Developing Pedagogical Leadership in Early Childhood Education

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

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

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 12 725, Wellington 6144 Phone (04) 473 4672 www.nzca.ac.nz ISBN 978-0-473-25326-4 (print version) 978-0-473-25327-1 (online PDF) Edited by Anne Else Designed and typeset by Lynn Peck, Central Media Ltd ii

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

iv Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education

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... 10 Leadership in early childhood education... 10 Distributed leadership...12 Dilemmas of leadership...13 The interface between Māori leadership and pedagogical leadership...13 Te Kōpae Piripono... 15 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... 17 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... 20 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... 23 v

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education CHAPTER 3: Methodology... 25 Research questions... 26 Supplementary questions... 26 Theoretical frameworks... 26 Kaupapa Māori theoretical framework... 26 Kaupapa Māori research methodology... 27 Kaupapa Māori principles in action... 29 Expansive learning theory and third generation activity theory...30 Activity theory...31 Second generation activity theory... 34 Third generation activity theory... 35 The current study... 37 Conclusion... 38 Kaupapa Māori theory and activity theory: Alignments Mahia te mahi... 38 Activity theory and alignment to Kaupapa Māori... 38 Theoretical fieldwork: Research in action...40 Research design...40 Gaining ethics approval...40 Ethics procedures...40 Identifying research participants: recruitment and selection... 43 Recruitment... 43 Selection... 44 Description of participants... 45 Methodology of the learning and coaching and mentoring model... 45 Data generation and analysis strategies... 47 Data analysis... 47 CHAPTER 4: Kaupapa Māori findings... 49 Introduction: Taking up the model... 49 Kua mārama: Do you understand?... 49 Te Kore: the beginning... 50 Language... 52 Contradiction... 55 Te Pō: Taking up the model mid-project...57 Te Ao Mārama the completion...61 Kua mārama? Do you understand?... 64 CHAPTER 5: Learning the model... 65 Introduction: Smooth seas don t make a skilful sailor... 65 Two patterns of engagement... 66 Responding to an urgent/pressing need... 66 Alignment with the concept of contradiction... 69 Alignment with the concept of playing the system, not the person... 76 Conclusion... 78 vi

Contents CHAPTER 6: Expanding pedagogical leadership...80 Introduction...80 A way of working more systematically...80 Becoming more efficient... 85 Bigger picture thinking... 87 A framework for bringing contradictions to consciousness... 88 A framework for redistributing knowledge and decision making... 93 Tool for leading pedagogical dialogue (and change)... 95 Conclusion... 97 CHAPTER 7: Discussion and conclusions: Working in the shared zone... 98 Introduction... 98 Third generation activity theory as a mediating tool for leadership... 99 How can kaupapa Māori pedagogy, leadership and expansive learning theory inform and enhance each other?... 100 Kua mārama: Do you understand?... 100 How can pedagogical leadership in early childhood settings in Aotearoa/New Zealand be transformed through knowledge and understanding of expansive learning theory?...102 Objective 1: Trialling a methodology...103 Objective 2: Exploring possible alignments... 104 Objective 3: Learn a framework...105 Objective 4: Developing strategies to lead... 106 Objective 5: Develop confidence and self efficacy...107 The professional learning model...107 Implications of the study... 110 1. NZCA procedures for researching with Māori... 110 2. Opportunities for early childhood centres to participate/engage in research/professional learning... 111 3. Future research by NZCA as a follow up study to evaluate sustainability... 111 4. Collaborative research projects... 111 5. Professional learning opportunities... 111 Conclusion... 111 References... 113 Glossary... 121 vii

viii Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education

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

x Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education

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 2013. 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

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

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

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

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 (2011-2012) 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background to the study and literature review More recently, a number of Aotearoa/New Zealand studies (Bary et al. 2008; Clarkin- Phillips, 2009; Scrivens et al., 2007) have explored the construct of distributed leadership. These studies find strong links between this form of leadership and pedagogical decisionmaking that leads to positive pedagogical change. For example, Clarkin-Phillips suggests that learning environments become richer due to the contribution of all players [and] a significant factor in empowering teachers and affording them opportunities for ongoing learning and leadership development (p. 26). Similarly, Scrivens et al. discuss how professional knowledge was strengthened through professional dialogue and pedagogical challenge that surfaced in their exploration and experience of distributed leadership. In the context of our study, the decision to focus on working with designated leaders did not exclude or ignore the literature that attests to how everyone can, in a sense, be a leader (Clarkin-Phillips, 2009). Dilemmas of leadership Cardno and Reynolds (2009; see also Reynolds Cardno, 2008) argue that a central task of leadership is the capacity to help resolve complex problems or what they term dilemmas. Drawing on Hoy and Miskel (2005, cited in Cardno Reynolds, 2009) a dilemma arises when one is confronted with decision alternatives in which any choice sacrifices some valued objective in the interest of other objectives (p. 208). Reynolds and Cardno propose that early childhood leaders need a theoretical tool to enable them to address these complex dilemmas. The tool they suggest is productive reasoning, based on the work of Argyris and Schön. This framework supports leaders in confronting dilemmas and creating learning cultures in ECE services that are committed to solving dilemmas or problems. This work (conducted in both education and care centres and kindergartens) strongly indicates that the capability to identify and resolve dilemmas is an important feature of achieving organisational goals, such as pedagogical goals. Of interest to the current study is the authors assertion that a theoretical model is required to shift leadership practices to embrace dilemmas, as being productive of professional learning. The interface between Māori leadership and pedagogical leadership Māori leadership is critical to the discussions and understandings of pedagogical leadership, particularly in the context of Aotearoa/New Zealand. Tu Rangatira (Robinson Hohepa, 2010) provides significant insight into key aspects of leadership within Māorimedium learning settings, highlighting the character of Māori leadership as holding multiple responsibilities. With a distinct focus on expanding learner potential, its aim is to inform and strengthen leadership practice within the Māori medium sector. Tu Rangatira is underpinned by a framework based on the concept of a korowai, a symbol of prestige, leadership and accomplishment, intertwined with concepts of care, protection and warmth. The multiple responsibilities of Māori leadership are clearly defined in this document by interweaving seven key roles of leadership with seven key areas of focus. The seven key roles of leadership are defined as: He Kaitiaki guardian He Kaiwhakarite manager 13

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education He Kanohi Matāra visionary He Kaiako teacher and learner He Kaimahi worker He Kaikōtuhtuhi networker He Kaiarataki advocate The seven key focus areas for leadership are: Mana Mokopuna placing the learning at the heart Mana Wairua spiritual and holistic well-being Mana Tangata recognising that relationships are critical to effective practice Mana Reo the preservation of te reo Māori Mana Tikanga Māori customs and protocols Mana Mātauranga Māori Māori discourses and knowledge Mana-A-Kura the uniqueness of each kura Tu Rangatira s framework therefore highlights a fundamental connection between key principles of Māori leadership within teaching and learning environments and pedagogical leadership. Outlined in the summary of key roles and focus areas of leadership mentioned above are key concepts that promote strength, opportunity and success (Robinson Hohepa, 2012) for Māori students. High teacher expectation is also a given within this framework. Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd (2009) and Robinson and Hohepa (2010) provide some key definitions, concepts and discussion particular to Māori leadership for this body of work; as do recent research publications regarding Centres of Innovation projects funded though the Ministry of Education (Soutar, 2010; Tamati, Hond-Flavell, Korewha, 2008; Te Kopae Piripono, 2006). Although the work undertaken by Robinson and Hohepa does not draw from the experience of early childhood education, it is perhaps one of the few publications to date that provides clear discourse in relation to the multiple roles and responsibilities involved in Māori leadership; and the significant interface with pedagogical leadership. Skerrett s (2010) response to Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd s (2009) Best Evidence Synthesis acknowledges the leadership that exists within whānau, hapū and iwi. With Māori leadership evident in Māori-medium education, particularly in the initiatives of Kōhanga Reo and Kura Kaupapa Māori which were led and driven by Māori; it is suggested that key aspects of Māori leadership have much to offer the understanding and practices of pedagogical leadership more generally (Te Kopae Piripono, 2006). While there is a building body of literature specific to Māori leadership, research studies about Māori leadership within mainstream early childhood settings are scarce. Nevertheless, new areas of literature emerging in recent years represent the views and experience of Māori immersion early childhood settings (Soutar, 2010; Tamati, Hond- Flavell, Korewha, 2008). While there are few Māori immersion early childhood centres as yet, several are seen as featuring highly innovative leadership initiatives. The importance of sharing these successes cannot be over-stated in terms of providing inspiration for both existing and aspiring Māori medium initiatives. It is also critical to showcase the success of initiatives that actively seek to revitalise Māori language, culture, identity and knowledge. Notably, these centres are driven from strong whānau and community based commitment to te reo Māori me ōna tikanga. 14

Background to the study and literature review Two research studies, accounts of which were published as part of the early childhood Centres of Innovation projects (Soutar, 2010; Tamati, Hond-Flavell, Korewha, 2008; Te Kopae Piripono, 2006), are at the cutting edge of literature on Māori leadership in the early childhood sector. These are discussed below. Te Kōpae Piripono Undertaken as part of a Taranaki-based early childhood Māori immersion initiative, Te Kōpae Piripono focused on the following three research questions: 1. How does whānau development at Te Kōpae Piripono foster leadership, across all levels, to enhance children s learning and development? 2. How might leadership look for an individual whānau member, be that a child, a parent or a teacher? and 3. What might it specifically entail for the whānau as a collective whole? With its clear focus on leadership and whānau, the project highlighted roles, responsibilities and relationships (Tamati, Hond-Flavell, Korewha, 2008; Te Kōpae Piripono, 2006) as important to defining clear accountabilities for whānau of Te Kōpae Piripono. Both individual and collective philosophies were considered in their evolving theory of leadership (Tamati et al., 2008). Notably, the research is further informed by the premise that every person, whether child or adult, has a right, responsibility and ability to lead (Lambert, 2002). As a result of this research, Te Kōpae Piripono came up with the following areas of responsibility, referred to as Ngā Takohanga e Wha: Te Whai Takohanga Having Responsibility relates to having designated roles and positions of responsibility. Te Mouri Takohanga Being Responsible relates to an individual s attitude and actions. Being responsible is about being professional, acting ethically and appropriately, being honest, being positive, and being open to others and different perspectives. Te Kawe Takohanga Taking Responsibility relates to courage, risk-taking, having a go, taking up the challenge and trying new things. Te Tuku Takohanga Sharing Responsibility relates to sharing power, roles and positions, but more than this, to relationships. Sharing responsibility denotes an interaction and engagement with others, being able to listen to others points of view, acknowledging different perspectives, and also asking for and providing assistance. These responsibilities, as outlined above, encapsulate leadership in all aspects of functioning as a collective. Essentially, they highlight the expectations and, accordingly, the contributions that are made by members of the collective. Importantly, these responsibilities also rely on human interaction, where relationships are considered pivotal to working as a collective system. It is significant to add that while Te Kōpae Piripono provides a current and contemporary view of Māori leadership, the responsibilities have a strong alignment to traditional concepts and practices within Māori societal structure. Lambert (2002) considers the definition of leadership in determining how people are enabled to participate in the notion of leadership, as both individuals and collective members. For the whānau of Te Kōpae Piripono, drawing from the past has been 15

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education important to determining the future. With the emphasis on every person being able to lead, the role of children as leaders is clearly stated where leadership is assumed as a norm within the setting. This represents a shift from traditional forms of leadership as residing in a single person, or just a few people. It also incorporates the evolving discussion and implementation of distributed leadership, as discussed above. Additionally, it moves discourses of leadership, and specifically pedagogical leadership, beyond a child-focused approach of pedagogical leadership to a more expansive view of what leadership might entail. Te Kōhanga Reo o Mana Tamariki Another Centres of Innovation project undertaken by one of the leaders of Māori immersion education, Mana Tamariki, is briefly discussed here. As an education setting committed to the revitalisation of te reo Māori me ona tikanga, Mana Tamariki also looks to global initiatives to inform and reaffirm their pedagogical practice. In particular, the importance of whānau development to language revitalisation strategies is noted as critical (Soutar, 2010). The link between building and strengthening whanaungatanga is highlighted as it further relates to Māori leadership and pedagogical leadership. These studies emphasise the role of Māori leadership as dynamic, in that it incorporates multiple functions. Highlighted are the expectations of both individual and collective responsibilities of leadership, and the notion of everyone being a leader. It is significant that while child-focused learning sits at the heart of their initiatives, Te Kōpae Piripono and Te Kōhanga Reo o Mana Tamariki work from a position that draws from the centrality of whanaungatanga; a concept explored within our study. Professional Learning As our research project was dialectic between research and development, we turn now to overview literature that illuminates professional teacher learning, where learning is a precursor to development. An effective leader continues to learn and develop. Professional learning should be responsive to the evolving needs of leaders, as they develop their leadership capabilities. To gain a clear picture of the role of coaching and mentoring within professional learning programmes requires a two-pronged approach. First, we review the literature and related research on professional learning, before looking more specifically at the role of coaching and mentoring in such programmes. Professional learning and its importance in early childhood education Professional learning and development is about the growth of an individual and his or her organisation. Growth occurs through change and transformation, as well as through support and challenge (Robertson, 2005). Professional learning is identified as one of the key reasons for the success of the early childhood education system in New Zealand (McLachlan, 2011). According to Sheridan, Edwards, Marvin and Knoche (2009), it can be defined as a number of experiences 16

Background to the study and literature review that promote education, training and development opportunities for early childhood practitioners who do or will work with young children (p. 379). It is widely documented that such experiences generate change in teachers practice and pedagogy, and lead to positive outcomes for children and their learning (Buysse, Winton Rous, 2009; Mitchell Cubey, 2003; Thornton, 2003). Whilst positive outcomes for students are at the heart of professional learning, it is important that professional learning opportunities meet the needs of all stakeholders: students and families, teachers and centres, government priorities and, importantly, tangata whenua (Thornton, 2003). In relation to this last group, Education Review Office (ERO) (2008) recommends that early childhood services provide support, encouragement and professional development for managers and teachers to build their capability in implementing policies and practices that include knowledge of Māori culture, te reo and tikanga (p. 16). Education is a dynamic, professional field, and teachers need to be consistently refining and expanding their knowledge and understandings about learning and teaching, in order to keep these current and effective (Guskey, 2000). Principles of effective professional learning Feiman-Nemser and Norman (2000) describe four key principles for effective professional learning. It: 1. provides meaningful, sustained engagement with colleagues, ideas and materials for deeper learning; 2. takes account of the contexts and the experiences of the teachers and helps them to consider the fit between new ideas and prevailing norms and practices; 3. supports critical discussion that promotes the assessment of alternatives, the close examination of underlying assumptions, and the search for evidence; and 4. is placed within the educational setting and its wider culture and is organised around common concerns and collaborative problem-solving, thus helping participants to view their practice and leadership roles in relation to the work of others (pp. 749 750). One of the key success factors in effective professional learning is ensuring sufficient time is available to provide opportunities for sustained enriched learning dialogue, so that the professional conversations encourage the use of critical consciousness and the application of theoretical considerations to underpin and transform professional practice (Bevan- Brown et al., 2011; Robertson, 2005, 2011; Stoll, 2011). In addition, participants need to be able to develop active problem-solving techniques that are sustainable over time. There is a greater likelihood of this occurring when theory is valued and skills are embedded within the programme (Bevan-Brown et al., 2011). As much attention needs to be given to the conditions that promote deep professional learning as to the content itself (Timperley, 2011). During group sessions, in particular, the dynamics of the group need to be conducive to developing coaching relationships, in order to capture the energy and dialogue and then build on it (Robertson, 2005). The venue should be comfortable and away from the distraction of the participants daily practice. 17

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education Key issues in professional learning Professional learning is an effective way to maintain professional standards. However, there are concerns about the quality and effectiveness of professional learning (Cullen, 2009). Two issues are well documented: (1) changes in teaching and learning require fundamental changes in teachers knowledge and their working relationships with children and colleagues; and (2) traditional forms of professional development are not working (Feiman-Nemser Norman, 2000; Timperley, 2011). Roberts, Crawford and Hickman (2010) describe professional learning initiatives in education as fodder for debate and frequently criticised because of their lack of effectiveness (p. 258). Similarly, Lieberman and Wood (2001, p. 174) maintain that the history of professional learning for teachers is the landscape littered with failed approaches (cited in Hedges, 2010, p. 300). A variety of reasons are cited for this lack of effectiveness. Critiques contend that initiatives are frequently too limited and fragmented to prompt change in teacher practice. Guskey (2000) argues that the stand-alone model of professional learning is not robust, and encourages teachers to view new ideas as passing fancies (p. 20). As Feiman-Nemser and Norman (2000) note, the conventional one size fits all approach does not take account of different contexts, needs, interests and concerns. Nor do those one-off in-service courses or conferences provide continuity, follow-up or links to the goals of the participants settings. Fleet and Patterson (2009) assert that sustained change is undermined by the lack of support after stand-alone events. The lack of theoretical frameworks for traditional professional learning initiatives is also cited as a reason for lack of effectiveness (Edwards Nuttall, 2009; Eun, 2008; Wood Bennett, 2000). Despite such concerns, there continues to be significant support for the intentions and purposes of professional learning, in the belief that potentially it can support teachers to enrich their knowledge and increase their sense of professionalism over the course of their careers so as to implement current research-based practice (Goble Horn, 2010, p. 87). Diverse models/approaches There is a wide variety of models and approaches for professional learning, ranging from stand-alone events that include workshops, lectures, presentations and conferences to engagements that typically involve coaching and mentoring, consultation, teacher inquiry and communities of practice (Sheridan, Edwards, Marvin Knoche, 2009). The former models frequently take a motivational and/or information giving stance, whilst the latter models tend to be longer term and typically involve external expertise. There is increasing support for initiatives with a sustained timeframe; however, there is also support for initiatives that use a mixed method approach. Guskey (2000) states that combining models in thoughtful ways can provide a highly effective means to professional growth and improvement at both the individual and organizational levels (p. 29). Reconceptualising of professional learning In recent years there have been important shifts in the way that the early childhood sector perceives and theorises the practice of developing teachers. The post-modern trends to challenge normative assumptions and foreground social and cultural diversity that led 18

