Developing Pedagogical Leadership in Early Childhood Education

Transcription

1 Te Whakapakari Kaiārahi Āhuatanga Ako Kōhungahunga Developing Pedagogical Leadership in Early Childhood Education Kate Ord, Jo Mane, Sue Smorti, Janis Carroll-Lind, Lesley Robinson, Arvay Armstrong-Read, Pikihora Brown-Cooper, Elena Meredith, Debbie Rickard, Juvena Jalal

2 Te Whakapakari Kaiārahi Āhuatanga Ako Kōhungahunga: Developing Pedagogical Leadership in Early Childhood Education Kate Ord, Jo Mane, Sue Smorti, Janis Carroll-Lind, Lesley Robinson, Arvay Armstrong-Read, Pikihora Brown-Cooper, Elena Meredith, Debbie Rickard, Juvena Jalal Wellington 2013

3 Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education Te Whakapakari Kaiārahi Āhuatanga Ako Kōhungahunga: Developing Pedagogical Leadership in Early Childhood Education by Kate Ord, Jo Mane, Sue Smorti, Janis Carroll-Lind, Lesley Robinson, Arvay Armstrong-Read, Pikihora Brown-Cooper, Elena Meredith, Debbie Rickard, Juvena Jalal Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa/NZ Childcare Association, 2013 PO Box , Wellington 6144 Phone (04) ISBN (print version) (online PDF) Edited by Anne Else Designed and typeset by Lynn Peck, Central Media Ltd ii

4 Acknowledgements He mihi nui tēnei ki a koutou mā e tautoko pūmau ana i tēnei kaupapa rangahau. Ka nui te miharo hoki ki a koutou ngā kaiako i tākoha mai ki te kaupapa nei me o koutou kaha ki te whakapakari ā koutou mahi, hei painga mo ngā tamariki, mokopuna. Ka nui te mihi ki ngā ringa awhina i a mātou kia tūtuki mārika i ngā mahi kua mahia. No reira, ka nui te mihi ki a tatou katoa. We would like to acknowledge the energies, enthusiasm and commitments across a range of people and groups that have collectively made this research possible. First and foremost we wish to thank our participants, who with courage and foresight agreed to be part of this research project. You participated in the programme with openness and a sense of adventurous spirit. We hope that insights into your processes of learning will inspire others to similarly open themselves to the possibilities of new theoretical frameworks for leadership. To our fellow researchers and colleagues we thank you for joining us in this project and for your acumen and collegiality. We have been privileged to have worked with you in this capacity. To members of the Māori Research Advisory Group, our appreciation for your much valued advice, support and encouragement is acknowledged in our journey of leading research that upholds Tiriti-based relationships within our organisation. Kia kaha tātou ki te whai tēnei huarahi. Three extra research assistants, Gaynor Clark, Jenny Butcher and Margaret Hammond were each attached to a cluster and provided analysis and critical support. This project was supported and carried out with funding allocated by the Council of Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa/ NZ Childcare Association. We are especially grateful to Associate Professor Joce Nuttall for her generosity in sharing her knowledge and extensive experience with our research team and for mentoring us in our role as co-directors. You have been inspirational. Lastly, Dr Janis Carroll-Lind, our Research Director at NZCA has been our rock. Her calm, patient and guiding hand has helped steer this project from inception to completion. Jo Mane and Kate Ord Ehara taku toa i te toa takitahi, engari he toa takitini Success is not the work of one but the work of many iii

5 iv Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education

6 Contents Acknowledgements... iii Foreword...ix Abstract...xi CHAPTER 1: Introduction...1 Rationale for the study... 2 The project takes shape... 3 Introduction to the research study... 4 The purpose of the study... 4 Aims and objectives of the research project... 4 Objectives of the project... 5 Research questions... 6 The research team... 6 Overview of report... 7 Organisation of chapters... 8 CHAPTER 2: Background to the study and literature review Leadership in early childhood education Distributed leadership...12 Dilemmas of leadership...13 The interface between Māori leadership and pedagogical leadership...13 Te Kōpae Piripono Te Kōhanga Reo o Mana Tamariki...16 Professional Learning...16 Professional learning and its importance in early childhood education...16 Principles of effective professional learning Key issues in professional learning...18 Diverse models/approaches...18 Reconceptualising of professional learning...18 Foregrounding of context...19 Centrality of teachers beliefs...19 The individual and collaborative nature of learning How do teachers construct and reconstruct their practice?...20 Intervention-based professional learning programmes...21 Coaching and mentoring within intervention-based professional learning programmes...21 Early childhood coaching and mentoring programmes on leadership v

