References

187

Learning and Development: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration, Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Tregenza, L. (2006), ‘Sustaining Children’s Engagement in the Curriculum’, Journal of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education 13 (2): 119–26. Vygotsky, L. (1978), Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walter, C. and J. Briggs (2012), What Professional Development Makes the Difference to Teachers? London: Oxford University Press. Webster-Wright, A. (2009), ‘Reframing Professional Development Through Understanding Authentic Professional Learning’, Review of Educational Research 79 (2): 702–39, doi:10.3102/0034654308330970. Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E., R. McDermott and W. Snyder (2002), Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge, Boston: Harvard Business School Press. White, C. (2010), ‘A Socio-Cultural Approach to Learning in a Practice Setting’, Nurse Education Today 30 (8): 794–7, doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2010.02.002. Whitebook, M. (2003), Early Education Quality: Higher Teacher Qualifications for Better Learning Environments: A Review of the Literature, California: Center for the Study of Child Care Employment. Winter, P. (2003), ‘Curriculum for Babies and Toddlers: A Critical Evaluation of the First Phase (Birth to Age Three) of the South Australian Curriculum, Standards and Accountability Framework in Selected Childcare Centres in South Australia’. PhD thesis, Magill: University of South Australia. Winter, P. (2005), ‘Defining, Assessing and Supporting the Quality of Education and Care: Babies and Toddlers in Centre-Cased Childcare’, in H. Schonfeld, S. O’Brien and T. Walsh (eds), Questions of Quality, 274–90, Dublin: Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education. Winter, P. (2010), Assessing for Learning and Development in the Early Years Using Observation Scales: Reflect, Respect, Relate, Adelaide: Government of South Australia Department for Education and Child Development. Woodrow, C. and L. Newman (2015), ‘Recognising, Valuing and Celebrating Practitioner Research’, in L. Newman and C. Woodrow (eds), Practitioner Research in Early Childhood: International Issues and Perspectives, 1–16, London: Sage. Yin, R. K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd edn, London: Sage. Zembylas, M. (2010), ‘Teacher Emotions in the Context of Educational Reforms’, in A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan and D. Hopkins (eds), Second International Handbook for Educational Change, 221–36, New York: Springer.

INDEX

academics 118 accountability 68, 74 action research 122–3, 124, 126, 129 adult learning 18, 20, 25, 162, 170, 171 analysis of data 37–9 authentic learning 147, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155–6, 158, 159 Catholic Education Office (CEO) 13–14, 27, 28, 33–4, 43–5, 47–8, 50–2, 56–7, 61, 64, 71, 74, 76, 78–80, 133–9, 144–6, 147–8, 150, 151, 153, 157–60 CEO see Catholic Education Office challenges 161, 172 change 43, 44, 45–7, 48, 49, 50, 57–8 change facilitators 133­–46 characteristics of data 35–9 childcare centres 89, 90, 104 Children’s Service, Diploma of 91, 111 children’s services 3–4, 10, 12, 16, 18, 111, 163, 165 chronosystem 118­–19 collaborative practice 148, 149, 150, 152, 153–4, 156–7 communication 81, 87 consultancy 134–6, 142 critical reflection 29–30, 33 curriculum 4, 6, 10–11, 13–14, 30, 32, 43–5, 63, 68, 92, 105–7, 111–12, 119, 125–6, 133–4, 138, 142, 147, 150, 153, 156–7, 159, 163 cycles of investigation 22, 26 data 47–8, 50–1, 53, 56, 57 data analysis 129–30, 156, 166, 168 data collection 129, 168