Background to the study and literature review to the reconceptualising of early childhood education are also permeating the field of professional learning (Edwards, 2007; Wood, 2009). There is scholarly support to move professional learning from a technical-rational model, where initiatives have tended to be policy led with a top down transmission of ideas and practices, to a post-developmental perspective where teachers are active learners who construct their own learning, and the complexity of their work is acknowledged (Blaise, 2009). The traditional view of adult development as linear with generic stages is seen as simplistic and deficit-based, and there is the intent to move to a more constructivist view of knowledge (Fleet Patterson, 2001). These shifts are reflected in the trend to replace the traditional term of professional development with professional learning (Edwards Nuttall, 2009). The change in terminology positions teachers as knowledgeable and empowered with emotional and intellectual investment (Fleet Patterson, 2001, p. 3) in their own development. These deep shifts in the field are leading to the application of a relatively new wave of theoretical perspectives to professional learning, including sociocultural theory, cultural historical activity theory and post-structural theory (Edwards, 2009a). Foregrounding of context There is support in the literature for situating professional learning in the everyday reality of teachers work and acknowledging on the job elements of the work. Mitchell and Cubey (2003) identified positive effects in practice when teachers are given opportunities to work on their own issues and explore real examples of pedagogy in their own settings. Howe, Jacobs, Vukelich and Recchia (2012) conclude, from their study into different models of professional learning initiatives, that approaches need to be more flexible and tailored to individual sites. This foregrounding of the local setting acknowledges that teachers are embedded in a local and cultural context which gives meaning to and mediates their learning (Fleet Patterson, 2009; Nuttall, Coxon Read, 2009). Centrality of teachers beliefs A key theme in the literature on professional learning is the centrality of teacher beliefs and the view of the teacher as a powerful learner. Mitchell and Cubey (2003) found that a key characteristic of effective professional learning is the utilisation of teachers own aspirations, skills, knowledge, and understandings, as a starting point for the introduction of new ideas and practices. Grey (2011) underlines the importance of a trusting and caring environment. Dewar and Sharp note, Teachers need to be trusted to form their own interpretations of practice in a way that is meaningful to them, so they can control and own any shift in thinking (cited in Grey, 2011, p. 25). Wood and Bennett (2000) explain that understanding teacher theories and exploring the relationships between theories and practice can be powerful, as this can illuminate the tacit beliefs that may be influential drivers of practice. Edwards (2007, 2009) agrees with the imperative of acknowledging and attending to the cultural capital of teachers, and argues that this is crucially a more productive area to explore than the perceived gap between theory and practice. It is argued that such approaches value the situated nature of teacher knowledge and use them as a basis for engaging in professional learning that generates conceptual change (Edwards, 2009a, p. 84). 19

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education The individual and collaborative nature of learning Contemporary perspectives are expanding the traditional focus on the individual to include an examination of the dynamic and complex ways in which learning is shared and mediated within a system (Georgeson, 2009; Nuttall Edwards, 2009; Sheridan et al., 2009). This new area of interest seeks to throw light on the distributed nature of professional learning and affords more critical engagement of teachers. There is interest in the relational and collaborative dimensions of professional growth, including the influence of those recruited from outside, such as facilitators, critical friends, academics and researchers (Fleet Patterson, 2001; Hedges, 2010; Helterbran Fennimore, 2004). A range of innovative methodologies reflects this growing area of interest; action research, communities of learners/practice, teacher inquiry, collaborative research, reflective practice and developmental work research. These new models of professional learning provide teachers with opportunities to participate in critical learning forums and discourse communities (Wood, 2009; Wood Bennett, 2000). How do teachers construct and reconstruct their practice? How teachers change their theories and practice is another emerging theme in the literature. New ways to theorise and inform the process of change are of interest, as the limitations of stage theory of development are recognised. A small but growing body of research is illuminating this process of growth. Lines of inquiry include questions such as: How do teachers appropriate new theoretical frameworks? What is the process of change? Why do some teachers change more than others? What are the affordances and the constraints to change? Sheridan et al. (2009) argue that research needs to address not only the forms of professional learning, but also the processes the underlying mechanisms responsible for change (p. 379). Nuttall, Coxon and Read s (2009) small-scale study found that the dispositions of teachers are critical in the process of growth, and argues that learning dispositions are important because they foster teacher agency in the face of structures that can limit teachers learning (p. 112). Guskey (2010) challenges the view that change in beliefs must take place before new ideas are put into practice. He contends that change occurs after teachers experience success in the implementation of new ideas and practices. The crucial point is that it is not the professional development per se, but the experience of successful implementation that changes teachers attitudes and beliefs (Guskey, 2010, p. 383). Wood and Bennett s (2000) study of teachers theories and practice of play led the authors to argue that change is supported by a three stage process, whereby teachers first bring their personal and informal theories to a conscious level of awareness, then problematise their practice, which leads them to reconceptualise their practice. The authors and the participants in this study identified opportunities for reflection as being critical for growth. Edwards (2007) research examined the processes of adopting a new theoretical framework. This study found that teachers appropriation of sociocultural theory occurs as a result of engagement in repeated cycles of reflection, beginning with reflection on existing practices. Edwards (2007) concludes that factors such as opportunities for teachers to reflect on existing practices, to trial new ways of working, to share new models with colleagues and to consolidate new practices all contributed to the generation of change. Similar findings on the role of reflection were reported by Fleet and Patterson (2001) in their large-scale study involving 75 teachers from 12 centres. The authors highlight the 20

Background to the study and literature review importance of positioning teachers as empowered learners who build their working knowledge through spirals of engagement over time (Fleet Patterson, 2001, p. 1). Intervention-based professional learning programmes The coaching methodology for the present study employs an intervention-based professional learning model. Another New Zealand study (Bevan-Brown, Bourke, Butler, Carroll-Lind, Kearney, Mentis, 2011) identified seven components for an effective, integrated professional development and intervention-based model: 1. Team interaction (learning from, with, and about each other, ensuring contextual relevancy and input from all); 2. Cultural relevance (identifying and acknowledging cultural backgrounds and legitimising this knowledge base); 3. Expert facilitation (using credible and approachable facilitators with knowledge of the topic and expert facilitation skills); 4. Integrated professional development and intervention (combining both professional development and intervention to occur simultaneously, thus ensuring a needsbased and needs analysis focus and cultural relevancy); 5. Theory into practice (reflecting on course content and pedagogical approach, using contemporary theories of learning); 6. Time for reflection, practice and action (allowing time both during and outside course attendance to analyse, apply and evaluate problem-solving strategies); and 7. Authentic context (applying insights learnt in the PD context to real-life settings). In an intervention-based professional learning programme, the role of the facilitator should be to encourage and provide opportunities for defining and solving problems and for reflection and collaboration (Carter Curtis, 2010, p. 122). Carter and Curtis consider that participants are most likely to bring more energy to their work and contribute to the growth of their organisation as a learning community when they are supported in their own professional development, particularly around goal-setting and creating strategies. Coaching support is necessary because, as Timperley (2011) warns, the difficulties in stepping outside one s own frame of reference make it harder for people to identify their own professional learning needs. Coaching and mentoring within intervention-based professional learning programmes The current project defined the terms coaching and mentoring as follows. First, the facilitators coached in relation to the group sessions (i.e., group coaching during workshop sessions) and mentored during the individual or paired follow-up interview sessions. We differentiate between the terms because it is not realistic to mentor during group sessions, given the level of personalisation required. Coaching, on the other hand, can work with groups, because it involves advice about general strategies. However, for the purpose of this literature review, we use the terms synonymously. Professional learning for teachers requires two learning tasks. The first involves learning new skills and strategies. The second requires a different form of professional development, because it includes helping teachers to transform their perspectives and 21

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education practice. For teachers to improve their practice, collegial support is needed to enable them to participate in ongoing serious and sustained conversations about their work (Feiman- Nemser Norman, 2000). Coaching and mentoring helps to sustain leaders and leadership (John, 2008). The process also offers new conceptions of leadership enquiry and learning development, by providing the professional support and challenge necessary for critical reflection on leadership practice (Robertson, 2004, 2005). Robertson (2005) describes coaching as a powerful learning methodology, because it enables the leadership development most likely to grow an organisational culture in which authentic learning and leadership are the two key components for all participants (p. 197). According to Robertson, this model facilitates quality leadership development by interrupting accepted ways of interacting, and freeing participants to engage in new and more productive interactions. In so doing it creates within them a deeper understanding of their own professional requirements. Educative coaching and mentoring is not an instinctive activity. It consists of a set of learned skills, and has a knowledge base into which mentors must be inducted. Mentors can act as mentors only to the extent that they understand the possibilities of the role in a particular situation (Edwards Collison, 1996). A subtle mentoring skill is the ability to identify and strategically use entry points for learning (Moir, Barlin, Gless, Miles, 2009, p. 57). Coaching and mentoring is not telling people what to do. It is helping them to examine their actions in the light of their intentions (Edwards Collison, 1996). Baron, Moir, and Gless (2005) maintain that coaching has the capacity to improve practice and change attitudes and beliefs through: a collaborative relationship built on trust and mutual respect; ongoing, regular coaching sessions; a focus on inquiry about practice; strong reflective conversation skills by the coach; and use of data to guide reflection and determine future actions (p. 88). Baron and colleagues also advise that successful coaching and mentoring is based on: (1) building a sense of community and being a team member; (2) promoting thoughtful decision-making and reflection; (3) encouraging an internal locus of control and autonomy; and (4) developing a strong sense of efficacy and resourcefulness (Baron et al., 2005, p. 88). Early childhood mentors bring to the mentoring process their knowledge and experience of early childhood services and multidisciplinary working, as well as their knowledge of organisational dynamics, power politics and the effects of change (John, 2008). They understand the challenges of holding on to one s beliefs and values within a workplace where opposing beliefs and values are dominant. Change that challenges closely held core values and beliefs linked to professional practice is most likely to provoke the most intense discomfort (Isaac Trodd, 2008). Of relevance to this research study is that mentors are able to identify the seeming contradictions and ambiguities that characterise complex organisations and meaningful human interactions (John, 2008, p. 58). In their 2008 article, Isaac and Trodd make the further link between Engeström s expansive learning theory (on which our research study is based), and its empowerment of learning teams to come together to pursue a common goal, in such a way that everyone is able to articulate their knowledge in action, make their differences explicit and explore alternatives together (p. 44). 22

Background to the study and literature review In essence, coaching leadership can provide the deep learning in context that is necessary to facilitate the self-awareness essential to creating the disposition to change one s practice (Robertson, 2011, p. 223). However, coaching leaders consists of more than just the transmission of information; it is a complex process of jointly creating new knowledge (Robertson, 2011, p. 213). By acting as a co-thinker, the coach is better able to encourage their mentees to see new perspectives, explore new ways to solve problems, and find solutions through productive discussion and questioning, thus assisting them to find out what the issues are and what works best for them (Feiman-Nemser, 2000). Edwards and Collison (1996) suggest that discussion is the engine that drives well-planned, active mentoring. Similarly, Lee (2008) highlights mentoring and provocation as a key feature of the Educational Leadership project in Hamilton, New Zealand for developing leadership within early childhood centres. Nelson, Deuel, Slavit, and Kennedy (2010) posit that shifting congenial conversations to collegial conversations requires skilled leaders who are able to increase the depth of dialogue by using conflicting views as starting points for developing shared meanings (p. 175). It is evident that working with adult learners has many concepts and practices in common with good teaching. However, adult-to-adult professional interactions are sensitive to such factors (among others) as age, power, role, judgement, relational trust, centre and school climate, and perceptions of competence (Moir, Barlin, Gless, Miles, 2009). Early childhood coaching and mentoring programmes on leadership Although some ECE services claim that their structures enable them to monitor and nurture the leadership capacities of leaders within their centres, and to develop formal systems for mentoring and peer support (Colmer, 2008), traditionally the guidance, supervision and mentoring of staff are not linked well to the leadership role in early childhood (Dunlop, 2008). The UK s National Professional Qualification in Integrated Centre Leadership (NPQICL) uses a coaching and mentoring approach for facilitating leadership learning. The Penn Green Research, Training and Development Centre (which designed and piloted this qualification programme) views mentoring as central to the development of leaders. The rationale is that leaders are better able to cope with the challenges of leading their centres when their own support and development needs are met (John, 2008). Adopting a nondirective-stretching mentoring approach, Penn Green s leadership mentoring enables leaders to discuss the challenges of leading their own centres within a safe, supportive and confidential space in which leaders develop self-assurance, sense of purpose and agency by learning from others (John, 2008). Formosinho and Oliveira-Formosinho s (2005) evaluation of the United Kingdom s NPQICL programme has applicability to the coaching and mentoring component of NZCA s intervention-based professional learning programme. As stated by Formosinho and Oliveira-Formosinho: There is interdependence between the intrapersonal dimension of the learning process the building of individual learning journeys and the interpersonal dimension this building of individual learning is developed within a learning community. The learning community is a significant scaffold for the development of individual journeys. (p. 38) 23

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education In a year-long project with 22 New Zealand kindergarten leaders, Cardno and Reynolds (2009) adopted a developmental action research approach to communicate complex problems and dilemma management as both a theory and a set of skills for resolving leadership dilemmas. Their coaching and mentoring model involved phases of reconnaissance, intervention and evaluation, underpinned by principles of collaboration and critique. The participating leaders were introduced in the intervention phase to the theory of productive reasoning and the practice of productive dialogue as a means of resolving dilemmas (p. 220). Cardno and Reynolds contend that their intervention-based professional learning programme bestowed confidence in their participants to confront important leadership issues within their centres. Podmore and Wells (2011) reported the findings of the early childhood education pilot, commissioned by the New Zealand Teachers Council as part of their Induction and Mentoring Pilot Programme, to investigate different models of support and development for mentor teachers and Provisionally Registered Teachers. In this study, building relationships to enable open and honest communication and making time to talk and to engage in courageous conversations were highlighted as key elements of effective mentoring programmes. The present study is closely aligned to Joce Nuttall s work in Australia, which encompasses the employment of third generation activity theory as a tool to foster the leadership of professional learning in early childhood education. In particular, our study was informed by Nuttall s Melbourne pedagogical mentoring and coaching programme development project (2011-2012). Nuttall (2012, 2013a, 2013b) found that coaching early childhood leaders to learn a framework for identifying factors that afford and constrain the implementation of pedagogical leadership in their ECE services further supports them to develop strategies to lead the pedagogical practice of their teams in systematic and focused ways. 24

Methodology CHAPTER 3: Methodology In this chapter we discuss the research focus and methodology of the study, including research and development methodology, theoretical informants, data generation methods, selection and recruitment of research participants, and ethical procedures followed. As outlined in Chapter 1, the research and development project this report covers largely replicated a study originally designed and carried out by Associate Professor Joce Nuttall with early childhood co-ordinators (centre leaders) in the greater Melbourne area (see Nuttall, 2013a). Nuttall s study drew on the theoretical framework of expansive learning, which is derived from third generation cultural-historical activity theory, as developed by Finnish researcher Yrjö Engeström (1987, 1993). The research and development methodology described in this chapter closely follows that of Nuttall s Melbourne project with one significant addition; the incorporation of kaupapa Māori methodology, and the desire to explore the synergies between that methodology and expansive learning. As previously discussed (see Chapter 1), the inclusion of kaupapa Māori research, theory and practice arose due to the Association s commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which meant that our research and development project (hereafter also referred to as the project) was to be proactively inclusive of Māori, and have an accompanying commitment to work with a diverse range of early childhood education and care settings. At a broad level across all three clusters, the project adopted the research principles of kaupapa Māori as articulated by Graham Smith (1997). Within one of our clusters, the methodology of kaupapa Māori was specifically incorporated on equal terms with the methodology of expansive learning theory, including third generation cultural-historical activity theory (also referred to as activity theory). The adoption and incorporation of kaupapa Māori methodology and related methodological issues are also explored within this chapter, as these became a significant part of the choreography (Janesick, 2000) of the research process, and thus of the resultant research narrative. Ethical approval to undertake the study followed the guidelines and process outlined in the Association s Ethical Approval policy. Briefly, this involved the development and submission of a written proposal and the inclusion of a range of related ethical documents. Consideration of ethical requirements is picked up in more detail in subsequent sections of this chapter. We begin by restating the original research questions, and adding two further questions that arose once the research project was under way. This is followed with an articulation of each of the theoretical frameworks used in the study. We then describe the research and development process, including the professional learning programme embedded in the 25

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education project, and outline our data generation and analysis strategies. Finally we describe the recruitment and selection processes that led to the eventual identification of participants in this study. Research questions Two research questions framed this project. How can pedagogical leadership in early childhood settings in Aotearoa/New Zealand be transformed through knowledge and understanding of expansive learning theory? How can kaupapa Māori pedagogy, leadership and expansive learning theory inform and enhance each other? In Chapter 1, we discussed the context that led to the determination of our second research question framed around kaupapa Māori, and we return to that narrative shortly. The second question also formed an important part of our reoriented methodological commitment. It gave rise to a number of challenges that are important to articulate within the context of a Tiriti based research project and our relationship with kaupapa Māori methodologies. In this respect, we are reminded by research methodologist Ian Baptiste (2001) how qualitative research is by nature an iterative, interactive, and non-linear (p. 2) process. Supplementary questions As the research progressed, we subsequently identified two further research questions. These identified, more specifically than our original question had done, third generation activity theory as the central tool of our research and development project. These questions are: How can the tool of third generation activity theory be adapted through a kaupapa Māori approach as a decolonising artefact? How is the tool of third generation activity theory externalised through leadership practice? Theoretical frameworks As indicated in the research questions, two theoretical frameworks were used in this project, kaupapa Māori theory and expansive learning theory (incorporating third generation activity theory). In the following section, each framework is explained and discussed in terms of its application to this project. A final section discusses the way in which alignment between the two frameworks can be considered. Kaupapa Māori theoretical framework As a theoretical approach, kaupapa Māori is essential to providing appropriate foundation, practice and analysis from a Māori world view, by advancing and prioritising matauranga Māori (Māori ways of knowing) in terms of tikanga and āhuatanga Māori (Māori ways 26

Methodology of doing and being). An important aspect of this view is that kaupapa Māori asserts the status of Māori as tangata whenua where themes of mana motūhake Māori and tino rangatiratanga are assumed (Mane, 2009). Understanding Māori aspirations of self-determination is also important to understanding kaupapa Māori, as is its distinct relationship to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Similarly, Tuki Nepe (1991) outlines kaupapa Māori as critical to what is a specifically Māori framework, in that it substantiates Māori views of the world in an approach that is both Māori owned and controlled. With the notion of selfdetermination evident in this statement, emphasis is adamant that it is Māori that have full autonomy of kaupapa Māori initiatives. Nepe (1991) further asserts that kaupapa Māori differs distinctly from Western structure and philosophy, in that it is directed essentially by tikanga Māori. Tikanga Māori is understood as providing a cultural foundation that is distinctly Māori and driven from Māori views of the world, where Māori values and aspirations determine outcomes for the benefit of the collectives of whānau, hapū and iwi. This position is reinforced by G. Smith (1999). Kaupapa Māori initially arose as a response to mainstream New Zealand s historical inability to serve Māori interests generally, notably so in both education (G. Smith, 1990, 1997; L. Smith 1999; Walker, 1996) and media (Day, 1994; Mane, 2000, 2009; Spoonley Hirsh, 1990). Over the last three decades, significant change has occurred. This change has been Māori led where te reo Māori me ōna tikanga are central to understandings of kaupapa Māori. Thus, the term kaupapa Māori evolved from initiatives that have been designed, led and driven by Māori, and have largely come about from the educational developments of the 1980s and; specifically, from the initiatives of Kōhanga Reo and Kura Kaupapa Māori (G. Smith, 2012; Walker, 1996). Māori leadership was critical to the development of kaupapa Māori initiatives during this period, resulting in those initiatives also having significant spin-offs to other areas of much needed development. Early childhood education is one such area (Williams, with Broadley Te Aho, 2012). Founded in notions of Māori self-determination, kaupapa Māori notably exists in multiple sites of Māori development. During the 1990s, Māori initiatives continued to develop further in the settings of education, health, social services and broadcasting. In more recent years there has been additional growth in other sectors (Hoskins, 2012). Kaupapa Māori research methodology Just as kaupapa Māori originated as an approach seeking to effect change for Māori, the role of research is critical to effecting transformative action and change in multiple settings. In their thesis work, Linda and Graham Smith provided the forerunners of literature that named itself distinctly as kaupapa Māori. As key drivers of kaupapa Māori education and research, the academic teaching and research led by Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Graham Hinengaroa Smith, Leonie Pihama, Margie Hohepa; Kuni Jenkins, and Patricia Johnstone provided the first cohort of what was specifically kaupapa Māori education during the mid-1990s. While there were other Māori scholars (Barnes, 2000; Bishop, 1996; Durie, 1998; Irwin, 1988; Walker, 1996) also making a difference in the world of academia, those working in Māori education at the University of Auckland carved out what, at that particular time, became the new discipline within academic education, kaupapa Māori. As a recognised leader of indigenous research, Professor Linda Smith (1999) outlines kaupapa Māori as a counter-hegemonic approach to Western research, in that it challenges 27