7 Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education CHAPTER 3: Methodology Research questions Supplementary questions Theoretical frameworks Kaupapa Māori theoretical framework Kaupapa Māori research methodology Kaupapa Māori principles in action Expansive learning theory and third generation activity theory...30 Activity theory...31 Second generation activity theory Third generation activity theory The current study Conclusion Kaupapa Māori theory and activity theory: Alignments Mahia te mahi Activity theory and alignment to Kaupapa Māori Theoretical fieldwork: Research in action...40 Research design...40 Gaining ethics approval...40 Ethics procedures...40 Identifying research participants: recruitment and selection Recruitment Selection Description of participants Methodology of the learning and coaching and mentoring model Data generation and analysis strategies Data analysis CHAPTER 4: Kaupapa Māori findings Introduction: Taking up the model Kua mārama: Do you understand? Te Kore: the beginning Language Contradiction Te Pō: Taking up the model mid-project...57 Te Ao Mārama the completion...61 Kua mārama? Do you understand? CHAPTER 5: Learning the model Introduction: Smooth seas don t make a skilful sailor Two patterns of engagement Responding to an urgent/pressing need Alignment with the concept of contradiction Alignment with the concept of playing the system, not the person Conclusion vi

8 Contents CHAPTER 6: Expanding pedagogical leadership...80 Introduction...80 A way of working more systematically...80 Becoming more efficient Bigger picture thinking A framework for bringing contradictions to consciousness A framework for redistributing knowledge and decision making Tool for leading pedagogical dialogue (and change) Conclusion CHAPTER 7: Discussion and conclusions: Working in the shared zone Introduction Third generation activity theory as a mediating tool for leadership How can kaupapa Māori pedagogy, leadership and expansive learning theory inform and enhance each other? Kua mārama: Do you understand? How can pedagogical leadership in early childhood settings in Aotearoa/New Zealand be transformed through knowledge and understanding of expansive learning theory? Objective 1: Trialling a methodology Objective 2: Exploring possible alignments Objective 3: Learn a framework Objective 4: Developing strategies to lead Objective 5: Develop confidence and self efficacy The professional learning model Implications of the study NZCA procedures for researching with Māori Opportunities for early childhood centres to participate/engage in research/professional learning Future research by NZCA as a follow up study to evaluate sustainability Collaborative research projects Professional learning opportunities Conclusion References Glossary vii

9 viii Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education

10 foreword Foreword Tēnā koutou katoa Educators working in education and care services for young children implicitly understand the value of effective leadership, and the early childhood field in Aotearoa New Zealand has produced many prominent leaders. Yet the field of leadership remains one of the most complex and contested domains of contemporary theory and practice in education. Many discourses of leadership have come to the early childhood field from the study of organisational systems, particularly from the corporate sphere where the issues of intimacy and confidentiality typical of early childhood settings are often overlooked. These discourses have led the field to understand the value of effective management and efficient administration, but have been less useful for shaping leadership that promotes effective teaching and learning. We now understand, both within and beyond education, that the most effective leaders are those who promote the learning of their teams. This has been the focus of this Flagship project. Most early childhood educators have a familiar grasp of theories of child development; we know how children learn and we know how to promote that learning. As educators become more experienced and more senior in their roles, this knowledge remains important. However a further body of theory and practice also becomes necessary: an understanding of how adults learn and develop in the workplace. This Flagship project has taken these understandings in new directions in Aotearoa/New Zealand because of the way it has supported leaders to think about centres as coherent systems, rather than as a group of individual staff. By learning to view their centres as distinctive cultural constructions, with their own rules and cultural norms, the leaders participating in this project have come to view themselves as agents of cultural change, not just as managers of individual performance. This is a profound step forward for the field. It has been a privilege to work with the Flagship 3 team on this project, particularly the opportunity to work with tangata whenua to push the limits of existing theory in new directions. This report speaks eloquently of the insights that are possible at the boundaries where theoretical perspectives meet and the ways in which conversations at these boundaries can offer new ways of thinking about practice. The work reported here is also an account of a remarkable research effort, with the project conceived, planned, implemented, analysed and reported within a short period of time for a project of this scope. This speaks to the determination of the research team and, indeed, their own capacity to lead. I congratulate Te Tari Puna Ora for instigating and supporting this project, and hope it will inspire others to think about leadership in new and exciting ways. Joce Nuttall, PhD Associate Professor and Principal Research Fellow Faculty of Education, Australian Catholic University ix

