Teacher Leadership

New conceptions for autonomous student learning in the age of the Internet

Kokila Roy Katyal, Colin William Evers

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN:
  9780415534635
• eBook ISBN:
  9781317803362
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Classroom Management

In recent years teacher leadership has undergone one major revolution and is in the process of undergoing another. The first came about as schools turned out to be far too complex for the responsibility of formulating and achieving their goals to be vested entirely in principals and head teachers. As a consequence, the rise of distributed leadership as an alternative model for understanding schools and their functioning is now commonplace. The second major revolution affecting teacher leadership is the rise of the Internet and ICT, and the way these give rise to greater and more flexible opportunities for students to become autonomous learners. Autonomous student learning now occurs in significant new ways and under parameters that are far more expansive than school-based learning. An effective model of teacher leadership thus needs to capture these changes in order to reflect the new realities of student learning and student engagement with their schools.

1 Current views and the need for a new model of teacher leadership

In this chapter, we offer an overview of some of the research on teacher leadership, the most influential current theories about teacher leadership and the existing models, together with an argument about the status of these views, and provide a rationale why teacher leadership can no longer be confined to a school-based model and finally offer an alternative model. Many of the ideas touched upon in this chapter will be discussed at greater length in later chapters.

Introduction

Teacher leadership has been carefully investigated, both empirically and theoretically, in a number of its most important manifestations: notably, teachers as instructional leaders and teachers as administrative leaders. The emergent research in this field ties in with worldwide initiatives for educational reform which has, at least in principle, placed teachers at the helm of school improvement. It is believed that teachers are key change-agents in schools and are thus in a position to transform the rhetoric of reforms to the practicalities of day-to-day schooling. However, the advent of the Internet and the unprecedented availability of information that this has generated, suggests the nature of school-based learning and that of teacher leadership has undergone a change. This calls for a close re-examination of the factors that affect the professional status of teacher leaders and the impact that this leadership has on student engagement and learning in contemporary schools.

In this book, we propose and defend a new view of teacher leadership. We will draw on a wide range of literature together with our original empirical study in order to offer a systematic account of the nature of teacher leadership in several of its most significant dimensions. The central aim of this book is to embed the concept of teacher leadership within the broader concept of leadership conceived as an influencing process instead of a narrower focus on the managerial or administrative roles of teachers, which can often dominate understandings of teacher leadership in empirical studies. Our reason for adopting this stance is because the rise of more autonomous forms of student learning afforded by the Internet has opened up new ways and new constraints by which teachers can exercise influence over students. As these lie beyond pedagogies traditionally associated with classroom teaching, we think it more useful to employ the concept of leadership as influence, and extend it to include teachers’ leadership of students.

Locating teacher leadership in this way offers an opportunity to systematically rethink a range of related issues, notably the role of teachers in promoting student engagement with schools, the role of parents, and implications for teacher training for leadership. However, our main focus will be on the increasing importance of autonomous student learning (primarily via the Internet) and what this means for students’ conceptions of schooling and the role of teachers in school learning where traditional practices of instructional leadership have been compromised or, of necessity, modified.

Our empirical study, which provided the initial impetus for reconsidering the nature of teacher leadership and accompanying new patterns of teacher influence, was conducted in Hong Kong, and there are some contextual factors that need to be investigated which are unique to the city. But there are commonalities beyond that jurisdiction. The most important issue arising from this study is the impact information technology (IT) had on teacher leadership and student engagement. Internet-based learning, and the associated shift to autonomous student learning that it engenders, is a widespread and international phenomenon that has been documented in both scholarly works in the field as well in articles in the popular media. Policy documents about the importance of IT have been released by international and local organizations (World Bank 1998; UNESCO 2003) and educational reforms on the usage of IT have been on the agenda of many governments (see for example, Education Network Australia 2000; Singapore Ministry of Education 1997; Singapore Ministry of Education 2002; Hong Kong Education Bureau 1998a, 1998b). This book deals with the implications that this type of autonomous learning has on teacher leadership, which has traditionally been viewed as school-based, or even classroom-based. It is our hope that alternative theoretical approaches to key areas of teacher leadership, student engagement and home school–school interactions that we offer will provide a more accurate picture of the new and emerging realities of contemporary schools, and that it will be an interesting and useful guide for both scholars and practitioners in the field.

Definitions of terms

Terms derive their meaning in part from the role they play in a wider theory. As a result, our book deals with some key terms that may not be explicit in their ordinary definitions or as they are used in other theories. Though issues related to these terms are addressed at length in later chapters, here we refer to the working definitions of three of these important terms in order to facilitate better understanding of the discussion and argument that follows.