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education research that validates only Western knowledge and ways of knowing. Kaupāpa Māori research is research of, by and for Māori (Meade, Kirikiri, Paratene, Allan, 2011, p. 8). Thus, Smith s critique is specific not only to the discipline of research, but is further relevant to the everyday experience of Māori and indigenous peoples. Generally within kaupapa Māori methodology, the importance of te reo Māori me ōna tikanga, where the concepts of identity and belonging are intrinsically bound to language and culture, is considered as the foundation stone or purpose for existence. This concept is further reflected in the curriculum document for early childhood settings, Te Whāriki (Ministry of Education, 1996). This provides a framework that reflects the importance of language and culture within early childhood settings. The most recent account from Mason Durie (2012) suggests that while language revitalisation is important, other social outcomes also need to be achieved through a kaupapa Māori approach. In drawing on the work and writings of Paulo Freire, Māori academics speak to the struggles of oppression and alienation effected by colonisation (Simons Smith, 2001). Freire s theory of praxis has been prominently used in the work of Māori academics, providing a platform for the discussion of kaupapa Māori as a theoretical framework (Hohepa, 1999; Pihama, 2001; G. Smith, 1997; L. Smith, 1999). Freire s work has been frequently used to discuss issues relating to the survival of Māori identity, language, and culture, and the politics of self-determination. Notably, Freire s theory of praxis argues for conscious, deliberate action (Freire, 1970, p. 68); the underlying message in all of his writing advocates for liberation and freedom. His work is explicitly relevant to Māori struggle and expressions of freedom, and holds some important cautions in terms of how change might be effected. This is in turn reflected by Graham Smith (1997), who highlights the importance of non-hegemonic strategies and structures that will advance Māori aspirations of self-determination. Freire s notion of acting consciously and deliberately (Freire, 1970) is a central tenet of kaupapa Māori. The principles of kaupapa Māori research, theory and practice, as initially outlined by Graham Smith (1990), provide a framework that outlines clear definitions of the purpose and intent of kaupapa Māori. He developed these further (G. Smith, 1997) to emphasise kaupapa Māori principles as working in an active relationship with practice. Smith s overarching principles are listed as follows. Tino Rangatiratanga the principle of self-determination Tino Rangatiratanga relates to sovereignty, autonomy, control, self-determination and indepen dence. The notion of Tino Rangatiratanga asserts and reinforces the goal of kaupapa Māori initiatives: allowing Māori to control their own culture, aspirations and destiny. Taonga Tuku Iho the principle of cultural aspiration This principle asserts the centrality and legitimacy of te reo Māori, tīkanga and mātauranga Māori. Within a kaupapa Māori paradigm, these Māori ways of knowing, doing and understanding the world are considered valid in their own right. In acknowledging their validity and relevance, it also allows spiritual and cultural awareness and other considerations to be taken into account. 28

Methodology Ako Māori the principle of culturally preferred pedagogy This principle acknowledges teaching and learning practices that are inherent and unique to Māori, as well as practices that may not be traditionally derived but are preferred by Māori. Kia piki ake i ngā raruraru o te kainga the principle of socioeconomic mediation This principle asserts the need to mediate and assist in the alleviation of negative pressures and disadvantages experienced by Māori communities, and for kaupapa Māori research to be of positive benefit to Māori communities. It also acknowledges the relevance and success that Māori derived initiatives have as intervention systems for addressing socioeconomic issues that currently exist. Whānau the principle of extended family structure The principle of Whānau sits at the core of kaupapa Māori. It acknowledges the relationships that Māori have to one another and to the world around them. Whānau and the process of whakawhanaungatanga are key elements of Māori society and culture. This principle acknowledges the responsibility and obligations of the researcher to nurture and care for these relationships, and also the intrinsic connection between the researcher, the researched and the research. Kaupapa The principle of collective philosophy The kaupapa refers to the collective vision, aspiration and purpose of Māori communities. Larger than the topic of the research alone, the kaupapa refers to the aspirations of the community. The research topic or intervention systems therefore are considered to be an incremental and vital contribution to the overall kaupapa. Two further principles have been added to the original framework. Te Tiriti o Waitangi the principle of the Treaty of Waitangi Pihama (2001) identified another principle to be taken into account within kaupapa Māori theory. Te Tiriti o Waitangi (1840) is a crucial document which defines the relationship between Māori and the Crown in New Zealand. It affirms both the tangata whenua status of whānau, hapū and iwi in New Zealand, and their rights of citizenship. Te Tiriti therefore provides a basis through which Māori may critically analyse relationships, challenge the status quo, and affirm Māori rights. Ata the principle of growing respectful relationships The principle of Ata was developed by Pohatu (2005) primarily as a transformative approach within the area of social services. This principle relates specifically to the building and nurturing of relationships. It acts as a guide to the understanding of relationships and wellbeing when engaging with Māori. Kaupapa Māori principles in action The principles of kaupapa Māori research, theory and practice, as initially outlined by Graham Smith (1990), provide clear definition and understanding around the purpose and intent of kaupapa Māori. While the principles in their entirety are all relevant to this project, those that surfaced consistently are whānau, kaupapa and taonga tuku iho. For 29

example, the principle of whānau is used frequently in discussing whanaungatanga as a key aspect of practice, inclusive of staff, tamariki, parents and wider community. The principle of whanau also overlaps with the principle of kaupapa, in that whanaungatanga is based within the concept of the collective; as it also provides the purpose of the collective. The principle of taonga tuku iho, in the case of this project, is related to Māori concepts and ways of being. In positioning ourselves as kaupapa Māori researchers, it was important that we placed at the forefront of our discussion some of our own baseline assumptions and approaches from which we work. Of significance to our research approach was our understanding and commitment to whanaungatanga between the research team, between the research team and centre participants, and within centre environments. This was crucial to the research process. While simply defined as relationships, the complexities of whanaungatanga in Te Ao Māori involve accountability, responsibility and reciprocity amidst other key considerations. As kaupapa Māori researchers, each of us have whakapapa links to the region. Living and working in our tribal region, our commitment to whanaungatanga was further consolidated. Whanaungatanga is understood as a core component of the research process, as it is relevant to how research is undertaken by, with, and for Māori (Bishop, 1996; G. Smith, 1997; L. Smith, 1999). Research undertaken by Ritchie and Rau (2006) also provides a fundamental platform of understanding, in highlighting the critical nature of whanaungatanga to the research process of their own studies within early childhood contexts. Ritchie and Rau (2006) also provide discussion specific to collaborative research methodologies that has relevance to this study, in that the project has involved various researchers that work accordingly from various research paradigms. As Māori researchers within kaupapa Māori, we consistently sought to define, de-scribe and determine our views of the world as Māori. With the firm intent of kaupapa Māori being about claiming space for Māori (Pihama, 1997), we needed to be cognisant of not becoming re-colonised, re-absorbed and re-constructed by western theories, process and practice. In this sense we were vigilant in our own thinking and practice, in order to retain or find our authentic Māori voice. Thus an indigenous approach to research issues of power, initiation, benefits, representation, legitimation and accountability (Bishop, 1999) informed the development and implementation of this study, and was central to the research process,not only in terms of participants but for the researchers as well. Expansive learning theory and third generation activity theory The second theoretical framework underpinning the methodology of this project draws on the work of Finnish researcher Yrjö Engeström, who proposes a theory of expansive learning (Engeström, 1987, 2001). Expansive learning is learning what is not yet there by means of the actions of questioning, modelling, and experimentation. Its core is the collaborative creation of new artifacts and patterns of practice (Engeström, Engeström, Sunito, 2002). Engeström is interested in the ways learning takes place when groups of people come together to work on a shared task and face learning challenges. In constructing his theory, Engeström suggests that orthodox theories of learning cannot account for: 30

Methodology learning something that is not stable, not even defined or understood ahead of time. In important transformations of our personal lives and organizational practices, we must learn new forms of activity which are not yet there. They are literally learned as they are being created. Standard learning theories have little to offer if one wants to understand these processes (pp. 137 138, italics added). Expansive learning theory describes a process of how learning takes place within and between people in collective enterprises such as work groups. It rejects the rationalcognitive account of learning associated with Cartesian accounts of knowledge and knowledge construction inherent in Western intellectual traditions (Blackler, 1993). Instead it proposes that the potential for learning sits more productively within people s creative and idiosyncratic tendencies. These have their basis in people s different understandings and motives for the activity being collectively engaged in. Expansive learning theory suggests therefore that when groups of people come together to work on a shared task (or object), such as early childhood education, they inevitably find themselves facing dilemmas (identified as contradictions) between components that collectively constitute the object of their activity; not necessarily because these dilemmas inhere in the object, but because the object itself is a human construction or enterprise. In this situation, groups are faced with either resolving the dilemma or layering over and obscuring it, in order to continue working collectively on the object (or task). Engeström proposes a way forward in this situation that allows members of the group to learn from the dilemma: The theory builds upon the idea of learning as a longitudinal process in which participants of an activity system take specific learning actions to analyse the inner contradictions of their activity, then to design and implement a new model for their activity that radically expands the object, opening up new possibilities for action and development. Theories of learning typically speak of the outcomes of learning in terms of knowledge, skills and changes in patterns of behaviour. In expansive learning, the outcomes are expanded objects and new collective work practices, including practices of thinking and discourse (Engeström Kerosuo, 2007, p. 339). In expansive learning theory, learning results from surfacing, recognising and addressing tensions (theorised as contradictions) that inevitably arise in activity systems. Tensions and contradictions provide affordances for learning. The notion of contradiction has a very specific meaning here, which draws on its location within cultural historical activity theory (CHAT). In order to understand and appreciate expansive learning theory in more depth, it is therefore necessary to first understand the basic outline of cultural historical activity theory, as assumptions and concepts in the former draw significantly on the latter. In addition to the notion of contradiction, expansive learning theory draws on the concept of mediation, which is a founding theoretical concept of activity theory. In the next section we outline the genesis of activity theory and discuss its evolution (Engeström, 2009) through three generations, each building on its own version of the unit of analysis (Engeströmp, p. 6), before returning to expansive learning theory and a discussion of how this relates to pedagogical leadership. Activity theory Activity theory has its origins in the work of the Russian psychologist, L. S. Vygotsky, and his notion of mediated action (Engeström, 2009). This notion explains the relationship between mind and human action, and in particular how people/subjects (individuals, 31

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education dyads, groups) make sense of objects (or tasks) through tool use. This is represented in Figure 1 (below). Tools can be conceptual (e.g. language, signs, symbols) and/or material (often referred to as cultural artefacts), and they are imbued with the history and culture of the particular community within which each is developed and used. Tools therefore hold and transfer cultural meanings. Through tool use, individuals internalise collective external knowledge and skills a process Vygotsky calls mediation. In the context of this study, examples of conceptual tools in relation to early childhood centres are ideas (concepts), such as whanaungatanga, empowerment, tikanga, relationships, play, sociocultural theory, shared sustained thinking, leadership, and so on. All of these are currently part of early childhood discourse, although some, such as whanaungatanga and play, have long cultural histories, whereas others are relatively recent additions to early childhood discourse, and have either been adopted from other contexts of use or created to meet a need. Examples of artefacts or material tools in relation to early childhood centres are policies, rosters, toys and other technologies, assessment and planning processes, curriculum documents, and so on. Tools do not remain static, and each generation both borrows and adapts these; eventually new tools are developed to meet new demands and requirements. Through tool use and adaption, communities are gradually transformed. Vestiges of historical tools, however, remain in circulation. Tools and signs (mediating concepts and artifacts) Subject Object Figure 1. The basic mediation triangle The notion of tools as mediating between the subject and the object was Vygotsky s response to the prevailing view (proposed by 19th century psychology) which proposed the notion of a reflex arc, whereby an independent subject responds to an object (stimulus), ostensibly devoid of mediation. This perspective gave rise to the behaviourist movement and to associationism, which attempted analytically to separate the individual from the environment (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010). In counter-distinction, Vygotsky argued in favour of a unified framework in which the organism and the environment were parts of a complex system that co-created consciousness through human participation in activities (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010, p. 15). Drawing on these ideas, activity theorists argue that the mind is thoroughly social, and that it is through collectively organised practical activity (Brennan, 2005, p. 40) that mental processes are largely created and revealed. For Vygotsky, higher mental processes originate in social processes activity. Activity forms the smallest unit of analysis, as it embodies the link between mind and society, and attempts to rid psychological processes of slippage into dualistic conceptions of mind. Vygotsky drew on Marxist theory (Blackler, 1993; Yamagata-Lynch, 2010) and on Marx s view of human nature, which holds that human nature is not fixed but people continually 32

Methodology make themselves through their productive activity (Blackler, p. 867). For Vygotsky, it is the social environment that gives rise to consciousness, and his work describes the relationship between individuals and the social environment (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010). Vygotsky coined the term internalisation to explain how individuals turned what was encountered and learned in the social through mediated action into individual consciousness. This is not a process of transfer, but a gradual appropriation, as individuals participating in social/ cultural processes, and with mediating tools (both conceptual and material), internalise their experiences. Vygotsky created the zone of proximal development (ZPD) as a conceptual and metaphorical tool for describing the fusing of the interpersonal and intrapersonal that takes place when subjects (notably children in Vygotsky s work) are learning with others. Engeström (2001) describes Vygotsky s insertion of cultural artifacts into human actions as revolutionary (p. 134), because it provided a unit of analysis which overcame the Cartesian split that separates out the individual from the the social. Engeström sums up this shift as: The individual could no longer be understood without his or her cultural means; and the society could no longer be understood without the agency of individuals who use and produce artifacts....objects became cultural entities and the objectorientatedness of action became the key to understanding human psyche (p. 134). Vygotsky s primary focus was on the individual. Brennan (2005) and Yamagata-Lynch (2010) each discuss the risks taken by Vygotsky in trying to resolve the individual/social dichotomy through his concept of internalisation. This concept invites slippage into the individual mind. Yamagata-Lynch contends, however, that Vygotsky was attempting to move away from viewing individual consciousness as a commodity that grew within an individual: instead he viewed it as a shared embodiment between individuals and their social environments, including social others (p. 19). In this sense, the mind is social at the outset and remains so, and the dualistic distinction can be considered a heuristic, a linguistic/discursive and/or an ideological construction. Yamagata-Lynch (2010) contends that contemporary CHAT researchers and practitioners are still working to identify how to explain human activity with a non-dualistic framework (p. 18). As researchers, we too found ourselves at times slipping into this dualism; this is discussed later in the chapter when we present our analytic and representation strategies. Daniels and Edwards (2010) note a profound implication of Vygotsky s claim that cultural tools or artefacts mediate the relationship between mind and human action. This implication is that by adapting cultural tools, humans can foster their own cognitive development from the outside (p. 2, italics in original). Because cultural tools carry cultural meanings, Nuttall points out that by adapting those meanings, humans can adapt their activity (both internal activity in the form of thought and external activity in the form of behaviour) and therefore human culture (p. 2). An example of this could be a group of teachers working with a tool such as an assessment template (artefact) that has been borrowed from another setting, and is adapted to work in the new setting (Nuttall, in press-b). This ability to adapt cultural tools, meanings and activity constitutes agency. This continual modification of cultural tools is not neutral, however, as people become invested in the tools that are dear to them. 33

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education Second generation activity theory While Vygotsky s focus was on individuals and their mediated action (object), a second generation of activity theorists moved away from the individual as the unit of analysis to a focus on collective human activity, which includes both mental activity and observable activity (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010). This shift is attributed to one of Vygotsky s collaborators, Leont ev (see Engeström, 2001). Peter Smagorinsky (2010) writes how Leont ev shifted the unit of analysis from individual, volitional, goal directed, tool-mediated, and socially and culturally conditioned action to the mediated action of the collective (p. 13). In this conceptualisation, activity provides the unit of analysis rather than patterns of speaking and thinking, which are derived from the social and cultural, as in Vygotsky s account of human consciousness. Engeström (2001) notes how the concept of activity moved thinking forward the notion of activity itself becomes an adapted mediating tool. Rather than the model being based on an individual activity system, as in Figure 1, it became a collective activity system focusing on complex interrelations between the individual subject and his or her community (pp. 134 135). Engeström (2001) describes object-orientated actions as always, explicitly or implicitly, characterized by ambiguity, surprise, interpretation, sense making, and [having the] potential for change (p. 134). He has depicted this in Figure 2 with the use of the oval. Tools and signs Subject Mediating artifacts Object Sense, meaning Outcome Rules Community Division of labour Figure 2. The structure of a human activity system (adapted from Engeström, 2001, p. 135). In Engeström s (1987) activity systems model (see Figure 2), the top triangle is Vygotsky s original mediated action triangle, with subject (individual or groups), tool (conceptual or artefact), and object (task/motive). In addition, new nodes of rules, community, and division of labour are included. These constitute the socio-historical aspects of mediated action that were not addressed by Vygotsky (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010, p. 23). Rules are those explicit or implicit regulations and demarcations which can either constrain or enable the activity, and which provide guidelines to the subject about how to be with others in the community. The community is the social group that the subject/s engage with while carrying out the activity, and the division of labour determines how the tasks are shared among the community. Each of the components identified in the triangle can mediate the activity and lead to an outcome for all involved in the activity system. The object is the task that gives motive force to collective activity, and which contributes to 34