11 x Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education

12 Abstract Abstract There is a growing awareness of the need for leadership development within the early childhood sector. This report investigates the implementation of a research and development project designed to enhance pedagogical leadership practice in early childhood centres. The project involved trialling a mentoring and coaching methodology across a diverse range of early childhood settings, with the aim of enhancing pedagogical leadership through engaging in change conversations to improve teaching and learning. This involved the application of Engestrom s (1987, 2001) expansive learning theoretical framework as a tool to understand the dynamics of change within systems of activity such as early childhood centres. It was hypothesised that pedagogical leadership could be enhanced through the appropriation of knowledge associated with expansive learning theory, which itself sits within and draws on the theoretical perspective and tools of third generation activity theory. The research, which largely replicated Nuttall s (2013a) research design, was carried out across multiple sites (clusters) and with multiple research teams. It incorporated two theoretical perspectives: kaupapa Māori and expansive learning theory. One cluster specifically comprised participants who identified as working within a kaupapa Māori approach. All participants were designated leaders in their early childhood centres. They attended a series of workshops interspersed with coaching and mentoring sessions in their centres over a period of seven months, from July 2012 to February Data were generated through audiotaped and transcribed interviews with paired participants from each centre (although some variation existed), and conducted at roughly six-week intervals across the programme. In addition, field-notes were made by researchers during the workshops. Analysis of transcripts was iterative and carried out both deductively and inductively, first within each of the three clusters and secondly across the full data set. The key findings suggest that participants appropriated and adapted the tool of third generation activity theory, including participants who identified as working within kaupapa Māori. The project established that there are some clear synergies between kaupapa Māori, leadership and expansive learning theory, and this relationship is worthy of more thorough investigation. In varying degrees, participants across the project made sense of themselves as pedagogical leaders within and against their developing understanding of expansive learning theory. Significantly, all participants found sense in third generation activity theory as a tool for understanding the centre as a system collectively focused on the achievement of shared objects (or tasks), rather than as a collection of individuals. This indicates a significant transformation in the consciousness of many leaders for whom, prior to the project, pedagogical leadership equated to working with or on individuals. Through the project, many leaders experienced a shift in the locus of control from the individual to the group or collective, in terms of both where most problems of practice lay and where solutions are to be found. xi

13 Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education While the purpose of the project was to teach a methodology for leading pedagogy in centres, changing what happened in centres was not the work of the project. However, there is ample evidence to suggest that change did occur at the level of the centre. Our findings strongly suggest that the methodology of expansive learning theory is productive as a framework for conceptualising pedagogical leadership in early childhood settings, and that this is well-suited to a range of settings, including those that prioritise the collective over individual ways of working, as in kaupapa Māori settings and Pasifika centres in the project. xii

14 Introduction CHAPTER 1: Introduction The focus of this Flagship research project is pedagogical leadership in early childhood education. Broadly speaking, pedagogical leadership refers to the way in which the central task of improving teaching and learning takes place in educational settings. It is leadership focused on curriculum and pedagogy rather than on management and administration (Thomas Nuttall, in press). Pedagogical leadership is an emerging discourse, surfacing in the school sector in the early 1980s (Robinson, Hohepa, Lloyd, 2009) and with discernible beginnings in early childhood education in the late 1990s (Heikka Waniganayeke, 2011). As a construct it still requires significant theoretical development, especially within countries where the notion of pedagogy is itself a relatively new concept (Heikka Waniganayeke, 2011). Robinson, Hohepa, and Lloyd (2009) assert that pedagogical leadership has an emphasis on educational purposes (p. 38), such as establishing educational goals, curriculum planning, and evaluating teachers and teaching. Clarkin-Phillips (2009) suggests that pedagogical leadership commands particular interest because it is pedagogy that impacts most immediately on children (p. 22). The concept of leadership itself is a highly contested and at times elusive term (Thornton, Wansbrough, Clarkin-Phillips, Aitken, Tamati, 2009). A focus on children and their educational experience and outcomes provides a focus for leadership within educational settings that is firmly orientated towards those whom these institutions aim to serve and benefit. Pedagogical leadership is, in effect, leadership for learning. Having reviewed empirically based literature examining the relationship between school leadership and student outcomes, Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd conclude that the closer leaders get to the core business of teaching and learning, the more likely it is that they will have a positive impact on their students (p. 201). Heikka and Waniganayeke (2011) argue that the time has come for early childhood teachers to step up to the role of leading pedagogical conversations within classrooms and beyond (p. 510). The study we report on here is focused on supporting pedagogical leaders in early childhood settings to do just this. It covers a research and development project which trialled a methodology, including a theoretical framework, for use by centre leaders, and which focuses on supporting and enhancing pedagogical leadership practice in centres. 1