Leadership appears in the social science literature with three major meanings: as the attributes of a position; as the characteristics of a person; and as a category of behavior. It is nowadays more commonly seen as a relational concept implying two terms: the influencing agent and the person influenced – without followers, there can be no leaders. One familiar view of leadership is to equate it with the differential exertion of influence (Katz and Kahn 1971: 301) as well as a “process of giving purpose (meaningful direction) to collective effort, and causing willing effort to be expended to achieve purpose” (Jacobs and Jacques 1990: 281). Yukl (1998) offers his own clarification by noting that leadership is an influence process that occurs naturally within a social system. This implies that any member of a group may display leadership at any time, and stress is laid on the complex influence processes that occur among members, the conditions that determine how and when they occur and the consequences for the group or organization. Our view is akin to Yukl’s and we have conceptualized teacher leadership as an influence that teachers have on a range of actors in educational contexts, but also on students, both in terms of their instructional guidance and otherwise. Leadership is thus viewed as possessing a broader social dimension, and is not necessarily linked to its contribution in terms of formal or informal leadership in the school’s administration and hierarchy. Complementary to the broader view of leadership, we view the notion of teacher leadership in an expansive form, not in the traditional narrow administrative role. Teacher leadership is construed as a form of distributed leadership, with the boundaries of influence extending beyond the immediate workplace.

Thus, the book explores teachers’ influence on students and on parents, on the profession, and in the wider community, as well as the range of avenues for influence within schools on matters to do with teaching and learning. Of particular interest is the changing role of teachers as leaders in light of the expanding place of autonomous student learning that Internet resources have afforded. Finally, an important feature of this leadership is its link to critical learning. This is viewed as an extended sense of ‘professionalism’ that requires teacher leaders to possess an understanding of the significant dimensions of professional life in order to influence. Organizational contexts are complex and dynamic, and teacher leaders’ knowledge of what is to be done is correspondingly provisional and fallible. Teacher leaders should therefore be able constantly to update their professional knowledge by critically responding to, and evaluating, changing circumstances.

Student engagement is attracting more and more interest as a way to negate low levels of academic achievement, high levels of student boredom and disaffection, and worrisome dropout rates. It is thus seen as a solution to such signs of student alienation. The term, in both popular and research definitions, encapsulates behavioral and affective components (Leithwood and Jantzi 1999, 2000). The behavioral component entails positive conduct, such as following the rules and adhering to classroom norms, as well as the absence of disruptive behaviors, such as skipping school and getting in trouble (Finn 1993; Finn and Rock 1997). It is also related to the students’ involvement in learning and academic tasks. This includes behaviors such as effort, persistence, concentration, attention, asking questions and contributing to class discussion; and involves participation in school-related activities such as athletics or school governance (Finn 1993; Finn, Pannozzo and Voelkl 1995; Finn and Rock 1997). Finn’s (1989) definition of behavioral engagement divides participation into four levels, which range from responding to the teacher’s directions to activities that require student initiative, such as involvement in extracurricular activities and student government. The assumption is that participation at the upper levels indicates a qualitative difference in engagement in terms of greater commitment to the school. The affective component of engagement refers to students’ affective reactions in the classroom and this includes interest, boredom, happiness, sadness and anxiety (Connell and Wellborn 1991; Skinner and Belmont 1993). Finn (1989) defines it as identification with schools; more specifically as a sense of belonging to (a feeling of being important to the school) and the valuing of school life (or an appreciation of success in school-related outcomes).

Autonomous learning is generally defined as a form of self-directed or self-regulated learning where the learner takes the ownership of the learning process. It thus allows for the learner to determine the learning requirements and goals, select resources to achieve the goals, decide upon and employ preferred learning strategies (Ellis 2007). There are indications that contexts that support autonomy enhance engagement (Connell and Wellborn 1991). Autonomy-supportive learning environments are characterized by choice, shared decision-making, and absence of external controls, such as grades or rewards and punishments, as reasons for doing schoolwork or behaving well (Deci and Ryan 1987). Empirically, notions of autonomous learning have been tied, to a large extent, to studies investigating motivational processes and dynamics (see for example, Murphy and Alexander 2000), as well as to studies in non-normative learning situations. In the context of educational reform initiatives worldwide, lifelong learning with its fundamental grounding in notions of critical learning and autonomous learning, is seen as a significant aim in preparing students to be knowledgeable members of society. Policy makers, governmental and non-governmental agencies, educators and other stake-holders have emphasized that adopting Information and communications technology (ICT) in education is an effective means to realize this goal. This is a defensible position, as anyone familiar with the usage of ICT will realize that navigating digital technologies requires significant learner autonomy. However, there is little empirical support, as yet, to show that the usage of ICT in schools has led to consistent and sustainable improvement in learning, energized flagging school systems and teaching learning processes therein, thus creating a gap between the rhetoric of reform, which operates on the assumption that schools function as primary sites for education, and the realities of practice. Paradoxically, students are engaged in large-scale autonomous learning (school-valued and otherwise) in out-of-school situations, primarily via the Internet. Though there is sufficient research interest in Internet-based learning per se, there has been little focus on the role that it plays as a ‘shadow system of learning’, which, as our empirical study highlights, is often perceived by students to be more meaningful and ‘real’ than school-based learning. Here, we argue that a more realistic way to promote lifelong learning is to systematically investigate ways by which teacher leaders can extend their instructional leadership roles to situations that lie beyond pedagogies traditionally associated with classroom teaching.