Methodology the outcome (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010, p. 16). Yamagata-Lynch (2010) asserts that although a unified view of the term object is elusive, among CHAT scholars there is agreement that the object is the reason why individuals and groups of individuals choose to participate in an activity (Kaptelinin, 2005), and it is what holds together the elements in an activity (p. 17). To place this term within the current study, objects (broadly speaking) are the things that need to be done to achieve the outcome of doing early childhood education (each centre constitutes an activity system). Objects are therefore general things (e.g., assessment, planning, collaborating, etc), but they can also be more specific than this and be any task, large or small, that an individual or a group is working/focusing on (e.g., preparing the parent newsletter). Within the original thinking about second generation activity theory, there was a focus on the way in which activity systems develop and transform themselves. The mechanism for this is located in the concept of contradiction. Contradictions arise when there is tension within or between elements of the system. But they can also arise because of tensions between activity systems. Engeström (2001) defines contradictions as historically accumulating structural tensions within and between activity systems (p. 137). Contradictions are discussed again shortly, as these provide the opportunity for learning and change within activity systems and within expansive learning theory. Blackler (1993) points out that activities themselves and the settings in which they are carried out are not determined by objective, physical features but are provided by those who engage in them (p. 868). Thus he is highlighting the socially constructed nature of activities. This means that early childhood education is not an objective category; rather, the meanings people give to it make it what it is; in essence, it is socially constructed. Nowadays there are many schools of thought about the notion of social construction as a theoretical orientation. Burr (2005) argues they all have a family resemblance (p. 2) because of their common adherence to a set of assumptions associated with the nature of knowledge. It is outside the scope of this chapter to delve into this discussion; however, the key notion to keep uppermost in relation to the social construction of reality (activity) is that it is never neutral. Engeström (2009) notes that the issue of power has received weak treatment (p. 6) in activity theory, but suggests that his third generation of activity theory has the potential to take account of this. It is to this third generation that we shift our focus. Third generation activity theory Third generation activity theory incorporates at least two interacting activity systems (Engeström, 2001) (see Figure 3). When two activity systems come together, they have the potential to create a shared (third) object: the co-construction of joint meaning. In reality there are a myriad of systems at play in most social situations, as each person brings with them their meanings (cultural tools), developed in their activity system of the family. In our study, the project facilitator, in the role of the coach and mentor, is the subject of an activity system that comes into contact with the activity system of the participant s centre. Through the coaching relationship, a shared zone of mediation is potentially created. 35

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education Mediating artifacts Mediating artifacts Subject Object Object 2 Object 2 Object 1 1 Subject Object 3 Rules Community Division of labour Division of labour Community Rules Figure 3. Two interacting activity systems as minimal model for the third generation of activity theory (adapted from Engeström, 2001, p. 136) Summing up the nature of activity theory, Engeström (2001) suggests that there are five principles at its core. The activity system and its networked relations to other activity systems is the prime unit of analysis. The other four principles are the multi-voicedness of activity systems; the historicity of activity systems; contradictions as the driving force of change in activity systems; and cycles of expansive transformations in activity systems. These principles are best illustrated by considering a case such as an early childhood service/ centre. The ECE service/centre forms a system of activity, as shown by the components captured in one of the triangles in Figure 3. This centre therefore is a collective, artefactmediated and object-orientated activity system (Engeström, 2001, p. 136) which is inevitably influenced by other activity systems (e.g., the activity system of the Ministry of Education, the umbrella organisation under which it may exist and operate.). Within the service/centre there are many people, each with their own socially constructed points of view, ways of being and doing that intersect with others in the system who bring their biographical selves. The system itself is also a collective standpoint, built up over its history and laid down in its tools, artefacts, rules, division of labour, the goals it is directed to, and so on. In other words, the activity system is multi-voiced. All systems (and early childhood services/centres are no different) have a historicity about them, which contributes to shaping and transforming them over time. Consider how the early childhood sector of today (or individual centres within it) is in many ways but not all quite different from that of former generations. Social practice is by its very nature conflictual (Engeström, 1987), as people have different motives for taking part in the object of the activity system. This sets up a milieu of ambiguities, uncertainties, and contradictions that are such a characteristic of the human condition [but which] can provide key opportunities for individual and collective development (Blackler, 1993, p. 870). Therefore within and between activity systems, there is a tendency towards the accumulation of contradictions. Engeström (2001) argues that contradictions are not the same as problems or conflicts. Contradictions are historically accumulating structural tensions within and between activity systems (p. 137). While they can create tensions and conflicts, within Engeström s version of activity theory they also hold the potential for change and transformation. In relation to an early childhood setting, this might be represented by a new teacher bringing in an idea that is not considered to fit with the way things are done here. Or a teaching team may find that 36

Methodology their tools, such as the timetabling system, no longer meet the needs of the group or of an externally imposed regulatory requirement. Engeström s formulation of third generation activity theory proposes a particular way of working through this type of situation. This process is called expansive learningas systems address contradictions, they move through expansive cycles of transformation. This can be precipitated by an individual who brings the contradiction to the consciousness of the group, or by the group itself. At other times it takes place as individuals question practices and deviate from the norm. An example of this is the development of kaupapa Māori methodology within the research field, as a response to the hegemony of Western world views as the dominant paradigm for research. Within early childhood education, there is the current challenge to developmentalism by socio-cultural theory (Edwards, 2007) or by post-structuralists (Cannella, 1997). The current study In the study described in this report, third generation activity theory was first explained to participants, who were then coached in its use. Participants learned to map their centre as a system of activity in relation to particular objects (or tasks), and to recognise contradictions that may be hampering or obstructing the achievement of these objects. This attempt to resolve the situation using a specific tool (in this case, the model of an activity system itself) is termed double-stimulation; a concept first proposed by Vygotsky (Engeström, 2007). The first stimulus is the recognition of the existence of a tension or identification of a contradiction; the second stimulus is use or adaptation of a tool to understand or mediate the situation. In this project, the model of activity theory is the mediating tool (artefact); a cultural object that mediates between participants and their learning. The researcher s interest is centred on the sense of what the participants make of the tool and the ways in which they use and reshape the meaning of the tool (Ellis, 2010). In our study, the workshops provided a shared space with others to learn about the tool, and the coaching and mentoring sessions aimed to provide a shared zone of proximal development whereby participants engaged further with the tool, in dialogue with the coach and their centre co-participant. In returning to the notion of expansive learning, the identification, surfacing and analysis of contradictions form the core of expansive learning. This is not to say that contradictions are readily identifiable, or that the recognition of them is unproblematic. Consider structural contradictions such as racism, which remains one of the most pervasive and difficult to tackle (Bishop Glynn, 1999). Capper and Williams (2004) distinguish between invisible and undiscussable contradictions. The former are so much a part of our daily functioning that we fail to see them. These are taken for granted by many. Undiscussable contradictions are the ones that are not talked about, because they are too hard or perhaps too embarrassing to raise. All forms of contradiction potentially hinder achievement of the object (task) at hand. When work groups learn how to address these, they can in turn provide the fulcrum for change in the activity system of the workplace, and they have the potential to drive the system through a cycle of expansive transformation. Rather than seeing disturbance and tension (which can be markers of contradiction) as negative influences on a system, activity theory suggests that they can be viewed as springboards for learning, innovation, and development (Capper Williams, 2004, p. 9). 37

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education Conclusion Engeström s focus on expansive learning is an attempt to address the learning and developmental tasks of workgroups. It is premised on the belief that traditional theories of learning based on the process of transmission, where a known object is passed to the learner to be learned, cannot account for the type of learning that must take place in the complex workplaces of post-modernity. Learning and development are a mediated process. The tool of activity theory can be used to describe and analyse complex systems; but it can also be used as an effective tool to bring about transformation. In the next section, we present a discussion that explores alignments between kaupapa Māori and third generation activity theory. Kaupapa Māori theory and activity theory: Alignments Mahia te mahi Exploring the alignments between kaupapa Māori, activity theory and expansive learning theory has been a specific focus of the research component of this project. Alignment with kaupapa Māori from the beginning of the project was visible, in that the key concepts used in Engeström s third generation activity theory were recognisable as concepts which are common in the experience of Te Ao Māori. Working as a collective or system is not a new concept for Māori, who until the last few decades have been highly reliant on working and living as collective groupings of whānau, hapū and iwi. While this is still a reality for many Māori today, the fragmentation of Māori societal structures (G. Smith, in Jones, 1990) has increased significantly in recent generations. Despite this, the resurgence of the Māori renaissance from the period of the 1970s reignited efforts focused on keeping the collectives of whānau, hapū and iwi intact. The strength of the collective remains highly valued in the Māori world. Activity theory and alignment to Kaupapa Māori As this research proposes to explore how activity theory aligns to kaupapa Māori, a further notion that will be discussed is: how can the model of activity theory be adapted through a kaupapa Māori approach as a decolonising artefact? This in itself is articulated to some extent in the situation where the researcher realises her colonised state. Kaupapa Māori theory and methodology align directly to some of the core aspects of activity theory, in that both are strength-based approaches which seek positive outcomes for collective good with an aim of transformational change. Kaupapa Māori also utilises a range of principles based on tikanga Māori as a framework to guide practices which have particular gain for Māori. These comparisons show that there are similarities within the two theories that serve to complement this research. One of the propositions raised in the discussions of activity theory was that traditionally, Māori society has been a system of activity. In making these alignments more explicit, activity theory can be examined as a theoretical framework for the analysis and understanding of human interaction through their use of tools and artefacts (Hasham Jones, 2007, p. 1). 38

Methodology Kaupapa Māori theory may be claimed similarly as a Māori centred approach, locating Māori aspirations, preferences and practices at the centre of the exercise and involv[ing] Māori in the design, delivery, management and monitoring of educational initiatives and developments (Bishop Glynn, 1999, p. 34). Analysing these two theories, a convergence begins to develop. Activity theory draws upon the analysis of human interaction employing tools to better understand dynamic change within systems (Engeström, Engeström Suntio, cited in Wells Claxton, 2002). Kaupapa Māori theory also has a strong position which articulates that Māori people are highly regarded in their participation within the project. This resonates with the wellknown whakatauki that is shared within Māori circles: he aha te mea nui o te ao, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata, what is the most important thing in the world, it is people, it is people, it is people. Māori culture is a highly dynamic self-organising system (Henare-Solomona, 2011), sophisticated in nature and understood through traditional protocols and practices known as kaupapa or tikanga Māori. Marsden (2003) postulates that culture is a way of life accepted and adopted by society: In Māori terms, culture is the complex whole of beliefs, attitudes, values, mores, customs, knowledge This corpus provides the thread of continuity which integrates and holds together the social fabric of a culture. Māori culture is a complex system which supports whānau, hapū, and iwi. (p. 69) Māori descend from systems that are embedded in tikanga Māori and are guided by traditional Māori cultural practices. The collective is intricately linked through a range of self-organising systems which is complex in nature (Henare-Solomona, 2011). These systems are demanding and often challenging, because of the dynamic human interaction that exists within them. For Māori working within these collective, complex systems, this is a normal part of life. At times this can prove to be demanding for Māori, as they are required to fulfil duties entailing not only how they look after their immediate and extended families, but also upholding the roles and responsibilities of their marae, including hapū decision-making that meets the needs of whānau/hapū well-being; as well as being part of larger work involving iwi. Activity theory aligns to this notion, as it is considered a tool to understand human interactions and practices, needs and social interactions (Engeström, 2001). These understandings create transformative practices for collectives and organisations (Engeström, Engeström Suntio, as cited in Wells Claxton, 2002) to creatively shape the design. With the assistance of conceptual tools, activity theory has the potential to critique practices that aim to create changes supporting people to think more critically about the way in which they may work more cohesively, in order to develop positive outcomes. Crawford and Hansen (as cited in Hasham Jones, 2007) propose that activity theory provides a rich, holistic understanding of how people do things together with the assistance of sophisticated tools in complex dynamic environments (p. 5). Marsden (2003) suggests that the ancient Māori seers, like the later modern physicists, created sets of symbols to provide Māori with maps/models to portray each state of the Māori world. These symbols were utilised as tools to decipher cultural practices. The tools which Māori use to understand and navigate the world around them are derived from tikanga Māori. Tikanga is explained by Marsden (2003) as a means, plan, reason, custom or right way of doing things. Kathie Irwin, as cited in Smith (1999), asserts that Māori have their 39

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education own tools, which they will design for their own purposes. They do not need others to do this for them. Thus we offered the tool of third generation activity theory tentatively to take account of Irwin s advice and guidance. Theoretical fieldwork: Research in action This next section describes the research process, including: the research design; process for gaining ethical approval; identification of research participants; recruitment and selection processes; and data generation and analysis strategies. Research design Consistent with Engeström s third generation research process is the notion of research as an intervention. This led to the professional learning programme embedded within the research and development project. Participants in the study were introduced to third generation activity theory as a way of viewing their centres as systems of activity. As stated in Chapter 1, an aim of the project was that pedagogical leadership could be enhanced through appropriating the knowledge and theoretical tools of activity theory. Gaining ethics approval Ethics procedures The research project gained ethics approval from the Association s Research and Ethical Approval Committee. The research proposal was prepared following ethical procedures set out in the Association s Ethical Standards of Practice for Research, and using the Association s Ethical Approval for Research Application process. Over and above this was a commitment to carry out the research consistent with Linda Tuhiwai Smith s (1999) kaupapa Māori practices and incorporating the Māori Potential Approach in Education model (Ministry of Education, 2009). In addition, we observed the New Zealand Association for Research in Education (NZARE) Ethical Guidelines for Research in Education that involves Māori, notably clauses 1.2, 2.2 and 2.3, and the Pasifika research guidelines (Anae, Coxon, Mara, Wendt-Samu, Finau, 2001). A Māori Research Advisory Group was established to provide advice and guidance on all aspects of the project. The advisory committee arose from identifying that in the early drafting of the proposal, Māori were not initially involved in the actual conceptualisation and design of the project, despite Māori leaders being a target group for participation in the project. This tauiwi blind spot constituted a contradiction, given the Association s commitment as a Te Tiriti o Waitangi based organisation. As outlined previously, the notion of contradiction is central to expansive learning theory, so this realisation provided the research project and tauiwi personnel with a contradiction that required urgent attention. Obtaining informed consent The process of obtaining informed consent began with an information sheet outlining what participation in the project entails. This was followed up with a verbal discussion prior to the first interview (the needs analysis), where the participant 40

Methodology was given an opportunity to ask questions and have their queries clarified. Lastly, participants signed a consent form. Anonymity and confidentiality Because this research project involved participants taking part with others in workshops, it was not possible to guarantee complete anonymity. Participants were asked to provide a pseudonym for themselves for use in the final research report and any other publications stemming from this project. No identifiers that could be used to deduce the identity of participants would be reported in research publications. Use of personal information that could be used to identify participants would not be reported either. Potential harm to participants Participation in the project was voluntary. We made it possible for two people from each service/centre to attend, so as to minimise isolation both in the workshop groups and later, when applying workshop material to the workplace. It was not anticipated that participants would experience any harm arising from participation in the project beyond the experience of everyday working life. If a situation arose during the follow-up consultation meetings or in any of the audio-taped interview sessions, participants were asked whether they wished to continue the interview. Participants had the right, at any time, to request that recording be discontinued. Participants right to decline to take part In the first instance, participation in the project was voluntary. There was a slight possibility that participants might feel obliged to participate in the project if a centre/service manager directed them to do so. At the initial meeting and in the consent form, it was made clear that participation was voluntary. Participants were informed that they could withdraw at any stage of the project. Additionally, they retained the right to withdraw their data contributed to the study at any time up until the data was analysed. Project personnel were non-judgemental and affirmed the participants right to withdraw from the project, or to withdraw their data, whilst remaining members of the coaching and mentoring programme. Potential harm to researchers No potential harm to researchers was envisaged. The project was carried out as a collaborative project and each cluster team (comprising facilitator/researcher and two researchers) formed sound working relationships. Each of the project codirectors were also available for support. The facilitator/researcher and the two supporting researchers in the kaupapa Māori cluster, as indicated previously, did experience some unease and discomfort throughout the research process, as the full project adapted to the contradictions experienced by questioning what constitutes kaupapa Māori within a project such as this. This research and researcher story is woven throughout this final report. Potential harm to Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa/NZ Childcare Association The research project involved working with teachers/kaiako in functioning early childhood settings. It was not envisaged that the work of the Association through any of its functions (e.g. teacher education, professional development, membership support) would come into disrepute. Researchers were charged with working with ethical sensitivity and respect through all aspects of the research and coaching and mentoring project. 41

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education Uses of information All research data was analysed and used to produce research outputs such as research reports, conference papers, journal articles etc. (See also Procedures for sharing information with research participants.) Conflict of interest/conflict of roles No conflict of interest was predicted in the project. However, there existed a potential for conflict of roles. This could have arisen in circumstances whereby a project participant was also a student in the Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa/NZCA teacher education upgrade to the degree programme. This was a strong potential, as a number of students in that programme in 2012 (the year of the project) were qualified, experienced teachers who held positions of responsibility in their centres/services. (Students in the full-time degree programme were excluded from selection into this project.) Conflict of roles could also apply to facilitators and researchers who were also lecturers in the teacher education programme. Inherent in the conflict of roles between facilitators and researchers, and participants who were also student teachers (as described above), was the possibility of a power imbalance which could arise because of lecturers role as assessors of students academic work. It was decided that where selected participants were also students of the Association, they would be able to discuss any conflicts of interests, especially power issues, with the Research Supervisor or Research Leader. To address the potential conflict of roles, participants who were also students in the Association s teacher education programme would be enabled and encouraged to discuss this dynamic with cluster facilitators when completing the consent process. They would be reminded that they were able to contact the supervising researcher, Dr Janis Carroll-Lind, using contact details listed on the information form. Cultural concerns As this project involved a diverse range of participants, approaches which were culturally appropriate and adhered to kaupapa Māori principles of research were to be used in all aspects of this project. Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa/NZCA has a commitment to a bicultural foundation; therefore protocols are guided by ethical practices in accordance with tikanga Māori, where recognition and respect of all peoples is paramount. While the kaupapa Māori methodology provided a basis in Te Ao Māori, we incorporated Linda Tuhiwai-Smith s (2003) principles of conducting kaupapa Māori research in order to provide appropriate research processes and protocols. These ethical principles are: 1. Aroha ki te tangata (a respect for people); 2. Kanohi kitea (the seen face, meet face to face); 3. Titiro, whakarongo, korero (look, listen, speak); 4. Manaaki ki te tangata (share and host people, be generous); 5. Kia tūpato (be cautious); 6. Kaua e takahia te mana o te tangata (don t trample over the mana of people); and 7. Kaua e māhaki (don t flaunt your knowledge). 42