15 Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education Rationale for the study While research into educational leadership is extensive in the compulsory sector (see Robinson, Hohepa, Lloyd, 2009), it is an underexplored area of early childhood research (Thornton, 2011). The research and development project reported on here sits within and responds to the current context of a heightened awareness and interest in (Bell, 2011) and growing empirical evidence base for the importance of leadership, and of leadership learning and development, within the early childhood education sector (Thornton, 2010). In 2002, the early childhood 10-year strategic plan (Ministry of Education, 2002) set a coherent and unique direction for early childhood education in Aotearoa New Zealand, principally through the staged plan for 100% qualified teachers 1. At that time, a concomitant focus on leadership was identified. This was articulated as a commitment to provide leadership development programmes to strengthen leadership in ECE services (Ministry of Education, 2002, p. 15). In 2009, the New Zealand Teachers Council (NZTC) research report, Conceptualising Leadership in Early Childhood Education in Aotearoa New Zealand (Thornton et al., 2009) identified effective leadership as a factor associated with quality in early childhood settings. However, there is no leadership strategy within the early childhood sector equivalent to the one within the school sector. This poses a significant risk to professional initiatives supporting quality teaching and learning within the sector (Lind, 2009, media release). While NZTC s occasional paper has helped to promote discussion, as yet it has not influenced Government policy. In 2010, NZTC convened a working group to describe ECE leadership and outline a plan for its development. That same year, the Education Review Office identified nine key aspects of early childhood practice that contribute to quality learning opportunities for infants, toddlers and young children. The first of these interrelated elements was leadership. The recent government report, A Vision for the Teaching Profession (2011), recommends leadership development for all of the teaching sectors. This theme is picked up in the 2011 ECE taskforce report, Amazing Children, which also recommends ECE leadership development. This clearly identified need for leadership development within the early childhood sector provided the impetus for this research project. It is one of NZCA s Flagship projects, intended to facilitate our goal to generate new, credible, and useful research knowledge related to early childhood education or teacher education in the Aotearoa context. It was decided that, as an advocacy organisation for the sector and as a provider of initial teacher education, NZCA would support initiatives and contribute to the research platform focusing on leadership and leadership development. This decision was based on the assumption that, given the limited parameters of government initiatives to support leadership programmes in ECE (NZTC, 2009) and a relative absence of leadership as a focus in initial teacher education programmes (Weisz-Koves, 2011), a programme of leadership learning and development would be a timely and socially just initiative for an organisation such as ours. Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd s (2009) Best Evidence Synthesis (School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why) clearly identifies that it is pedagogical leadership, as opposed to other forms of leadership, that has the most significant impact 1 The National Government s policy change on 1 February 2011 reduced funding to centres with 100% qualified teachers. 2

16 Introduction on student outcomes. However, as these authors point out, other forms of leadership, (e.g., transformational leadership) have not previously had student outcomes as their focus. Pedagogical leadership attends to leadership practices that make a difference to student achievement and well-being (Robinson, Hohepa Lloyd, p. 35). Although this evidence relates to the school sector, like Scrivens (2003), we consider that research generated in other sectors of education has the capacity to illuminate related issues within early childhood education. This does not remove the need for early childhood education to research its own practices as well, particularly given the distinctiveness of the sector (Thornton et al, 2009). The project takes shape There were many forms a research project with a focus on leadership could take. It was decided that a dual programme of professional learning and research had the potential to contribute to the sector in material ways, and also to contribute to the developing research and knowledge base with respect to pedagogical leadership. In other words, the project was not a side by side model of research and professional development, but featured a dialectical relationship between development and inquiry. This approach is consistent with Edward s (2007) contention that research in early childhood education should not limit itself to contributing to the knowledge base, but should also be an opportunity for teachers, as research participants, to engage in reflexive learning experiences (p. 85) which enhance the cultural capital they bring to the research space. Our decision was based substantially on a research project designed and carried out in Melbourne, Australia by Associate Professor Joce Nuttall (Australian Catholic University); a longstanding friend of NZCA who is widely recognised for her early childhood research studies in cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) methodology. In particular, it is Associate Professor Nuttall s research design and implementation of a programme of professional learning for pedagogical leaders in Melbourne early childhood settings that forms the basis of our project. Associate Professor Nuttall also acted as NZCA s advisor and critical friend for the current study. Our link with this particular research programme also contributes to building research capacity in a cross-national sense (Nuttall, in press-a). Typically, centre leaders here and in Australia have expertise working with children and families, but not in fostering adult learning. We agree with Associate Professor Nuttall when she suggests that effective centre and service leadership relies not only on dispositions such as determination, initiative, and courage, but on leaders knowing how to marshal organisational dynamics around common goals or learning objects (personal correspondence, March, 2012). The Melbourne project she has developed assists centre leaders to foster ongoing professional learning in their teaching teams, focused on curriculum and pedagogy consistent with a communities of practice approach (Wenger, 1998). The initial intention was to replicate Nuttall s ( ) commissioned project in Melbourne (see Nuttall, 2013a). However, as is often the case, it soon became clear that different research questions were required for our Aotearoa/New Zealand context (see below). Nuttall s research and consultancy focuses on collective approaches to effective professional learning in early childhood settings; in the same way, she helped our research team to understand the conceptual framework that underpins both the coaching and the research methodology of this study. 3