data gathering 27–40 DECS see Department of Education and Children’s Services Department of Education and Children’s Services (DECS) 10 developing a question 27, 28–32, 33–4, 35, 37 Diploma of Children’s Service 91, 111 diversity 117 early childhood education 123–6 early childhood educators 123, 124, 125, 126–8, 131, 132 early learners 43–58 Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) 105, 106, 111, 161 Early Years Learning Hubs 51–6 online 56 Early Years Project 28, 47–53, 55, 57, 59, 61–2, 76, 79–80, 133, 136–9, 141, 143–6, 148–9, 150, 152–5, 157–60 educational change 133, 134, 136, 140, 141 principles 17, 18–19, 21, 26 educational research 122–3, 124, 126–9 educators 2–5, 8, 10­–12, 16­–17, 21, 23–4, 26, 27, 47, 64, 67, 89–90, 92, 94–6, 98–104, 105–15, 117–19, 123–8, 131–2, 134, 153, 160, 163–70, 172 empowerment 93–4 ethics 75, 87 evidence-based practice 4, 25, 94, 101, 103, 147–8, 155, 168 exhibition 113–14 EYLF see Early Years Learning Framework

190 Index

facilitators 5, 8–14, 16, 18–19, 24–6, 27, 29, 41, 47, 50, 52, 55, 57, 71, 74, 77–9, 81, 84–5, 87, 92, 94, 100, 112, 115, 131–2, 133–46, 164, 167 families 97–8 participation 123–6, 129, 131 flexibility 70–1, 74 intentional teaching 122, 127, 128, 129 job satisfaction 96 kindergartens see also preschools 8, 29, 36–7, 39, 43, 44, 49, 53, 61, 64, 76, 81–2, 143, 148 leadership 3, 7, 11, 14, 16, 75, 79, 86, 149, 150, 153, 157, 158–60, 163, 169, 171 learning 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155–6, 157, 158, 159, 160 learning circles 106, 112–13, 115, 116, 118 management 48, 67–9, 73, 91, 106, 123 mesosystem 118 microsystem 117 NAPLAN see National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy narrative research 162, 164, 169, 170 National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) 32, 68–9, 83 National Quality Framework (NQF) 105, 106, 108 networking 99, 144–5 NQF see National Quality Framework NQS see National Quality Standard outcomes 85–6, 94–7, 125–6, 128 paraprofessionals 21 pedagogy 20–1, 43–58, 148, 150, 152, 154–5, 156, 158

PEPACT see Professional Enquiry Project in the Australian Capital Territory practice 44–5, 47, 48, 50–1, 52, 53, 56, 57 evidence-based 94 practitioner inquiry 3–16, 17–26, 47–8, 50–3, 56–7, 59–61, 63–5, 71, 72, 75, 76–8, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 107, 108–9, 110, 111, 113, 114, 117, 119, 121–32, 147–60, 161–72 collaborative nature 99 professional potentials 95–6 practitioner research 100, 101, 104 preschools see also kindergartens 8–9, 21, 41, 44, 62, 67–8, 89, 97, 99, 126, 164–5 primary education 3, 8, 13, 41, 43–58, 72, 133, 135, 147–8, 153, 160 principal leadership 59, 70–1 professional agency 18, 19 professional confidence 93–4 professional development see professional learning Professional Enquiry Project in the Australian Capital Territory (PEPACT) 89–90, 92–3, 96–100, 102–4 professional growth 96 professional inquiry 89–104 professional learning 2, 7–8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28–30, 31, 38, 39, 47, 50–3, 56–8, 60, 64–5, 67, 71, 73, 75, 77–9, 87, 90, 94, 97, 100, 103, 105–19, 121, 122, 128, 130, 132, 134, 142, 144–6, 148, 157, 160, 161–72 professionalism 94 questions of inquiry 61–2, 64–7 reflection 96–7 reflective practice 20, 22, 25, 30, 35, 47–8, 83, 112, 113, 115, 119, 127–8, 135, 136, 147, 150, 152 school leaders 59, 64

Index secondary education 43, 138, 147, 160 seminars 112 shared decision-making 150, 155, 157–8 site visits 142–3 sustainability 12–14, 16, 19, 49–50, 52, 71, 77, 103, 131, 133, 136, 169, 172

191

systemic change 133, 136, 139, 146 teacher agency 4 teacher professional learning 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26 theory 47, 56, 57 vocational colleges 11