Methodology Identifying research participants: recruitment and selection Recruitment Three geographical areas for recruitment were targeted, based on the availability of research capacity in three of Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa/NZ Childcare Association s teaching bases. Two were located in the North Island and one in the South Island. Two clusters each consisted of six participating centres. A third cluster consisted of four centres which identified as kaupapa Māori. Thus a total of 16 early childhood services were involved in the project. Participant recruitment was handled through a three-step process. The first step involved the distribution of flyers publicising the project. These were emailed out to all education and care centres within the targeted geographical areas, using a Ministry of Education generated data base of addresses. The flyers briefly informed potential participants of our project (both the research and professional learning elements), and supplied details of how to register an expression of interest in the project. On receipt of an expression of interest, centres were mailed an expression of interest form and an information sheet. Within one cluster, education and care services on the Ministry of Education list were also contacted by phone in an attempt to create a more diverse mix of participating centres. For the regional cluster, comprised of services that identified as kaupapa Māori there was a more specific recruitment process, which involved kanohi-ki-kanohi/face-to-face contact and a meeting of interested centres before selection took place. All participants (i.e., the designated leader/s in their centre) were in early childhood services situated within a current base of sound management, including effective policy and procedures, as evidenced by a satisfactory Education Review Office report. Centres needing strategic management, planning and budgeting support were not the target group, and none responded to the initial flyer. It was proposed that up to two leaders per centre would take part in the project. This decision was made in response to Lesley Rameka s (personal communication, 6 March, 2012) finding that sole participants from centres in Rameka s study found the process of interpreting and feeding back to their setting isolating and lonely. Many of Rameka s participants mentioned how they would have felt better had they shared the professional learning context with a colleague (Rameka, 2012). Dual participation is also important to the process of succession, as a traditional aspect of Māori leadership that requires both revitalisation and strengthening in Te Ao Māori. All of the centres who identify as kaupapa Māori (i.e., those in the kaupapa Māori and one centre in another cluster) had two participants; one centre requested, successfully, that three participants be included, based on the argument of succession planning. It is of note that a number of leadership dyads/triads in this project were made up of an experienced and a less experienced member, the latter often as the result of recent personnel changes in the centre. We did not explore whether this feature contributed to the decision to apply for participation in the project. One centre was accepted into the project with a sole participant, and in two centres one participant in each withdrew during the project. Centre commitment to engage in the project was high, with participants/designated leaders agreeing to release time to attend all facets of the research and professional 43

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education learning programme. (This included a one-hour needs analysis interview and attendance at six two-hour workshops, as well as six hours of coaching and mentoring interspersed between the workshops.) Selection A total of 19 centres completed Expressions of Interest for the 16 places allocated across the three clusters. Selection was based on creating diversity within the cluster, as well as the ability for centres to provide two participants. Three centre applications were declined, based on the selection criteria. Selection for kaupapa Māori cluster: ngākau Māori Knowledge is of the head, knowing is of the heart (Marsden, 2003). Prior to the project commencing, two of the researchers in the kaupapa Māori cluster asked who defines kaupapa Māori? As the start of the project drew closer, the researchers became clear in articulating their view in terms of what was defined as kaupapa Māori. They were concerned that centres who may have been unable to identify as kaupapa Māori could meet the criteria through identifying as ngākau Māori. The researchers asserted that centres working from concepts and practices of what they termed ngākau Māori should be included in the kaupapa Māori cluster within the project. What emerged from these discussions were several critical questions pertaining to kaupapa Māori. The two key questions posed were: 1. Who determines kaupapa Māori? 2. How is kaupapa Māori defined? Through this questioning process it became apparent that by implementing the original criteria, we would be excluding centres who highly valued kaupapa Māori practices within their centres, but did not explicitly define themselves as such. This led to further discussion in terms of the selection criteria. In a kaupapa Māori view, we collectively agreed that the selection criteria should include centres identifiable as ngākau Māori; this resulted in widening the view of kaupapa Māori to incorporate centres of this nature. This in itself proved to be a complex discussion. Again the research team needed to ascertain their own understandings of ngākau Māori and what this term meant in relation to kaupapa Māori. As discussions evolved, the research team came to similar understandings. Ngākau Māori was defined by our team as meaning both Māori heart and Māori at heart. This can be further described as the means to accomplish principles of kaupapa Māori from the heart, in meaningful ways where core aspects related to the practices held within kaupapa Māori. Practical aspects of ngākau Māori were determined by the team as having an understanding and a sense of familiarity of te reo Māori and embracing tikanga Māori. Ngākau Māori was further defined as a holistic way of being and knowing tikanga Māori. It was difficult to provide a definitive term for ngākau Māori; as an holistic approach it has depth and meaning that can be interpreted in various contexts, depending on one s own understanding of tikanga Māori. We knew of centres within our region which were active practitioners of the concepts defined as ngākau Māori. As we came to clarify ngākau Māori as a concept, we were able to draw on a wider consideration of centres that could be included in the research project. 44

Methodology With the move to include centres that worked from a foundation of ngākau Māori; acknowledgement of the researchers, their experience and knowledge of the sector and their thoughts around this particular issue was important to how the cluster moved forward. It took time as a research team to establish collaborative understandings of both kaupapa Māori and ngākau Māori. This reaffirmed the need to have a collective process to ensure that all research voices were heard and validated (Ritchie Rau, 2006). This process created respectful relationships, inclusive practices, and a sense of reciprocity in being able to listen to what each of us had to say. This is noted as an important aspect of kaupapa Māori theory and practice (L. T. Smith, 1997) that further highlights commitment to how whanaungatanga is enacted within research process (Bishop, 1996; Ritchie Rau, 2006). For the research team, it also demonstrated that we valued each other and that the relationship between ourselves as researchers was respectful and committed to working towards shared understandings. Description of participants Our information sheet stated that Research participants are those designated pedagogical leaders who are responsible for the learning programme in their early childhood centre/ setting. Thus centres self-selected their participants, although the facilitator/researcher in each region did guide centres who asked for clarification of what a pedagogical leader is. The broad definition outlined in the introduction to this report was used: a pedagogical leader was someone who had overall responsibility for the teaching and learning that took place in each setting; that is, leadership focused more centrally on curriculum and learning/pedagogy than on management and administration. The data in Table 1 provides a summary of the characteristics of the research participants and their centres, as reported from the Expression of Interest forms. The Expression of Interest form asked participants to describe their leadership position (i.e., I am the head teacher; I am the head teacher for the infants and toddlers; I am the supervisor ). The data in the table differs somewhat from that gathered in the needs analysis interviews, where there was some reluctance to specify the actual leadership position held. (Possibly the interview question, which was about pedagogical leadership may have influenced the responses, or the interview context mediated the responses). Methodology of the learning and coaching and mentoring model The programme consisted of monthly cluster workshops with pedagogical leaders, interspersed with individual centre-based consultations spread over seven months. Project participants experienced the methodology of expansive learning during the project, and learnt and were supported to apply the methodology in their own settings. Each cluster consisted of a facilitator (who was also a researcher) who led each workshop session (six workshops in total) and carried out each of the one-hour follow up coaching and mentoring meetings in participants centres after each workshop session. The purpose of these meetings was to further support pedagogical leaders to foster and support ongoing professional learning in curriculum and pedagogy at the level of the centre, through guided 45

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education Table 1: Characteristics of participants 1 Ethnicity (Q5) Sector of ECE (Q6) Age range of children (Q7) Cluster A (n = 10) Cluster B (n = 13) Cluster C (n = 8) Māori 1 4 4 NZ/European 8 7 4 Pasifika 1 2 Privately owned 2 4 1 Education and care centres community 7 4 2 based Pasifika 1 2 Kohanga reo 3 1 Mixed age 2 3 8 Young children 2 4 Infants and toddlers 2 4 (1 infants and toddler*) Across all age groups 4 2 Description of leadership position (self reported in needs analysis form, Q8) Cluster A (n = 10) Cluster B (n = 13) Cluster C (n = 8) Centre manager x 2 Centre director Centre manager x 2 Owner/head teacher Centre supervisor Head teacher x 3 Head teacher 0-3 years Principal Shared leadership x 2 Head teacher 3-5 years Assists the manager/ relieving Manager Kaitiaki (supervisor/head) x 2 Section manager Team leader, infants Teacher Senior teacher Head teacher, under 2s* Head teacher No response Kaiwhakaaro (lead teacher infants & toddlers) Head teacher, infants Assistant head teacher Head teacher, toddlers Teacher (self-sustaining team) Teacher (4-year-olds) 46

Methodology use of third generation activity theory. These meetings were audio-taped and transcribed to generate data regarding the efficacy of the research intervention. Where two (or more) participants from the same centre took part in the project, consultation meetings were held jointly. Before the workshop and coaching/mentoring programme began, participants took part in a needs analysis interview. This focused on: Participants understanding of the concept of pedagogical leadership Participants analysis of factors likely to afford and constrain their pedagogical leadership Each cluster consisted of the designated pedagogical leader/s from six (or four in the case of the kaupapa Māori cluster) centres/services in the cluster, a project facilitator and two researchers. (The project facilitator was also a researcher.) Data generation and analysis strategies Data was generated through audiotaped coaching and mentoring sessions with the participants at roughly monthly to six-weekly intervals across a seven month period spanning July 2012 to February 2013. The audiotapes were transcribed and returned to each project facilitator for clarification of any missing detail or any wrongly interpreted and transcribed material, and to de-identify any features that could lead to the identification of any participant or centre. Cleaned and de-identified copies of each transcription were then passed on to each of the two researchers attached to each cluster. These were read and analysed individually before the researchers and cluster facilitator (also a researcher) came together to share their analysis. Researchers analysed only data generated within their own clusters. This pattern was repeated with the audio tapes of each subsequent coaching and mentoring session. Participants were informed that they could access copies of their transcripts at each point in the process. For example, once Workshop 1 was transcribed and cleaned, transcripts were available to participants. Few participants across the three clusters requested transcripts. A final reminder was emailed to participants once the workshop programme had ceased and report writing had begun. At this point, a further three requests for transcripts were received. Workshop sessions were audiotaped but not transcribed, due to the number of participants taking part in these, and the tapes were held in store as a potential data source. Handwritten field-notes were taken during the workshops by each researcher and used as data; these were collectively analysed immediately after each workshop by the researchers and cluster facilitator. This process was repeated five times within each cluster. Data analysis Analysis of the data was iterative and carried out both deductively and inductively. We began with a deductive analysis employing a priori constructs brought to the research process. These included constructs such as leadership, pedagogical leadership, kaupapa Māori, activity theory constructs (rules, tools, division of labour, system, contradiction, object/task) appropriation for example. As we became familiar with the data, we applied a second order inductive analysis which identified themes and/or new constructs. In 47

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education terms of the needs analysis interviews (held at the outset of the project), the analysis of these was largely deductive, as the interview schedule generated a number of specific constructs such as satisfaction/challenges of being a leader, leadership courses. Each cluster worked collectively to clarify and confirm a priori and emergent constructs. The cluster facilitators/researchers kept in contact to discuss the shape that data analysis was taking in each cluster. In October 2012, all project personnel came together in a two-day hui to share experiences and to discuss our analysis process and procedures. The hui was planned and facilitated by Associate Professor Joce Nuttall, our critical friend to the project. At this time we separately and jointly analysed a consistent piece of data in order to attend to issues of validity and credibility across the clusters. In February this year, once all data generated within clusters had been analysed, the three project facilitators (including the project co-directors) came together to discuss insights, confirm themes and decide on the data story of the report in order to address our research questions. It was then decided to treat the data horizontally (i.e., across the data sets), with a separate analysis of the kaupapa Māori cluster as a case study. Careful, recursive analysis (i.e., returning to the data source) took place, as evidenced by the analytic data coding. This is consistently used across the chapters in the following way. First, pseudonyms chosen by the participants themselves are used to differentiate the various quotes. Participants in our kaupapa Māori cluster are identified as belonging to this cluster. However, participants in the other two clusters are not specifically identified by cluster. Brackets enclose the abbreviations denoting the data file. Our referencing format for data extracts identifies the source of each piece of data as follows: NA = Needs Analysis CM = Coaching and Mentoring W = Workshop WFN = Workshop field notes. In addition: The numeral following CM indicates the coaching and mentoring session number The numeral following W indicates the workshop session number The page numbers indicate the page of the transcript from which the quote was sourced. The following chapters address the findings of this study. They begin with a narrative, interpretive account of the journey taken in the kaupapa Māori cluster. While the journey described in this cluster is specific to it, there are many parallels with the participant s journeys in the other two clusters. This chapter is followed by two further findings chapters, both of which draw on data from across the three clusters. 48

Kaupapa Māori Findings CHAPTER 4: Kaupapa Māori findings Introduction: Taking up the model This chapter discusses the notion of taking up of the model within the kaupapa Māori cluster as a progressive narrative which takes account of the initial stages, the mid-point and the end-point. Areas to surface in the data were: the alignments between kaupapa Māori and activity theory; resistance to taking up the model; and the importance of understanding contradiction in the context of the model. We outline the different stages experienced by the participants, as they sought to understand Engeström s (1987; 2001) model of activity theory, how it might be applied within their centre practices and its relationship with expansive learning theory. The aim here is to describe the experiences of participants in the project as frankly as possible. We do not claim that a full understanding of the model was achieved by all involved, but rather seek to demonstrate how different participants experienced the model. While this chapter also explores the alignment of kaupapa Māori with activity theory and expansive learning theory, this is seen essentially in terms of alignments to the specific principle of whanaungatanga (Smith, 1997). Just as these alignments are conceptual, they also relate to the practices involved within collective being. Kua mārama: Do you understand? Throughout the duration of the project, there were significant periods of confusion, struggle and resistance as participants sought to understand the model and its function. We may see some parallel in the whakapapa 2 of Māori creation, beginning in a time of nothingness (Te Kore), moving on to being born into darkness (Te Pō), and coming into the world of light (Te Ao Mārama). There were definite moments within the project where there was a sense of being in complete darkness, then moving from the place of darkness and unknowing into the beginnings of light and knowing. As for the children of Rangi and Papa, there was an unsettling and an uncertainty of not knowing, of not having clarity of thought or understanding. This is an essential step in any learning process. Significantly, in Te Ao Māori, Te Kore is the beginning, referred to as the space of nothingness, the realm between being and non-being, the realm of potential. Te Pō, the darkness, the realm of becoming and then; there was the struggle that ensued, to come 2 genealogy 49

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education into the world of light, Te Ao Mārama. Te Ao Mārama is the realm of being, a stream of processes and events (King, 1977). The word mārama means light or clarity, māramatanga means understanding. The following section, drawing from participant interviews, discusses what we call taking up the model (appropriation) at the beginning of the project, mid-project and in the completing stages of the project. The participants involved demonstrated an initial understanding of the model, where most gauged some idea of how it works. There was stated excitement from some of the participants in terms of seeing how the model might impact within their centre practice. Discussion around leadership had both variances and similarities across centre participants. It seems to have been quite important that at least two leaders (from every centre but one) were involved in the project, as they were able to discuss the model with each other on an ongoing basis. Involving at least two participants emerged as being important to succession. In terms of leadership, particularly pedagogical leadership, an early discussion with two centre participants at the beginning of the project focused on centre leaders identifying themselves as designated leaders, managers, supervisors and head teachers. The two participants found the need to identify themselves in this way very different from their own centre approach, where all teachers led in their particular strength areas. Their centre does not have lead teachers as such, and both participants expressed their difficulty in understanding why teachers might want to be seen as the leader. Their understanding of leadership is about recognising everyone as having strength and working collaboratively in support of each other to provide optimal learning for the children in their care. In terms of the project being specifically about leadership, this was quite an unexpected line of discussion; but it was consistent with activity theory, which is a model of distributed cognition. Te Kore: the beginning Initially, Raiha and Teina, the two participants from the immersion centre in the kaupapa Māori cluster expressed resistance to the model. They had expected a Māori model as being in line with a kaupapa Māori cluster approach, and also that the model might be presented in te reo Māori. This was a clear barrier for these participants in terms of even wanting to engage with the model. Their centre also consistently spoke of the multiple struggles and demands which impacted on their time, resources and ability to trial the model in the early stages of the project, although their resistance was also a factor. Following the first workshop in the follow-up coaching session, Raiha commented: Yeah, I wasn t feeling altogether enthusiastic about this model and actually what I was really hoping for, because there are models similar to this, but couldn t we have used a Māori model of organisation or operation? Couldn t we have used a Māori model? We ve got some. We ve got some good ones. Why did they choose this? I know it s all backed up with the theorists. [CM1, p. 2] Raiha had a no nonsense approach to challenging the model: Couldn t you fellas make up one [model] that you could bring to us to try out and give some theory and give it some back-up that was truly bicultural? Sure, some of the stuff in here, it s valid, if what we re doing is making an assessment of systems. 50

Kaupapa Māori Findings But oh, I don t know, I was quite disappointed to hear all this. When you fellas threw it up, I was like oh, is that it? I was waiting for something dynamic and contextually appropriate to us as early childhood and as bilingual.something [like] Te Whāriki, now Te Whāriki, that s WOW! That is WOW! [CM1, p. 2] Frank in her initial response and apparent disappointment in that the model is not a Māori model, here Raiha is comparing Engeström s model with Te Whāriki, the national curriculum document for early childhood education (Ministry of Education, 1996). This highlights several points for discussion. First, Raiha anticipated a Māori model of practice, as might be expected in working as a kaupapa Māori cluster. In response to this particular centre s challenge that the model should be presented using te reo Māori, the facilitator adapted the model to incorporate Māori phrasing in preparation for Workshop 2. Ngā taputapu Take a roopu mahi ngā hua Ngā ture Hapori Mā wai e mahi Figure 4. Ngā taputapu Māori version of activity theory diagram Raiha s comparison of Engeström s model to Te Whāriki highlights that at this early stage of the project, she had quite understandably not recognised that the model provides a mechanism for introducing a system of change. It is definitely not a how to framework; but rather an analytic framework. Te Whāriki is not a framework either it too is a tool. However, Raiha s main point is that the model does not illustrate the strong Māori cultural aspects forefronted in Te Whāriki. it s been great and interesting and it s really been thought provoking and I can see all the benefits of the Vygotskian model but I want to do a Māori model. Because I think we have within us, i te ao Māori, we have a paradigm model of some sort that could be as equally as beneficial and productive as this model, I ve really enjoyed this and it s actually this one [model] that ironically calls for me to have all these kinds of thoughts, but where is the Māori model? [CM1, p. 2] In expressing their frustrations with the model, Raiha and her colleague Teina consistently resisted the model by not trialling it. But they also saw on first view that there were areas where te reo Māori could be naturally applied to the model, and in this way they responded to the model by making it Māori. They immediately worked on adapting the language in which to take up the model, aligning the key concepts to Māori concepts and ways of doing (tikanga/ture, ngā taputapu, mā wai e mahi, ngā mahi, ngā hua). 51