17 Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education Introduction to the research study Through exploring a research focus on leadership it was decided to base this project on an intervention that had the potential to support and enhance current pedagogical leadership practices in centres. Our decision to explore pedagogical leadership (over other forms of leadership) was related to how this form of leadership is deemed to have a direct relationship with positive outcomes for children (Robinson, Hohepa, Lloyd, 2009). Because teachers in early childhood education work closely together and share the responsibility for children s learning, pedagogical leadership requires leaders to develop strategies that will assist them to lead and develop the pedagogical practices of their teams. The purpose of the study The purpose of the study was to simultaneously undertake research and development. This involved trialling a mentoring and coaching methodology that we believed had the potential to support designated or positional leaders (those who are responsible for the learning and teaching programme in their early childhood centre/service), in a culturally diverse range of settings, to understand the centre as a system and not as a group of individuals. This position reflects the dominance of particular or cultural ways of being and doing over the individual as the primary source of meaning. Central to the project is the mobilisation of the professionalism of the teaching team, whereby the designated leader/s help create the space for all teachers to be leaders. This represents a link with the notion of distributed leadership; a form of leadership that is currently gaining momentum, according to the literature (Clarkin-Phillips, 2009; Heikka Waniganayeke, 2011; Scrivens, Jordan, Bary, Deans, Charlton, et al., 2007), and is congruent with the collaborative nature of teaching in early childhood settings in Aotearoa/New Zealand. While leadership can be exercised without positional power, we wanted to offer support specifically to those in designated positions, as they ultimately carry the responsibility for ensuring the pedagogical focus within centres. The project was also designed as a research project, whereby insights derived from the mentoring and coaching programme are investigated and made available to the wider early childhood and education community. Aims and objectives of the research project This project is framed around four key aims. The first aim was to trial a methodology that has the potential to empower research participants to implement a sustainable programme of pedagogical leadership, based on confidently engaging with colleagues in change conversations to improve teaching and learning within their centres. This involved the application of Engeström s (1987, 2001) expansive learning theoretical framework as a tool to understand the dynamics of change, and thus to support a transformation in pedagogical leadership in centres. It is hypothesised that pedagogical leadership can be enhanced through the appropriation of knowledge associated with expansive learning theory, which itself sits within and draws on the theoretical perspective and theoretical tools of cultural historical activity theory (CHAT). The project was not designed to make pedagogical leaders into coaches or mentors; but rather to enable them to learn a new tool for exerting pedagogical leadership. 4

18 Introduction The second aim of our project was to strengthen participants (designated pedagogical leaders) confidence and sense of self efficacy (Weisz-Koves, 2011) in leading and framing pedagogical discussions through the intervention-based professional learning programme which was the subject of our research. Educational leadership researcher Viviane Robinson (cited in Boyd, 2009) asserts that a good educational leader should be confident in leading discussions about curriculum, assessment and pedagogy (p. 38). Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd (2009) found that being able to engage in constructive problem talk (p. 43) is a key leadership dimension that impacts on student achievement. A third aim, linked to the previous one, was to empower pedagogical leaders to build positive teaching and learning cultures in their settings, based on collective action, by adapting the model we propose in the professional learning programme. Finally, our fourth aim was linked to our desire to work across a diverse range of cultural settings inclusive of kaupapa Māori. With this aim in mind, we sought to explore the alignment between our understandings of CHAT in relation to kaupapa Māori (Bishop Glynn, 1999; G. Smith, 1997; L. Smith, 1999). Kaupapa Māori research, theory, practice and methodology align directly to some of the core aspects of CHAT. Both are strengthsbased approaches that seek positive outcomes for collective good, with an aim of transformational change. Questions arise from this discussion about how expansive learning theory, in its practical application, is understood in and related to centres that identify as kaupapa Māori. Given the project s bicultural commitment to Māori as tangata whenua, it was important to demonstrate how this project played out for centres that are founded on kaupapa Māori principles. Consequently, it was determined that the cluster led by kaupapa Māori researchers would specifically target centres that either align to kaupapa Māori theory or work from a philosophical base grounded in Māori world views. This fourth aim is a significant variation on the Nuttall (2013a) project, as discussed previously. Objectives of the project These four aims gave rise to two research objectives for this project: To trial a methodology that has the potential to support and extend pedagogical leadership in early childhood centres To explore possible alignments between pedagogical leadership in kaupapa Māori settings, kaupapa Māori research and the theory of expansive learning Objectives specific to the coaching and mentoring programme were: Participants will learn a framework for identifying factors that afford and constrain pedagogical leadership in their early childhood centre/service Participants will develop strategies to lead and develop the pedagogical practice of their teams in systematic and focused ways Participants will develop confidence and a sense of self efficacy as pedagogical leaders. 5