Teacher leadership: Some points of view

There is a fundamental paradox that is evident in the research literature on teacher leadership. On the one hand, it seems to be accepted that the concept of teacher leadership has moved away from erstwhile models that emphasized formalized, administrative attributes to ones that are more democratic in nature (see York-Barr and Duke 2004 for a comprehensive literature review). Nonetheless, much of the emerging body of research on teacher leadership (purportedly its more expanded role) views leadership as an extra set of responsibilities that teachers take on outside/alongside their regulated roles or duties, or as steps undertaken by teachers as a part of their professional development. Ironically, a conceptual framework such as this, sets teacher leadership firmly within the purview of positional attributes, a framework that is the antithesis of a more egalitarian viewpoint that propels many of these studies.

Positional or egalitarian?

Even a cursory glance at earlier studies on school leadership shows that it was widely accepted that leadership in schools was a positional attribute, and that managing schools was often seen to be synonymous with leading in schools; “leadership has tended to be constructed as associated with ascribed authority and position” (Crowther and Olsen 1997: 6).

However, current studies assert that teacher leadership needs to be viewed through a broader interpretative lens. Interestingly, though this broader and more democratic view of teacher leadership may seem to mirror a more egalitarian point of view of what teaching, school leadership and school hierarchy means in contemporary classrooms, this is not a radically new concept. Three decades ago, Andrew (1974) provided a formative model of teacher leadership by stating that “Teacher leadership is not meant to refer to administrative or bureaucratic leadership; rather it is a central role for teachers in promoting change, which improves the quality of education” (8). He offered three areas in which teachers might be expected to exert leadership: self-improvement, improvement of colleagues and the initiation of curriculum change.

An underlying irony present in the research literature is the persistent view held by teachers themselves that links leadership to a position. In many cases, teacher leaders are seen by their peers to be ‘expert’ teachers who spend time in the classroom but also take on different leadership roles at different times (Ash and Persall 2000). In order to de-link teacher leadership from positionality, some researchers partition teacher leadership into ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ roles. However, what appears to be a simple stratification is more complex in practice and is, once again, inherently dichotomous. The demarcation of leaders based on the roles associated with each form of leadership – formal and informal – seems to us to distinguish different dimensions of the same role. Moreover, in many studies (see for example, Katzenmeyer and Moller 1996, 2001), formal and informal leadership are linked to areas of responsibilities associated with teaching, thus linking teacher leadership to narrower functional or professional tasks. This is fundamentally opposed to the core nature of leadership, which is broader and more expansive and not limited to any specific role-related tasks. Frank Crowther (1997: 8) raises critical questions by stating that:

Classifications of this type, with their emphasis on technical skill, organization and relatedness seems to me to communicate qualitatively different images that emerge from leadership theories. … They seem to make little allowance for the possibility that transcendental values, consciousness raising and the exercise of intentional influence might be the prerogative of classroom teachers.

Leadership: Additional responsibilities?

Significantly, even in the empirical studies that have investigated the leadership of teachers who are not at the apex of the hierarchical ladder in schools, there appears to be a gap between the p...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of illustrations
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• 1. Current views and the need for a new model of teacher leadership
• 2. The Internet and its implication for teacher leaders
• 3. The nature and function of teacher leadership: looping back or looking forward?
• 4. Instructional leadership and autonomous student learning: resolving the paradoxes
• 5. Teacher leadership and student engagement: bridging the school and the ‘real world’ divide
• 6. Involving the ‘clients’: reinforcing home–school connectivity
• 7. Teacher leadership in context: towards critical self-learning
• Index