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education This implies that not only did the language fit with the model, but, importantly, that the concepts appeared familiar. The key concepts, rules, tools and division of labour easily related to Māori concepts of activity. Although the model was adapted to include Māori vocabulary, the concepts were retained as they were, in that they were seen as akin to Māori ways of being. On different occasions they commented in terms of relating the system of activity to the function of working in marae environments (W4, field-notes): Talking about these roles and responsibilities, I guess when you come from that [Te Reo] Māori focus, there s a role for everybody, there s a place for everybody and everybody has their place, so I liken it a little bit to when you re at home on the Marae, everybody has their role to play. [CM1, p. 6] Their response provides an excellent example of tool adaptation, which is evidence of appropriation. Furthermore, there is evidence that the concepts of activity theory show some alignment to kaupapa Māori and specifically to Māori ways of working using the analogy of working on the marae. Language Generally all the centre participants referred to the model as the triangle, rather than using the terminology of the model, activity theory, or activity systems or third generation activity theory. Also there was a tendency to avoid the academic language associated with the model, as participants generally preferred to discuss the model using language that they were comfortable with. There was a certain level of resistance to taking up the model due to the language used. The participants, for example, described the use of what some called speaky kind of jargon [CM1, p. 2] as a challenge and barrier to enabling their teaching teams and colleagues to become more familiar with the model. This is a common thread occurring in discussion across the centres. For example, participants Ria and Lana had the following discussion: Ria: you know when you reach certain levels of training, it becomes all this speak that sounds so incredibly tech, I mean pedagogical for goodness sake that word alone, just that word alone let alone all the other kind of things, you know can make some people, not me so much personally myself because I have that strategy of breaking it down, because when I did; my study there was those articles that you d read, and you d think for goodness sake and you d read it ten times and then think oh that s what they mean, and why didn t they just say that. I m certainly not frightened about it, and I m not overwhelmed but I am aware for some people that [it] really can be very off putting, and like you say somebody might say ah I m a bit thick I don t get this or whatever, and they re not at all, it s just that person s made it sound as complicated as they possibly can for their own level. Lana: when you re in a workshop scenario when you have that opportunity to talk to each other, and somebody says I think that just means that, and the penny drops for you or for the other person or what have you, that that s really valuable, if you didn t have that opportunity to break it down with each other, you could go away just thinking this is too hard for me, and what am I doing here. Ria: And that was just a couple of conversations that we d had with the small group that we were sitting next to, and it was that old I m not trained, I don t know what they re talking about [ ] I think for parents too, like we talk often about, and I guess you could apply this model to that sort of stuff too about not writing teacher 52

Kaupapa Māori Findings talk, so that it scares parents away, engaging whānau all the time you know you really have to think about that. Lana: we re sharing it with our teachers and then we re going to be sharing it with our whānau, so yeah if we can t break it down for ourselves then we ve got no hope. [CM1, pp. 4 5] Their concern was clearly around using language that was inclusive, in order to allow them to share the model with their team members and their centre whānau. Being able to share the model with centre whānau positions the importance of whanaungatanga as central to this centre s practice. The result of this particular discussion was that Ria and Lana adapted the language of the model to suit what they felt was appropriate for their whānau. The majority of participants had no qualms about appropriating the model through using language they related to, whether it was Māori or English. By contrast, Amy felt that changing the language of the model defeated the purpose of using the model, though she acknowledged that the other three centres had moved forward in doing so: To me it defeats, if I change it, but then I could understand how they had moved forward more so than we had, because they had changed the word[s], but they still have to go back to that whole point of what does that mean? [CM3, p. 2] Amy makes a good point in terms of whether changing the language of the model will in fact give the other participants a better understanding of the model, but she also realises that the other centres understanding of the model and that their potential to implement the model has progressed. Amy worked hard to make sense of the model and initially felt that she had got it. Adapting the language of the model made little sense to her and she questioned the purpose of changing the language if the concepts and know-how of the model remained unclear. This section is particularly important because language is the preeminent tool of all cultures. Ironically, Raiha challenged the origins of the model by recognising Māori concepts and systems of practices in it: the concepts contained inside the model, well obviously they are not exclusively European because we practice these things by virtue of our nature anyway [CM1, p. 7]. In drawing from this data, Raiha is effectively laying claim to the concepts within the model, as she raises the point that the model illustrates how Māori work as a collective because they have been enculturated this way since birth. Indeed, Vygotsky (1978) argued that all babies are hard-wired to enter the collective. In particular this applies to concepts around the division of labour. This aligns specifically with the roles and responsibilities associated with the various functions of marae. Participants made this comparison consistently over the duration of the project. As the project progressed, Raiha commented: I think in a strange way we do that model but it s not, it doesn t appear like that on a piece of paper, but in actual fact it is probably what we do [CM2, p. 2]. Here Raiha is identifying a familiarity and alignment of the model to kaupapa Māori, in recognising that as a kaupapa Māori centre, they already practise aspects of the model. In particular, the division of labour is recognised as an area of alignment in terms of understanding the roles and responsibilities of the collective. Thanks to the participants responses, the research team was prompted to consider ways in which the model could be articulated in a manner that could draw on Māori principles. Accordingly, the team expanded the model to incorporate Māori concepts of mōhiotanga, mātauranga and māramatanga (knowing, knowledge and understanding). Ideally, the 53

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education opportunity to wānanga (workshop) this model more thoroughly with the participants in the initial workshops would have been preferable, but the timeframes allocated in the workshop settings did not allow for this level of engagement. Hence there is still considerable work and research to be done in terms of how the model could be used in this context. In their initial introduction to the model, participants Amy and Jade indicated their interest we re very interested in the model and I personally would have liked more time spent so I haven t got the full grip on the model, of course I don t expect to get it on the first day either [CM1, p. 1]. The initial introduction to the model showed that Amy and Jade were still becoming familiar with it and that they did not expect to understand it in totality in the first workshop. Insufficient time to actively gain a confidence in understanding the model is indicated. However, both participants spoke about the different strategies they utilised to better understand the model we found that both of us had very different understandings of it, but we came to the same outcome [CM1, p. 2]. So even though they initially had different understandings of the model, the best approach for conceptualising the model was by sharing and discussing it. Having time to become familiar with the model was important to gaining confidence in understanding the model and consequently taking up the model. Both participants seemed to come to grips with the model early in the project, particularly Amy, who was very detailed and complex in her thinking. In talking about her own complexity, she said: Literally it s like [working with] a jigsaw puzzle, we ve got all these pieces and I will pull them all apart and rebuild it, and that has to have a purpose, so I go the long way around to it. In describing herself, Amy speaks of how she works through things by deconstructing and reconstructing to make sense; she is very clear about needing to understand the purpose of why she does what she does, and is quite pragmatic in saying so. She needs to be clear about what she does and why. In the initial introduction to the model, Lana said: I certainly couldn t say that I ve got really any in-depth knowledge about the model at this stage, it was just that okay this is what we re going to hopefully go into a little bit more detail about [CM1, p. 2]. This comment suggests that understandably, Lana had yet to gain clarity of the model but is keen to work towards gaining a sense of how it works. This is similarly reflected by Ria, who talked about working together with Lana to gain a better understanding of how to utilise the model within their centre: I think for me initially it was quite busy, when you look at those models it was quite busy and quite full on, but once Lana and I sort of towards the end sat there and thought well this has to pertain to our centre alone, how do we fit those little bits and pieces, how do we do that, it became a little bit clearer. we ll have to unpack it little bits at a time and relate it back to how we work, and how our centre functions, and I think for them it will be when you have your korero. [CM1, p. 2] From the beginning stages of the research project, Ria and Lana were able to make alignments from their practice, engaging the model and drawing on centre practice and beginning to link these tasks to the model. Despite their initial uncertainties, this team quickly made alignments with centre tasks. 54

Kaupapa Māori Findings Following Workshop 1, Lorna and Kaye give the following feedback about their introduction to the model: Lorna: I have to see things worked into practice, like I have to experience it to get it in my head, I m a worker I like to sometimes I don t see clearly from board to paper, my way of learning is actually doing something constructive so I can relate it to my own practice it was a little bit confusing in my mind personally Kaye had a bit more of a grip on things than what I did. Kaye: Once they started about what the different tools you know relating, same sort of thing, yeah examples and I was like ah sweet yeah. [CM1, p. 4] Here Lorna highlights her preferred learning style, through hands on learning, and states that this impacted on her gaining an understanding in the first workshop. This was echoed by other participants, reinforcing that future workshops should provide for hands-on activities around using the model. Despite not gaining an initial understanding of the model, Lorna talks about being able to relate the activity to her practice. Kaye s comment indicates that she has gained some understanding of the model with the discussion around tools and the examples given to illustrate the model. Participants are generally showing a glimpse of understanding or at least of wanting to engage in the model at this stage of the project. The discussion shows them moving from not knowing to seeing potential in the model, searching for clarity around using the model, seeking ways in which to make connection, and seeing a way forward. At this early stage there are shards of light on the horizon. Contradiction Contradiction is crucial to affording the opportunity to implement change, because it highlights areas of practice where there is tension or possibly where change is required. Participants responses to this concept were varied. Introducing the idea of contradiction was undertaken briefly in Workshop 1 and more fully explored in Workshop 2; by midproject, there was still a high level of discussion occurring around contradiction. Participants in one of the centres immediately recognised contradiction as holding the potential to make change. They were intrigued by the potential of the model to do this, as exemplified in the following excerpt: Ria: it did make me stop and think yeah I get that. I quite liked it, I like the way that it was put because it s not hard to understand. Lana: And contradiction is not always a negative. Ria: And I think those are those healthy conversations that we have to have you have to have those conversations sometimes, and you really do have to think when you re in that leadership role, how are you going to approach it, but I still think that comes back to having that relationship and knowing that person, or parent or staff member well enough to know how you re going to approach it, because it would never be the same with any two people I don t think. [CM1, pp. 5 6] Here Ria makes links between leadership and the importance of relationships or whanaungatanga to the role of leadership, seeing the integral connection between leadership and whanaungatanga. As Ria articulates a preferred way of working as a leader who is constantly mindful of others and building respectful relationships, the presence of whanaungatanga is being articulated as a process to better understand how the model can be implemented effectively. 55

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education While Ria and Lana saw some of the immediate benefits in identifying contradictions within their centre, this was not necessarily the experience of the participants from other centres. For example, Lorna expressed some discomfort with the place of contradiction within the model: I don t like contradiction so I m already taking like five steps back [CM1, p. 7]. Although contradiction is understood as an area that affords change, it is also seen by Lorna as a particular area of challenge and discomfort, as she has particular concern around imposing her own ideas on other staff members. She further holds the view that contradiction is tied to personalities: How do you get that, the contradictions without the personal because the contradiction is the personal because that s why you have the contradiction, because you ve got the personal [CM1, p. 7]. This is in fact a misrecognition of what a contradiction is, as discussed later in the report. Participants were allocated the task of finding a contradiction within their centre which would enable them to practise using the model. Amy and Jade found this extremely difficult, partly because they sought a definition for the word contradiction outside the context of the model. This caused initial confusion, preventing them from being able to move forward with the task. The extra onus of sharing their learning with their home centre also contributed to their confusion, as the definition of contradiction was examined separately from the model. Jade: Yeah I m struggling on the whole contradiction thing, even finding one The things that I ve been looking at are little things that are easily, I don t think I need this [model] to sort them out, it s just little staff dynamics and the whole courageous conversation is enough to get us through that with work. I suppose if I was in a different centre it would be different, but here we know each other really well and can approach each other. Yeah so finding the actual contradiction for me to work on was really tricky so I went to Anne (centre owner) and she said take it to my team, so now we re looking as a team how we can put down for our next hui, and even then we re still kind of struggling really. Out of it though I ve gotten little things that I do, it s just made me reflect on myself really. so it s made me look at what I do, but that s not so much fitting in to the model as what you have asked for, actual contradiction so yeah. [CM2, p. 1] Amy: I think we already work within the model in the centre, but we don t have the documentation or the actual model to know, like we re already doing it without the model already existing. Would that be fair to say? Yeah because that s the difference I think when we talked about that whole everybody being on the same path, you don t have the hierarchy and so you re working together as a team constantly, rather than just one person, and one person will lift where they need to, when they need that bar to be moved they ll uplift to that and then they step back down when they need to. but that s how it s always been, we don t know any different. We came, most of us came from a centre that you did have hierarchy, where here we never had that, we ve always seen each other as team members, not somebody because you re more qualified or more experienced is better than anybody else, and it s just the way we work. We acknowledge and respect each other as people, as colleagues, as friends and we re partners in this. [CM2, p. 2] The emphasis Jade makes in her comment is that she does not at this stage see the tool as of practical use, because her centre has systems/processes in place to manage anything 56

Kaupapa Māori Findings that comes up. Amy, on the other hand, is clear in her articulation that their centre is already using systems that relate to the model in their current practice, and reaffirms the leadership in the centre as working from a strengths-based, shared, team approach. Analysis suggests that Jade sees the concept of contradiction as something that seeks negative aspects of practice, and she is expressing a level of resistance to this notion of contradiction. This was openly expressed by Jade and Amy in Workshop 3. Both Jade and Amy repeatedly talked about their centre in positive ways in terms of their experience of being part of a team with an open, shared approach to leadership and an active sense of whanaugatanga focused on developing quality relationships within the centre. This in itself has generated a high level of loyalty amongst staff. Jade: We are very protective of this place, you know these are our families, our children, it s our little, it s our community. So we are, we re very protective of it [ ] I think one of our biggest strengths as a team [is] we look after one another, that we have each other s backs, you know. [NA, p. 9] Jade is here expressing not only her own loyalty, but the loyalty of the centre team as a collective, as a whānau and as a community. As illustrated in the data, Jade affirms their centre as a base of whanaungatanga in which quality relationships are considered of high importance. While identifying contradiction remained an area of tension for Amy and Jade, they continued to reaffirm that their centre actively worked as a system in addressing tensions or discrepancies within their practice. For some participants, then, the concept of contradiction within the model has set them back from glimpses of light to a place of darkness, obscurity and withdrawal. While this is not the situation for all the participants in this cluster, it is nevertheless significant to mention at this stage of the project. Te Pō: Taking up the model mid-project The metaphor of Te Pō is used to illustrate what is occurring at the mid-stage of the project. Te Pō is defined as the realm of becoming, the beginning of understanding and of knowing. By mid-project, the participants involved had varying degrees of understanding in terms of taking up the model. The introduction of Workshop 3 saw participants recapping on the previous workshop with enthusiasm and excitement. For Amy and Jade, however, the struggle to find a contradiction within their centre (as discussed above) was having a impact on both of them, and they were starting to question their participation in the project. Through their interpretation of the word contradiction they were experiencing the model as deficit-based rather than credit-based. At this point participants from the other three centres interjected, reinforcing their views in seeing the model as offering a positive and practical way forward for their centres. Interestingly, Raiha and Teina, who had until this point strongly resisted taking up the model, were now showing interest. In contrast, Ria and Lana, took up the model early in the project and were actively trying it out. In Workshop 3 Ria stated, I have the triangle in my head [WFN3]. She added, The triangle is your centre, the centre is your culture This statement indicates a clear understanding of the model, where Ria has actually internalised it, so that it is in her head and appears to be well embedded in her thinking. 57

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education After coaching and mentoring sessions 3 and 4, participants were showing some shift in terms of how the model might be useful for their centres. Feedback comments on sharing the model with their centre staff and emphasising how the model focuses on establishing the centre as a system rather than on the specific actions of individuals included: [B] said this is awesome, this takes away from us making mistakes, and it talks about the gaps in the system, ae, so it s not about, I didn t do this and you didn t do that, it s like here s how it s supposed to flow, something s happened here, what is the gap in the system that we need to correct. [WFN4] This quote highlights a sense of relief in terms of the model offering a framework that takes pressure away from the individual. The focus is on working towards a shared agreement with how the centre will work as a system through utilising the model. Notably, the staff member who said this to her centre leader had only recently completed her teaching diploma and had been given the head teacher role with the children aged under two years. This is an important area of concern, as relayed by one of the centre participants in coaching and mentoring session 4: The teachers talked at length about this unrealistic expectation that they feel sometimes they re just ticketed, just [been] registered and they re thrown in the deep end, and suddenly they re the boss and no one taught them in an ECE course, whichever course they did, how to be the leader, and so whilst they know they feel they re ready to do some teaching, they re not entirely ready to lead a team. [CM4, p. 1] There was also recognition of how contradiction is identified within the model and the importance of identifying the contradiction to adapt specific areas of practice. For example, Raiha and Teina referred to contradiction as a gap in how they understood this particular aspect of the model, using their own interpretation of what contradiction meant for them in terms of making the model work for them. While they changed the terminology of the model to suit their needs, essentially the original concepts stayed intact. At mid-stage of the project, Raiha provided an example of how they trialled the model in their centre: as a result of using this tool, they (kaiako) made up a tikanga last night, just during our hui. Some parents have been arriving late and they ve been opening the door when we ve already started karakia, and popping the kids through and taking off, they (kaiako) decided last night no more of that. They were saying they were torn because they want to have an open door policy to our parents, and they appreciate that sometimes the tamariki are late, and they had mixed feelings about the tamariki waiting outside with the parents, because it felt a bit rude, but after discussing it more in-depth last night at the hui, they decided as a team that this is the tikanga, and that parents [need to] understand clearly that when we re in karakia session, there is a reverence and a respect that goes with that. we ll open the door, and the kids will be invited in, and if they want the tamariki to be involved in the karakia then they need to come in a more timely manner. So this is all the stuff that came out of us going around the triangle, and just talking to it. [CM4, pp. 2 3] This particular excerpt demonstrates how the centre engaged in using the model to bring about change in a particular aspect of their daily routine, involving karakia. Notably the centre used the word tikanga within the model. There are two areas within the model in 58

Kaupapa Māori Findings terms of how tikanga might be applied: rules or tools. Tikanga may be considered in the context of Māori cultural practices and protocols which may loosely translate to rules or; more specifically, to rules or protocols of practice and/or engagement. Alternatively, tikanga is being used as a tool/artefact to establish guidance or policy around a particular area of practice. While the specific area (rule or tool) utilised by the centre that afforded their solution for this scenario is not explicit, their ability to use the model in providing a systematic process in this instance shows there is some initial uptake of it. Although the previous excerpt provides a good example of how the centre has a basic understanding of the model, whether there was ongoing application of the model for this centre was not evident at this stage of the project. The participant s request for further support is evident in this comment: Why is the project ending after 6 months, why are we not carrying on? I just feel that, we haven t even really touched on we just have an awareness but I feel like, I think that this model is really, really beneficial and used correctly it s just so helpful, you can see that already and I just feel like we haven t got to the meat of it and the project is nearly over. I feel like we could do with some support to actually implement it and get some really good gains out of it. [WFN5] Raiha asked for ongoing support several times during the course of the project, highlighting that they had yet to gain confidence in using the model. This was further apparent in their initial resistance to the model and the initial lack of effort put into trialling the model. However, by Workshop 4, a sense of change was evident in that the centre had looked at possible scenarios for introducing the model to their team, enabling them to see some potential benefits: We are I think more ready, more informed and [have] more systematically identified not just the gaps but possible solutions [W4, FN]. Throughout the project, Raiha talked about the need for more systematic approaches within their centre practice. By Workshop 4 she displayed added interest in the model as enabling the centre to work as a system. At this stage of the project, while Raiha and Teina saw the benefits of implementing a systematic approach, it was not evident whether the understanding of viewing the centre as a system was well imbued. At mid-project, Lorna and Kaye discussed how collaboration was being impeded in terms of both participants taking up and learning the model. They felt that if they were working in the same teaching space within the centre, it would be easier for them to actively use the model on a regular basis. Part of this discussion was specific to needing support within their respective teams to effect change. Here Lorna describes her dilemma: We haven t been able to work through because it s with my team and Kaye doesn t work in that team so for me I think if only somebody else had come along that was in my team so we could try and work that model like on a smaller scale like when do you use it as a whole team? [CM2, p. 2] The data indicates that Lorna is either having difficulty in introducing the model to her team or, alternatively, that she is not confident to do so: Normally the common things are things that we re going to head with anyway, so they re really confrontational anyway I ve found that to be a real barrier with myself whereas if I had someone in my team, I think we could have done some of the things and just sort of nutted it out a bit. [CM2, p. 3] 59