19 Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education Research questions In order to address the purpose and aims of the project and to guide our inquiry, we framed two key research questions. The first of these was: How can pedagogical leadership in early childhood settings in Aotearoa/New Zealand be transformed through knowledge and understanding of expansive learning theory? Initially we expected this question to encompass our desire to work with a culturally diverse range of settings and their respective leaders, and in particular with centres that identified as working from a base of kaupapa Māori. However, upon critical scrutiny, dialogue with our Māori staff and Māori research advisory group identified the relevance of bringing kaupapa Māori to the fore. Thus the second research question that evolved was: How can kaupapa Māori pedagogy and leadership be informed and enhanced by expansive learning theory? Of fundamental importance to the discussion of leadership is the Association s commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and consequently to kaupapa Māori research, theory and practice (G. Smith, 1997). Further consideration early in the development of the research proposal prepared for our internal ethical approval process also raised questions as to how the research would relate to and impact on Māori aspirations (Robinson Hohepa, 2010) for pedagogical leadership. The place of kaupapa Māori within this project contributes to the conversation about kaupapa Māori research within the early childhood sector (see Soutar, 2010; Tamati, Hond-Flavell, Korewha, 2008). Developing pedagogical leadership in early childhood settings raises several key areas of discourse in terms of kaupapa Māori research, theory and practice within the project; but notably also in the organisation of Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa/New Zealand Childcare Association and early childhood education more generally (Mane, Armstrong-Read, Brown-Cooper, in press). As a project that has a kaupapa Māori cluster as part of a larger project, many would ask, how does that happen exactly? While the involvement of kaupapa Māori was not explicitly intended from the inception of the project, it did nevertheless eventuate in the development of the proposal, in terms of building te Titiriti o Waitangi-based capacity within the organisation s bicultural framework. Specific focus on the establishment of a kaupapa Māori cluster was to be led by a kaupapa Māori research team, consisting of three Māori researchers who all have whakapapa links to iwi in their region; and who all live and work in those regions. The specific task of this team has been to explore the alignments between kaupapa Māori theory, activity theory and expansive learning theory, as articulated within the second research question. The research team Flagship research projects are an integral part of NZCA s research strategy. These are designed to contribute to building research capacity within the organisation, whilst also contributing to the sector. Flagship projects involve experienced researchers, drawn from within the organisation, working alongside and mentoring colleagues who share a passion and commitment to research that adds to our knowledge of high quality early childhood 6

20 Introduction education. In this project, as previously indicated, we were advised by Associate Professor Joce Nuttall, who also acted as a critical friend. The NZCA research team was: Drs Kate Ord and Jo Mane: project co-directors/researchers (workshop facilitators, coaching and mentoring, analysis and writing) Sue Smorti: project researcher (workshop facilitator, coaching and mentoring, analysis and writing) Dr Janis Carroll-Lind: project supervisor (writing and editing) Lesley Robinson: project researcher (analysis and writing) Arvay Armstrong-Read: project researcher (analysis and writing) Pikihora Brown-Cooper: project researcher (analysis and writing) Juvena Jalal: project researcher (analysis) Elena Meredith: project researcher (analysis) Debbie Rickard: project researcher (analysis and report editing) Overview of report As previously stated, the purpose of this study was to undertake a research and development project focused on supporting centre leaders to actively lead the development of pedagogy in their centres. This involved learning what was, to most, a very new and unfamiliar theoretical framework for envisioning their centres as a system of collective activity, rather than a collection of individuals who are often referred to as a team (Hard, 2006). This framework, known as cultural historical activity theory (CHAT), was predicted to have the potential to be used as an analytic tool. This tool could support participants to understand leadership problems or dilemmas in a different way (Reynolds Cardno, 2008). Rather than being something to be managed, they can be used positively as the basis for productive dialogue within and between teachers, in order to create positive change both for children and for teachers themselves. This dual approach is inherent in the nature of the term pedagogy. As Loughran (2010, cited Dalli, White, Rockel, Duhn, 2011, p. 66) explains, pedagogy is concerned with the relationship between teaching and learning. Understanding this interplay between teaching and learning and learning and teaching is an important shift in focus from teaching alone, because it really means that the two exist together (p. 36). This report details the research project and learning journey undertaken by our participants, as interpreted and re-presented by the research team. In constructing the report, we have had two interrelated audiences in mind. The first are those leaders (including our participants) and emerging leaders, in a diverse range of education and care centres, who wish to access our findings in order to expand their understandings of pedagogical leadership. While we did not extend invitations to participate in the study to kindergarten teachers, we see this report as being of interest to them too. Secondly, we offer this report as part of the evolving research-based dialogue on leadership within the teacher research community. 7

21 Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education This report is by no means a definitive account of our findings. Like other research studies located in interpretive and qualitative traditions, it is only one of many possible accounts. As such, it represents our first in-depth analysis of the data, and we are committed to subsequent analyses and re-presentations. Other accounts from the perspective and authorship of participants are in preparation. The report follows a fairly conventional pattern: setting the research and development project within relevant literature, outlining our methodological framework and approach, presenting the findings, and ending with a discussion and conclusion. Organisation of chapters In this introductory chapter (Chapter 1), we have located the project within the current context of interest in leadership within early childhood over the past decade, beginning with its identification in the 2002 early childhood strategic plan (Ministry of Education, 2002). The specific focus for the study was aligned with pedagogical leadership, because of its concerns both with children s learning and well-being and with the learning and development of research participants. We have gratefully acknowledged the relationship between this study and that of Associate Professor Joce Nuttall, and have also briefly discussed the ways in which this project varies from hers. While the project substantially draws on her methodology, including workshop content and the coaching and mentoring programme (see Chapter 3), we have included kaupapa Māori research principles across the project and more specifically in one research cluster. This is expressed as a Tiriti o Waitangi responsibility and constitutes an ongoing research narrative in subsequent chapters of the report. In Chapter 2 we present three bodies of research literature related to our study: on leadership in early childhood education, with an emphasis on local studies, including those located within kaupapa Māori frameworks; on current approaches to professional learning; and on coaching and mentoring programmes. All three point to a more dynamic and complex picture of teacher learning than is often portrayed in public discourses about teaching and in earlier scholarly publications (see Cochran-Smith Fries, 2005; Ord, 2010). The chapter provides a background for locating the study. Chapter 3 presents the methodological frameworks for the study; kaupapa Māori and expansive learning theory, including the evolution of cultural historical activity theory and the methods. It then presents an analysis of possible alignments between kaupapa Māori theory and activity theory. Next comes an account of data generation methods, selection and recruitment of participants, and ethical procedures. In this section we discuss the determination of three discrete research clusters. Each cluster included a lead researcher who led and facilitated a series of workshops and carried out the coaching and mentoring aspect of the project, together with two supporting researchers and participants from selected centres who were all designated leaders. As will be explained, these participants were encouraged to take part in the project in pairs. Two clusters had participants from six education and care centres in two different geographical regions; the third, our kaupapa Māori cluster, had participants from four centres in a third region. Chapters 4, 5 and 6 present our findings to date. In Chapter 4 we give a narrative based account of how participants in the kaupapa Māori cluster came to learn (or appropriate) the model offered through the workshops and the follow-up coaching and mentoring 8

22 Introduction programme. The analysis begins to address our question about the alignments between kaupapa Māori and expansive learning theory (this discussion is continued in Chapter 7). In Chapter 5 we look at the ways in which participants across all three clusters engaged with and made sense of the tool of activity theory. Learning this tool is a prerequisite to understanding expansive learning theory and exploiting the productive potential of this theory for pedagogical leadership. Chapter 6 builds on the previous two chapters and presents an analysis which directly addresses our research question about the way in which pedagogical leadership can be transformed through knowledge and understanding of expansive learning theory. Here we argue that our data provides sufficient evidence that it is possible to support centre leaders to appropriate the tool of third generation activity theory and that this, in turn, can support and enhance pedagogical leadership in centres. While we perhaps too cautiously claim that these are flickers of understanding, rather than deeply entrenched transformations, we are excited by our findings. Our final chapter (Chapter 7) begins by revisiting the theoretical model as a mediating tool for pedagogical leadership. We then continue the discussion begun in each of the three preceding chapters, addressing our research questions more specifically and responding to the objectives of the project, which to a great extent mirror our aims. This is followed by a consideration of the professional learning model used in the project, linking this back to the literature discussed in Chapter 2. The chapter concludes with the implications of the study, and future directions. 9

23 Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education CHAPTER 2: Background to the study and literature review In order to locate the study, we present overviews of three bodies of literature: on leadership, with an emphasis on pedagogical leadership; on professional learning; and on coaching and mentoring; a subset of professional learning. Leadership in early childhood education Ten years ago, Cushla Scrivens (2003). describing the state of knowledge about leadership in early childhood education, wrote that this constituted a rather muddled collection of literature that doesn t fit together well (p. 29). Certainly a key message from the literature and commentary about leadership in early childhood education is that it lacks a consensual core of definition, understanding and theoretical framing. Nivala (2002) calls this leadership confusion (p. 14), and attributes it to models of educational leadership not having their own identity, but rather being related to the adoption and/or adaption of leadership models and discourses that originated in the business world. In a similar vein to Scrivens, Nivala writes, the more you read, the more it is difficult to build a clear picture of what is good leadership or what skills you need or you have to develop to call yourself a good leader (p. 14). More recently, an occasional paper by Thornton et al. (2009) explored the current state of leadership and leadership development within Aotearoa/New Zealand. They paid considerable attention to a range of issues and dilemmas facing leadership generally in early childhood, and identified six areas which we briefly discuss here. The first is the low profile of leadership within the early childhood research community, despite there being considerable potential (p. 5) for this research. Reasons given for this low profile include reluctance from those working in the sector to engage with the notion of leadership, and, interestingly, similar reluctance to explore relevant models generated in the school sector and elsewhere. Central to this discussion is how the notion of leadership is to be constructed within the sector, and the relevance of emphasis on a single person, in a sector that generally constitutes groups of teachers working collaboratively. The evidence presented suggests the gendered nature of the early childhood teaching workforce means that it does not warm to dominant discourses of leadership located in masculine constructions. 10