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education At this stage the situation becomes clearer: there is an indication that introducing change within her team is akin to going into battle, whereas if she actually had someone in her team undertaking the programme, this may have supported her in implementing the model and effecting change. She is positioned as stalemated. At mid-project, Ria relayed how she was experiencing working with the model: Maybe before the introduction of the model it would have been a bit you know they talk about those courageous conversations, that s what it would have felt like, I don t feel like that, being able to use the model I don t feel like I have to have a courageous conversation, that it takes that out of, out of the equation for me. [CM4, p. 4] Ria also commented on how she had shared the model with two of her staff in her initial attempt to trial it: I ve had a conversation with the two staff that were going to initially, that we were going to initially try this [model] on and so the whole time of talking to them that s what you can sort of see this little pyramid in your head going okay, always thinking about it but changing up the words a little bit so, so they re on board too with it, though you know so it s definitely about the way in which you deliver it. I think that s a bit you know we talked a bit with one of the other centres about tapping in to those strengths you know so of those staff members that, that those contradictions may lie with or those procedures or policy, whatever it may be. And so they re quite excited about it now too. [CM4, p. 5] Ria and Lana then further discussed how they had trialled the model and also raised some of the initial feelings of anxiety and excitement in introducing the model to their team: Ria: And I m not [like] oh god now I ve got to have that conversation that I don t really like to have, it s like oh yeah we get to change things, oh yeah you know. So although it s just been in terms of having korero they ve already brought in to, they ve already brought in to the triangle per se you know which is great. Lana: Just, just love this, I was looking at my notes from the other day, this expansive transformation is what happens when systems develop deeper, rich and more complex and more robust responses to the object or the activity, the task at hand. And I ve written you know, will it add depth, will we see it in a new light? And I think that certainly when we bring something to the table that s exactly what we re hoping, that people will see things in a new light so we re expecting that there will be further opportunity to practise another one [task] later on next week, well probably the same but just expanding it ae Ria? [CM4, p. 5] At this stage of the project Lana is starting to think about expanding the task, as she looks forward to further trialling the model. In this excerpt we see Lana using the terminology: will we see it in a new light ; thus in reflecting on the learning taking place, Lana is further relating to the metaphor of Te Ao Mārama. This highlights the variances of understanding taking place across the cluster. The continual shifting between dark and light, between not knowing and knowing is a consistent theme at this stage of the project. 60

Kaupapa Māori Findings Te Ao Mārama the completion Te Ao Mārama is used to describe the project in the completing stages. The use of Te Ao Mārama is set within the context that signals a glimpse of light and flashes of understanding. At Workshop 4, during the usual round robin at the start of the workshop, Amy and Jade gave feedback on their progress since Workshop 3: Jade: We ve discovered a way for the model to work for us, instead of looking at struggling over some problem that we can fix, we are now looking at something new and developing something through using the model, man, we ve got a massive mahi coming up. [laughter] We found a way for the model to work. Amy: This is part one of our homework. We didn t go looking for it; it slapped us in the face. Jade: my whole attitude s changed [laughter] Amy: We re using the model to introduce social media to the centre, and how are we going to do that, with the outcome being increasing a higher level of parental engagement in the children s learning and development. Jade: Interesting, you know how when you re looking at the walls that have broken down on itself (showing picture of the model with wavy lines on both sides of the triangle, disrupting the model) it s the actual tools that we found...but there s no policies around it. We re talking about putting the centre on Facebook, trying to get our parents involved outside the centre, trying to get them really engaged with what s going on. So our biggest gap is the tools to start off with so that s where we re heading. [W5, FN] In this excerpt it is clear that after struggling to find a contradiction in their centre practice, Jade and Amy have decided to introduce something new to their centre and are fully engaged in doing so. They have come to the workshop with diagrams to illustrate how they are using the model, the wavy lines demonstrating what Jade refers to as the walls breaking down on itself. They are confident in their way forward and appear to have re-orientated themselves to the model since the last workshop. While they have avoided looking at the initial task of finding a contradiction, the task they have established for themselves still allows them to utilise the model to introduce social media to the centre community. This task in itself is anticipated as being potentially challenging, in that it is likely to involve substantial ethical concerns requiring significant consultation with staff and whānau. They are nevertheless looking forward to the challenge and excited at the prospect of the task. In the follow-up with Lorna and Kaye after Workshop 4, they discussed how they were struggling with their team to collaborate, and commented that team members had a tendency to sit on the fence and were not proactive in effecting or making change. Although there was frequently an underlying sense of unease in their discussion, Kaye and Lorna were not in the habit of making negative comments about their team, highlighting this as a consistent frustration for them. In discussing the model, Lorna commented: it s like hanging out your washing I don t know if other centres felt like that, maybe you don t want to share some of those things I don t know in your groups but they would be quite good to work with. [CM3, p. 4] While Lorna is direct in raising the issue of sharing discussion as such outside her own centre, she does signal her wariness in disclosing what could be viewed as less than 61

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education professional practice. She follows up in talking about how the model helps to discuss taken for granted assumptions around leadership that tend to occur through being reliant on someone else leading: And I think that s where that model can come in because we get so comfortable in what we know and then when we actually, like when somebody leaves like our manager has left sometimes we just take for granted the things like you always go to your manager like I haven t actually sought that [information, know-how] out for myself. [CM3, p. 4] Here Lorna provides her own example of how people tend to leave certain aspects of leadership to designated leaders, rather than taking leadership themselves. She highlights this in her own workplace situation and practice. Following Workshop 5, Lana and Ria discussed how they utilised the model for their first staff planning day in the New Year: Lana: Ria had already introduced the model to two of our staff around you know one particular set of duties in terms of the shared job in the kitchen, so they were familiar with it but [for] the other teachers it was a new full game. And it was really successful! We took rather a lot on board, we used the triangle to evaluate all of the areas of duties that we have like the inside teachers role and the outside teachers role and there was five [duties] I think we covered at the end of, by the end of the day. some teachers did comment at the end that was a lot to process and some had gone home and not slept very well that night because they were thinking about it all. But I think both of us found it really positive in terms of amazingly how many of them seem to really get it just on first introduction. [CM5, p. 2] In taking up the model, Lana acknowledges here the opportunities of learning taken on board, and the execution of the model as it is introduced to the team. Both participants are enthused at how quickly their team have taken to the model, as they have also picked up relatively well the terminology adapted by the team leaders: We just changed some of the names yeah, not the actual structure of it at all [CM5, p. 2]. Expressing their thoughts in relation to the language used in the model in previous workshops and coaching sessions, Ria and Lana simply adapted the language to suit their own understanding of the model, as a way of moving forward. Both participants were obviously excited by the success of the planning day and are pleased with the overall results of their efforts in introducing the model and the active response and contribution from their team. Significantly, Ria attributed the success of introducing the model to the existing strength of whanaungatanga within the team. I think it s a true reflection of our, our centre as a team, as whanaungatanga as well [CM5, p. 3]. The centre leaders consistently spoke about the importance of whanaungatanga/ relationships to how they operate as a centre over the duration of the project. Further, they illustrated the importance of inclusion of whānau within their professional discussions. It appears that a strong base of whanangatanga amongst staff/whānau creates the conditions for successfully implementing the model and also for pedagogical leadership to occur. The scenario above would suggest that this is indeed the case for this centre team, who have picked the model up from first introduction and used it to develop five child-focused duties in a half day session. 62

Kaupapa Māori Findings Ria discusses the process as empowering, in that all staff have contributed in coming to a shared agreement around specific child-focused tasks. This is an important point, because it indicates evidence of distributed cognition. Collaboration across the team is apparent as both Ria and Lana speak of the opportunities of growth and development provided in working on the model with their colleagues. Both participants have taken ownership of the model, and have applied it in meaningful ways, by unpacking it to provide understanding for their team. A collaborative approach to working is seen as they work together with their team to reflect on the procedures of the centre. This gives them the opportunity to discuss and unpack the procedures as the model is taken up. Personalising the model has made the sharing and implementation of the model a positive experience for Ria and Lana and their team, and provides further evidence that collaboration has become a conscious rule. Leadership qualities and taking up the model are highly demonstrated at this centre. A shared understanding and knowledge has been gained from the workshops to enable the model to be facilitated and taken on by the rest of the team. Attributes of leadership are portrayed from taking up the model. The ability of Ria and Lana to role model for the team they are representing and their ability to motivate, inspire and mobilise the team through well-developed negotiation and facilitation skills (Ka ai, Moorfield, Reilly, Mosley, 2004) are highlighted. Whanaungatanga is further expressed and understood as a means of representation toward collective being and positive outcomes for the centre; this is highlighted as opportunities are provided for the team to collaborate and contribute toward discussions. In Workshop 4, Raiha spoke of being inspired by the korero during the workshops between the different participating centres: She saw the collegiality and shared conversations during the project as invaluable and as a key part of learning throughout the progamme. This is a good example of being able to communicate effectively through having a tool in common. Raiha also repeated what she said before about aspects of the model being part of how Māori work as a normal function (e.g., marae) where everyone just gets on with whatever needs doing. With Engestrom s model focusing on providing child centred outcomes in applying the model, Raiha noted a discrepancy while working on an activity of using the model on a centre task. At times grappling with the model and constantly going back to her outcome, she realised her dilemma and said: Raiha: Our philosophy is also parent orientated it s not necessarily just child Facilitator: It s whānau. Raiha: It s whānau. [W4, FN] It was only in retrospect that the facilitator considered that this was clearly a huge contradiction in Raiha s thinking, and hence in her struggle with the task. The point being made here is that from a traditional Māori view, children are not seen in isolation from their whānau; and essentially they are viewed as not just part of their immediate whānau but part of a wider collective of whānau groupings. This also raises an important issue in terms of how whānau aspirations are realised within teaching and learning settings. In terms of the model working from a base where the outcomes were child-centred, the distinction from a kaupapa Māori view is that while it also understands the outcome as child-centred, this is from a perspective that considers 63

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education the child as part of an extended family unit. Time spent on unpacking the community aspect of the model was useful here. While other centres involved in the cluster did not express this particular view, the centre that did was the one centre that staunchly identified as kaupapa Māori. Raiha also raised discussion (in Workshop 4) about the thinking that achieving an ECE qualification is all that is needed for ECE staff; however, for a Māori immersion centre, it is apparent that the qualification is only a small part of what is required. Raiha brings attention to the training or reality of staff that do not hold fluency and knowledge of te reo Māori, tikanga and mātauranga Māori as a huge gap for their centre that is, a contradiction. This view was also endorsed by Ria (in Workshop 4, field recording), who stressed that Raiha was not on her own in her experience, and that a qualification in early childhood is simply not enough the need to strengthen te reo Māori in all centres is critical. The point raised by Raiha is that we have two competing systems where one is secondary to the other. With emphasis placed on an early childhood qualification, te reo Māori me ōna tikanga significantly holds less importance than theories of development. While genuine efforts are being made to address this in the sector, the system of dominant culture currently presides. Kua mārama? Do you understand? This section has outlined the key discussion by the research participants in this kaupapa Māori cluster, and has concentrated on providing a narrative of how these participants in the project have taken up the model of activity theory, which at times has morphed into examples of expansive learning theory. Though the visibility of expansive learning theory has not been specifically articulated, it does appear from time to time in the discussion and experience of the participant leaders. Well illustrated within these narratives is the sense of moving between darkness and light, between unknowing and knowing; this shift is consistent and at times disconcerting. The case study provides different levels of understanding of activity theory through use of Engeström s model throughout the programme; as it also shows different examples of how participants have taken up the model. Some of these scenarios also convey barriers to taking up the model. Alignment of kaupapa Māori with activity theory and expansive learning theory is seen throughout the project, though particularly so in the recognition of the concepts of the model that relate to what are viewed as the practical application of Māori systems of activity. While this chapter provides strong glimpses that show alignment at a conceptual level, other synergies between kaupapa Māori, activity theory and expansive learning theory require further exploration. The claim of whanaungatanga as pedagogical leadership is one such area of inquiry; while established as a theoretical argument in this research, data generated from this project provides only a small part of the potential contribution of Māori pedagogical leadership to understandings of pedagogical leadership more generally. 64

LEarning the Model CHAPTER 5: Learning the model Introduction: Smooth seas don t make a skilful sailor This chapter explores the ways in which participants across all three clusters engaged with, made sense of, and took up the tool of third generation activity theory, a process described by Ellis (2010) as ingrowing (p. 101). This word, which Ellis has borrowed from Leont ev (1997, cited in Ellis, 2010, p. 101), describes the taking over and manipulation (the appropriation) of the mediational means in coming to understand the object (p. 101). In this project, the object is third generation activity theory. The notion of ingrowing is graphically suggestive of the sociocultural commitment to the social realm as the primary context for learning. Early in the research and development programme, we began to identify patterns of ingrowing or appropriation within participants talk. In the kaupapa Māori cluster, this was coded as taking up the model and that story as a progressive narrative was told previously. This chapter is concerned with the ways in which participants across clusters appropriated the tool of third generation activity theory. It focuses on the mediational processes participants used as they learned the model. As they did so, they became increasingly conscious of how activity theory can be used as a tool for understanding the centre as a system; one collectively focused on the achievement of shared objects. The broader goal of using activity theory as a tool for expanding pedagogical leadership is discussed in the following chapter. The argument of this chapter is that pedagogical leaders from a range of early childhood centres (varying in their organisational structure, philosophical goals, purposes and outcomes) found that activity theory made sense, as a tool for conceptualising the dynamics of their centres as instantiations of collective cultural practice rather than groups of educators with individual minds (Nuttall, in press-b, n.p). They also actively sought to internalise the tool of activity theory, and did so within and against the socially inscribed and biographical self they brought to the project. In this chapter we focus on how participants learned the tool of activity theory. Knowledge within activity theory is considered not as an object to be handed or transferred to the participants and used at will, but as both relational and embodied, developed in joint work on a potentially shared object of activity (Ellis, 2010, p. 97). At these times, as explored below, the knowledge of activity theory meets people s lives (Kemmis, 2005, p. 413) as they take up the tool. These lives are not just their centre-based ones, as people inhabit multiple activity systems, and their learning in this project cannot be fully explained within the context of the system under study (Wardekker, 2010, p. 242). 65

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education Our analysis of the data identified two predominant patterns (meditational means) of engaging with the tool of activity theory as an urgent or pressing need, and : as an alignment with aspects of the model. In each sense-making pattern, participants were piecing together their existing frames of reference to the new knowledge, as it was introduced through the workshops and revisited and reconstructed in the coaching and mentoring sessions. Participants picked up the tool variously across the clusters. Some grasped a sense of it relatively quickly, while others took longer. The data extracts we share in this chapter are illustrative of the ways in which participants engaged with the learning process. Each is analytically important in claiming that participants, to varying degrees, learned the model. But they also allow us to see how engaging with the tool of third generation activity theory is encountered by designated centre leaders within local and current (although historically formed) contexts of early childhood education in Aotearoa/New Zealand. We turn now to explore the ways in which participants orientated to activity theory, and describe the two patterns that supported the uptake or ingrowing (Ellis, 2010) of the tool. Two patterns of engagement We identified two ways of engaging with the model: participants having an urgent or pressing need which provided the motivation to engage, and participants finding aspects of the theory with which they felt that they were aligned. These are not mutually exclusive categories, as examples of each were evident within the same participant data. We begin with the pattern of urgent/pressing need. This is the idea that learning takes place in a context and because of a felt need. Our participants mostly utilised their centre-based context to learn the tool of activity theory. Responding to an urgent/pressing need We found many of our leaders were faced with situations at work that required them to take the lead and respond in careful and considered ways. These situations provided a spontaneous and often urgent affordance for engagement with and uptake of the model. For some participants, while events of this nature posed challenges to their leadership practices, they also provided very real contexts for appropriating the tool of activity theory. We explore this situation first through an exemplar example of Louise, a younger teacher in a large community based centre, who was a relatively new leader at the outset of our programme. Finding her feet Louise was both excited and daunted [NA, p. 4] by becoming a leader, as she had never done anything like this before [NA, p. 4]. She described her position as running eight teachers underneath me and students and having to put another [leader s] hat on. I found that quite challenging and it s only been about six months now and I m only just starting to feel like I ve found my feet [NA, p. 7]. At the second coaching and mentoring session (which was largely focused on identifying and working with contradictions), Louise talked about a situation that had very recently taken place in the centre and which required her focused attention as a leader: This sounds terrible, but we had an accident happen in our bathroom during a nappy changing process and a child slipped off our nappy changing mat [CM2, p. 2]. 66

LEarning the Model Louise called a staff meeting to discuss and debrief the situation. As she worked through it with the teaching team, she simultaneously mapped the situation, using a copy of the activity system diagram supplied to participants. Facilitator: Were you using the model in your mind or did you say right, here s a model? Louise: They did have it and they showed them all and they went oh my gosh, so I said don t worry but this is what I m doing [in the project]. And I had it in my head so I could remember from, I was thinking about this as I was talking and then we, I don t have the one on me but we did fill in a little bit and then me and Letitia [other head teacher/participant] talked about it too and put it onto [the activity system diagram]. But I talked them through what I was [doing], the points of this [the diagram] as I was filling it in and saying well you know this is obviously what happened is in here. Facilitator: Yeah? And the thing we want to talk about is changing nappies? Louise: Here and this is what we want the outcome to be and it was the, I guess the bits that affected it were the rules down here, so we talked about how this bit here and potentially our artefacts, so our policy about nappy changing will direct how we do this, the procedure that we do and then we ve got the rules. And I guess for us that was kind of the regulations around what has to happen and now what it has to look like, but how we do it is up to us, but then obviously something didn t work and there was a gap somewhere. In her description of the staff meeting (above), Louise is working with her colleagues to keep them focused on the situation. Louise points to how the centre rules (policy) and artefacts (internal and external policy documents) were integral to understanding the situation. Her reference to bits is to the nodes of the model (rules, tools, etc.). Through mapping the situation, Louise and the team surfaced a contradiction which they believed was at the centre of the incident: And then I guess the contradiction came out from our practice and our philosophy and what we believe in and how that transfers into safety in the bathroom [CM2, p. 3]. Louise more closely identifies the source of this contradiction: [it] came with our philosophy of not letting, not forcing children [to stay still during nappy changing]. Louise is referring here to practices that stem from a current pedagogical approach known as R.I.E. or the Gerber approach (see Gonzalez-Mena Eyer, 2012). Louise found this way of addressing the situation through mapping significant, because in that very short time [of the staff meeting] were things that we needed to look at that we might be able to change or fix [CM2, p. 5]. She mentioned how using the model got us talking about what we believed in [CM2, p. 6]. Of significance is how Louise was able to use the staff meeting so productively. She not only facilitated the meeting so that the situation was addressed as an opportunity for teacher learning, and helped her team engage in constructive problem talk (Nelson, Deuel, Slavit, Kennedy, 2010; Robinson, Hohepa Lloyd, 2009), but she also mentions how time was short. Time, or lack of, is a motif that ran through our conversations with participants. Louise noted how she really nailed this one down [CM2, p. 8]. She expressed a sense of being pleased with herself and having achieved something significant: It was one of the first big things I ever really had to work through [CM2, p. 8]. Using the model and mapping the incident allowed Louise to be agentic in the face of a situation that required 67