24 Background to the study and literature review The second issue noted is the lack of an accepted definition or common understanding of leadership (p. 6). This is linked to there being no consensual concept of leadership, possibly because of the diversity of the sector, with its diverse programmes and structures (community, private, corporate/institution). In Bloom s (2003, cited in Thornton et al., 2009) terms, this makes leadership an elusive phenomenon. However, according to Kagan and Hallmark (2001, cited in Thornton et al., 2009), diversity is a positive feature, as it allows a range of approaches to leadership to be explored. We see this playing out in the current context, where leadership within kaupapa Māori settings is providing impetus in leadership research (as discussed below). A third issue noted by Thornton et al. (2009) is the confusion between leadership and management/terminology used in the sector which emphasises management over leadership (p. 8). The fact that early childhood education and care services are often standalone enterprises and have historically been located outside the education sector may be responsible for this blurring of the boundary between leadership and management. Thornton et al. cite literature that locates the management/ leadership split in the predominance and influence of management discourses over the last two decades. This confusion is arguably about to decline. Newer discourses and models of leadership are beginning to make more explicit use of terms such as educational leadership and pedagogical leadership, to signify a more specific focus for leadership as opposed to management. There has also been rising interest in the notion of distributed leadership (Clarkin-Phillips, 2007, 2009; Muijs, Aubrey, Harris, Briggs, 2004; Rodd, 2006; Scrivens, 2006), which appears to resonate with early childhood teachers and their collaborative teaching contexts more than the notion of a sole leader. This may also help to clarify the relationship between leadership and management. A fourth issue for Thornton and colleagues is linked to how leadership in early childhood education can be taken up by newly qualified, less experienced teachers taking on leadership positions (p. 9). (The research cited here is local and attributed to the change in regulatory requirements for qualified teachers.) Such teachers find themselves in leadership positions with limited experience even as teachers, let alone sufficient experience across a range of teaching experiences and roles, which would arguably enhance their leadership capacities. This presents a particular problem when leadership is held within the person/position, and is not considered to be a more collective responsibility. Thornton et al. s fifth and sixth issues respectively address the lack of emphasis on leadership in the early childhood sector by the Ministry of Education (p. 9) an issue raised previously in this report and a lack of leadership development programmes in ECE (p. 11). These two issues are compared by Thornton et al. with the substantive provisions for leadership policy and provision within the schools sector. A cumulative effect of this situation is a lack of preparedness, both structurally and professionally, for leadership within our sector. The lack of leadership programmes identified by Thornton et al. lends weight to our decision to incorporate both research and development within the one project. In returning to Scrivens s (2003) appraisal of the literature as a muddled collection (p. 29), Thornton and colleagues suggest that clarity around the notion of leadership, as both a lived and researched phenomenon, is a work in progress. Two very different but equally promising lines of inquiry are currently being explored in the research literature. The first is distributed leadership, and the second focuses on the dilemmas of leadership. 11

25 Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education Distributed leadership Distributed leadership recognises the role that all professionals within an educational setting play in implementing change, and that it is through collaboration and collectivity that expertise is developed (Clarkin-Phillips, 2009, p. 22). A focus on collaboration and collectivity works well in educational settings such as early childhood education, given the nature of teaching in this sector. For Clarkin-Phillips (2009), distributed leadership is a strengths-based approach whereby those working together call on their strengths and interests, and this in turn allows greater agency and motivation. In their review of the literature on distributed leadership, Bennett, Wise, Woods and Harvey (2003) note that it was difficult to find a clear definition of distributed or devolved leadership, as few such definitions existed in the literature they reviewed. This is possibly because this conceptualisation of leadership is relatively new and still evolving. For example, Bennett et al. s search of the literature initially restricted the search to publications from 1988 onwards, but this yielded few studies, and bringing the date forward to 1996 made almost no difference (p. 4). Bennett et al. suggest that this lack of clarity around a clear definition is due to the many different definitions of leadership that already exist. They note that many of the studies they reviewed defined distributed leadership in ways that closely mirrored existing conceptions. The situation is further confused by the pragmatics of leading and leadership, and the distinctions between leading/leadership and management (Bennett et al., 2003). In the absence of a clear definition, Bennett et al. (2003) concluded that it was nevertheless possible to identify a cluster of three distinctive elements of the concept of distributed leadership (p. 7). One of these in particular foregrounds the notion of leadership as being an emergent property of a group or network of interacting individuals (p. 7), rather than the property of an individual. Drawing on Gronn s (2002) analysis, Bennett et al. appropriate the concept of concertive action to give distributed leadership an edge that distinguishes it from other forms of leadership. Concertive action is described by Bennett et al. (2003) as being: about the additional dynamic which is the product of conjoint activity. Where people work together in such a way as to pool their initiative and expertise, the outcome is a product or energy which is greater than the sum of their individual actions (p. 7) The other two elements named by Bennett et al. (2003) include an openness to the boundaries of leadership, within (and possibly beyond) the community in which leadership is exercised, and a related idea that varieties of expertise are distributed across the many, not the few (p. 7). Gronn s (2002) work is located in third generation activity theory, as espoused by Finnish researcher Engeström. Within this form of activity theory, it is collective agency, as opposed to individual agency, that makes things happen in organisations. Gronn (2002) suggests that a growing dissatisfaction with the notion of visionary leadership and organisational change, in favour of flatter structures and ideas about organisational learning, have fuelled interest in the notion of distributed leadership. Within the education sector, new knowledge technologies and information age requirements are promoting a normative view, that distributed leadership is a more effective way of coping with a complex, information rich society (as cited in Bennett et al, 2003, p. 17). 12