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education a clear and considered process, and one that would help to preclude a similar event happening again. Louise described herself as I m a process kind of person and so it gave me something to work with [CM2, p. 8]. Situations of this type, whereby a participant had a very real and pressing issue to attend to as leader, were commonplace in participants narratives. These situations provided them with an urgency to engage with the model. For some, this sense of urgency appeared to have the effect of focusing their mediational efforts with the tool. In this instance, what is additionally significant about Louise s story is that she was soon to become the overall head teacher, due to the resignation of her colleague. We return to Louise in the next chapter, as she engages with her developing understanding of activity theory. Otherwise you just live with stuff Not all examples of engaging with the model on the basis of an urgent or pressing need stemmed from participants professional lives. A smaller and perhaps no less significant example of coming to learn about activity theory was described by Tammy. Early in the project, Tammy had a powerful experience of surfacing a contradiction and using it to understand a longstanding tension between herself and her husband. She realised that the source of tension was the result of probably a contradiction in parenting styles and knowledge of parenting styles because of, I mean I have older children so those longer years of being a parent and doing what I do for work [CM2, p. 11]. Through invoking the principle of contradiction, Tammy realised that the issue at stake between her husband and herself would not be resolved unless this tension was addressed: I just thought it would really benefit him and give him more tools [CM2, p. 11]. She saw the contradiction as between his tools, the ideas he held about parenting, which she named as his parenting style, and her own set of tools that mediated her parenting. Hers were garnered through many years of parenting, compared with his three years of being a parent. Additionally, Tammy recognised that she could draw on her knowledge as a teacher to help with parenting. They agreed to go to a parenting course where they could get some shared ideas (tools). The importance of this example of a pressing need as the catalyst to engage with the tools of activity theory related to how Tammy and her co-participant Lottie (the centre owner and manager) struggled to identify any significant areas of contradiction in the centre. Their engagement with the model was largely at an intellectual level for the duration of the project. At the end of the project, however, Tammy recognised that her home-life example had been useful, as it has got me to see things differently, yeah, in a good way [CM5, p. 14]. She added that: I ve kind of applied it [the model] a little bit in my own personal life as we talked about previously. It s just been kind of a nice way of actually not looking, not searching for problems but recognising when there s a disturbance there because sometimes you just live with stuff. I don t know, makes that little light bulb go off and actually there is something I could do about this, yeah and just helping me to guide me in a different way of approaching things. [CM5, p. 15] This example is illustrative of how participants used their own experiences as springboards to engage in an embodied and relational way (Ord, 2010) with knowledge of activity theory. Activity theory afforded Tammy an alternative to layering over and possibly sedimenting the tension between her husband and herself. Her comment that sometimes you just live with stuff is important, as it is indicative of how Engeström (1987; 2001) considers the 68

LEarning the Model surfacing and addressing of tensions or contradictions to be a strategy for productive or expansive learning. Tammy arguably has had an insight into how she can choose whether to live with stuff or not. Whilst an urgent or pressing need to address a situation was one pattern that propelled many to begin their journey of engaging with the model, others experienced a connection to or alignment with key concepts which also provided a starting point. In the next part of the chapter, we describe how participants identified with various key concepts in ways that appeared to have a strong bearing on how they took up the model, and supported its ingrowing (Ellis, 2010). Alignment with the concept of contradiction Of all the concepts that constitute third generation activity theory, that of contradiction received the most discussion and debate; indeed, participants were almost polarised by it. The previous chapter gave an insight into this.. In this section we build on those narratives. Participants very explicitly brought their socially located selves to the mediated space as they grappled with the concept of contradiction, within and against the variety of connotations the word generated for them and/or their lived material experiences. In this section we highlight how alignment (or non-alignment) with this key concept was a key feature of participants mediation processes, in terms of learning the model and taking up the tool. Generally, participants either felt a strong sense of alignment with the term contradiction, or saw it as a concept that confused and unsettled them. Some were able to hold the concept more tentatively until they came to understand it better. Others rejected it, preferring to find a less confrontational word. At times, the concept of contradiction was misunderstood as directly equating with conflict, thus detracting from the opportunity to grasp the term in accordance with the sense it plays as a mediating tool within Engeström s third generation activity theory. The concept itself provided many opportunities for dialogue within the coaching and mentoring sessions and in the workshops, where people s prior understandings of the term and related concepts were openly discussed. Contradictions afford leaders an opportunity for reconfiguring the activity system of the centre and addressing new developmental tasks (Engeström, 2001). Ultimately, most of our leaders experienced the productive capacity of addressing contradictions. Embracing the notion Raiha, a participant from a Māori immersion centre, was drawn to this concept: Here s one I felt we could have really have had a good korero about contradictions, a key concept and we missed that one and it wasn t until after our hui I was like oh, it would have been fabulous to talk about this. [CM1, p. 4] Raiha and her colleague Teina recognised contradictions in their centre. One they discussed was a contradiction between tikanga practices for kai and a staff member s allegiance to child centredness; a key mediating tool associated with Western notions of developmentalism: I m all about routines with our babies to a point, and then our other staff member is into free play and I agree with that too. But there s always a time and place and tikanga tells you that there s a time to sit at the table and have kai where you can t 69

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education get up and wander off, where when you are called at the marae to the table you don t say no, I ll have it later. That s how I see it but it was okay for this other staff member. I could understand both but through talking about it the night before [at the centre], I just laughed when that came up, this is exactly the korero we had the night before and it was a contradiction. [CM2, p. 16] Raiha points out there is a contradiction between the notion of free play (a dominant discourse within early childhood education) and what is expected in terms of the tikanga associated with food/eating practices. Allowing children to make decisions for themselves is at the heart of free play ideology; but in terms of rituals such as eating dinner, the freedom to make individual decisions goes against cultural practice for Māori (Colburg, Glover, Rau, Ritchie, 2007). This is a pertinent example of a primary (rule/rule) contradiction, as it exists within the same node. Raiha and Teina also identified other contradictory elements related to the discourse of developmentalism: Here s a contradiction that was raised by our student teacher. She has issues around the way she sees that children are forced to participate in tikanga where it s obvious they don t want to and it is her view that they should be left to go free. [CM2, p. 16] As a centre manager in a Māori immersion centre, Raiha was used to living with contradiction. She and Teina talked about how the tikanga of the centre was at times at odds with official (Ministry of Education) regulations: It s like, I don t know, children aren t allowed to lie so close to each other, but in tikanga they re very tata eh those sorts of things I like lying down on the floor by the babies while they go to sleep, but you know they say [the regulations] you can t but there are lots of contradictions here because we have to fit into two boxes. [CM2, p. 16] The metaphor of fitting into two boxes gives a strong physical sense of very different activity systems bumping up against each other. Engeström (2001) asserts that third generation activity theory has the capacity to address diversity and difference between different traditions or perspectives (p. 135), and that this is a significant challenge of our times. Structural contradictions stemming from the effects of colonisation are experienced on a daily level for Raiha and Teina: We ve just had this realisation as a team. We are striving to be officially an immersion centre but in practice we re not the immersion centre we aspire to be, and the barrier of course is the lack of the majority of our staff they lack, even though they are early childhood educators, they actually lack knowledge of te ao Māori and their ability to deliver on a curriculum in a language first of all that none of them have our reo is limited. [CM2, p. 8] Māori immersion centres, positioned as they are within the context of a colonial heritage which has largely robbed Māori of their language and cultural identity, live through the reality of structural contradiction and resultant tensions. Raiha and Teina s strong identification of contradiction is linked to this reality. The next example is also from a Māori immersion setting. Three participants from this setting, two experienced leaders and one emerging leader, took part in our programme. 70

LEarning the Model Why don t they like the word? When participants from one of our centres missed a workshop, the facilitator met with them to bring them up to date with the programme. During this session, she talked about how the workshop participants had variable responses to the concept of contradiction: Eva: They don t like the word? Why? Facilitator: Because contradiction for some people has a really negative connotation. Pine: I just don t like it s a funny word. It s not negative to me, contradiction, it s just a funny word. I would rather use because it s already saying someone s already contradicting. Yeah so it s already saying there s a conflict going on because when you contradict you re already saying you don t agree. That s what it says to me. Facilitator: OK yeah, yeah because I think of contradiction between two things, I don t think of it as attached to people. So I don t have the problem with it. Eva: Neither. Facilitator: See it depends totally on how you construct the word. Eva: And also, just because you have a contradiction with something doesn t mean you don t agree with it because you may not even, the person carrying out that action may not even realise it s a contradiction. [CM3, p. 14] There are a range of perspectives and possible interpretations in the conversation above, and these are representative of the range across the clusters. Pine equates contradictions with conflict, whereas Eva highlights the subconscious and possibly unintended aspect of contradictions. In relation to these later interpretations, it becomes the leader s responsibility, within third generation activity theory, to help surface these unconscious or even silenced contradictions (Capper Williams, 2004). Pine s orientation to the word is not unlike Lorna s interpretation in the previous chapter, where she ties contradiction to the person, saying because the contradiction is the personal. This particular grasp of the term is understandable, given a focus on individuals and the rampant subjectivity (Edwards, 2009b, p. 1) that is a hallmark of our time. An alternative understanding of contradiction would focus on contradictions as largely a systems effect, and also as linked to the notion of historically accumulating contradictions. Eva (below) recognises how there are contradictions arising from living in two worlds (systems); described by her as the old world and the new world, or te ao Pākeha : Eva: Sometimes the contradiction comes because we ve got a practice that might date back to whenever, and it s seen as un-māori in this current context, and like the birthday celebrations might be one where, I mean no one has said this but I m just thinking, it could be argued well that s not something that our tipuna practiced, birthday cakes and birthdays, why are we doing it, like no one s saying that. Pine: Remember we discussed it right down to that we re going to have a birthday for your child but can you bring the cake, whereas we should really provide that. Eva: That s our process at the moment and so I m thinking everything s sort of relative to the moment in time, you know when you create stuff and some of the practices here might have been developed out of a desire to, well you re constantly walking this line of what you re going to take from the new world, or te ao Pākeha and what you bring from that old world with you. It s always a balancing sort of act, in this setting you re trying to be as Māori as you can, in terms of reviving the culture and reviving the language, but yeah obviously you re doing that in a modern 71

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education day context in what is, for most people outside of this, sort of mainstream Pākeha daily lifestyle, so yeah I do think that. I don t know if that was helpful. [CM2, p. 2] This dialogue and the ones above bear witness to how conflict between world views is a constant and explicit tension and struggle for those in kaupapa Māori settings. These dialogues are examples of how contradictions are lived and experienced within day to day practice as teachers. This was also reflected by participants working in Pasifika centres, as in the following example. We have to communicate in English During the first coaching and mentoring session with Fane and Tuulaki, the facilitator/ coach was recapping on the different components of third generation activity theory when the conversation turned to the rules around language in the centre. The coach recalled how they were talking in the very first interview about the tensions when parents do not speak the Pasifika language at the heart of the centre: Facilitator: You were talking about the tension that you have when parents don t speak [your Pasifika language] and communicating with them. Fane: We have to communicate in English. Facilitator: Communicate in English but in fact communicating in English goes against your core philosophy so that s a tension, isn t it? Tuulaki: That s right and even with children, because before when we were visited from ERO we were encouraged to write our learning stories in [our language] even if the children are Pākeha or Māori, we still write them in [our language] because it s a [language] centre. But we just talk amongst ourselves what s the point in writing it in [our language]? Parents won t understand in [our] language so we therefore go to writing them in English so it s more like a communication, strategy between us and parents. Facilitator: So immediately, then, you ve got some conflict between what the Ministry says to do which is their set of rules, and what you know is really good for families and probably a little bit of a contradiction about here, about being [Pasifika]. Mmm. Not an easy world to survive in, is it? Sometimes just mapping these things out onto a piece of paper actually helps you understand what s happening or where the other people are coming from, but some of these big tensions are probably ones that are not easily solved. The coach sums up the situation for Fane and Tuulaki by noting that some tensions, particularly ones between systems, are not easily solved and that mapping the situation provides a tool for understanding tensions. In continuing to discuss the language tension, they talked about how the local school wants the centre to introduce basic words and basic concepts in English before the children go off to school [CM1, p. 6]. The notion of preparing children for school is discussed as a systems-systems contradiction. We have no one word Fane and Tuulaki were keen to translate the components and associated concepts of third generation activity theory in order for all our staff to thoroughly understand the concepts [CM2, p. 1]. Their translation for contradiction was not a single word: it s a long sentence because we have no one word that describes [it]. In choosing their wording carefully in order to retain the integrity of the term, and the work it does in third 72

LEarning the Model generation activity theory, they looked for wording that avoided negative connotations. In translating, Tuulaki said that it s a word that can stand for both sides and that can be, you know when you use it it s not in a negative way [CM3, p. 3]. Having introduced the concept of contradiction to their group, Tuulaki reported how: Tuulaki: They re more excited. They re getting a solution for what they ve what has been built up within them [and] not talking about it. It s now out and sharing, it s the sharing. And yeah, I use self-evaluation so it s more like evaluating your own [practice]. Don t look at it don t point at someone else but looking at your own stuff, from your own and then work towards how can others help you. [CM3, p. 3] The embodied quality of contradiction is evident is Tuulaki s discussion about the effect of introducing the notion of contradiction to the teaching team: things had been building up within teachers, but now it s out. Not all participants felt aligned or connected to the notion of contradiction. What sat behind this lack of connection was the connotation of conflict that some brought to it. Below is an example of how the concept of contradiction was ultimately used to surface a participant s own feelings about conflict, and how this contradicted her strong belief in teamwork as being at the heart of leadership in early childhood education. In this instance team work was the rule, i.e., We operate as a team. The monster under the peace In the fourth coaching and mentoring session, Jenny (manager), Cilla (assistant manager) and the facilitator/coach were talking about how the key to good teamwork was clear communication [CM4, p. 10], but dislike of conflict was possibly a barrier to achieving this. What ensued was an epiphany (Denzin, 2001) for Jenny, who acknowledged that the notion of contradiction was useful: what it s done for me is, seeing tension and conflict as good, as a plus, because, yeah, I used to see it as a negative, and I wanted everything smooth, smooth, smooth, don t upset the water [CM4, p. 13]. Cilla responded, in a teasing but ironic tone: the monster under the peace, the monster under the peace waiting to happen. This analogy of a monster sitting under the peaceful water prompted Jenny to insightfully and honestly add: Yeah, I just want them to stay there, stay down under the water but this model has made me re-see it as a conflict as being good and a chance for us to grow and change and learn, and so that s really helped, it s helped to ease that fear that I had of conflict, yeah. [CM4, p. 13] Cilla and Jenny, both committed Christians, work in a centre under the umbrella of a local church. When they entered the project, Cilla was quite happy with the ways things are going, while Jenny noted that there s always room for improvement [NA, p. 8]. They listed the busyness of the centre and planning and prioritising [NA, p. 10] as challenges for their leadership. Both talked about actively promoting collaborative working relationships: I want a centre where people use initiative it is all about working as a whole team and want them always to feel empowered [NA, p. 9]; aiming to have more of a team environment where the whole centre work[s] together and we seem to have that [NA, p. 4]. Use of the word team was prevalent in Jenny and Cilla s talk throughout the project. Their emphasis on working as a team and making decisions by consensus, however, had the potential to be undermined by a dislike of conflict: 73

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education I don t like conflict much so but at times if you really have to front up and have some conversations, I mean I have done that not without a lot of prayer and stuff. I don t know children, doors or different things like with doors that was a tension [CM 4, p. 11]. Here Cilla acknowledges her dislike of conflict. In this extract Cilla s use of the word doors is a shortcut for referring to a long standing tension in the centre where the door to the kitchen was continually being left open by teachers; so much so that Jenny described the situation as a bomb, you know, just sitting there, like a grenade that hasn t gone off [CM3, p. 19]. We have interpreted this description as Jenny feeling compromised and worried by how members of her team appeared to be ambivalent about the centre rule of keeping this door shut at all times. It is possible that Jenny s dislike of conflict and avoidance of it (Cardno Reynolds, 2009) perpetuated this situation. Cilla s metaphor of the monster under the peace, is a powerful statement, given the dyad s commitment to team work. Arguably the concept of contradiction has provided Cilla and Jenny with a way of working with the monster, of enabling a way to surface it and to be seen for what it can offer in terms of a new form of team work, based on systematic analysis of contradictions and getting your team all involved in scenarios that help them solve them [CM5, p. 15]. Cilla and Jenny also became more aware of the analytic and productive power of activity theory as a leadership strategy: Just use the model and yeah being totally aware of the model all the time take it to the meeting and get more shared ideas because it s realising that 12 minds are better than one and there s all these other ideas out there that I am missing out on [CM 5, p. 21]. Jenny now has a tool to marshal the resources of her team. Consciously or not, she is drawing on one of Engeström s (2001) five principles of expansive learning; that of multivoicedness of systems. Not only is this represented by the 12 minds in the group, but through the notion of contradiction she has gained an insight into how the metaphor of being a team might be able to work, and has arguably begun to reframe her teacher self and her key mediating tools of team work and conflict. The productive way forward for Jenny would be for her to treat team work as an object for a time and expand, with the staff, what they actually mean by team work, i.e., what adaptations of rules, tools, etc. they need to make in order to achieve the object of team work, so that it can become a rule again. In the last example of alignment with the notion of contradiction, we return to Tammy and her co-participant Lottie. Sailing as a metaphor for learning For the duration of the project, Lottie and Tammy had difficulty identifying any contradictions in their system, due in large part to their perception of how smoothly the centre ran. This centre, like a number of others in the project, enjoyed taking part in our project, but considered that they had only minor sources of conflict, disagreement or practice problems. Their perceived need to engage experientially with the model was considerably less than other centres. Lottie (the owner/manager and teacher) was highly experienced both as a teacher and a leader. She had opened this particular centre four years previously, and had handpicked her team of teachers. The establishment teaching team was still in place at the centre when we met Lottie and Tammy; the only movement in the team was due to parental 74

LEarning the Model leave. Lottie described the centre by saying, it works beautifully [CM1, p. 6]. I feel guilty but I still can t think of things that relate to here [contradiction] but there may, there probably is, but there doesn t feel to be [CM1, p. 13]. They were both adamant that if an issue is raised, It doesn t become a conflict, it becomes just a question and then to which Tammy interjected a puzzlement over a way of doing something momentarily Toward the end of the project, however, a woman with significant hearing impairment approached the centre via email with the possibility of enrolling her child. Tammy and Lottie, who had little experience of people with hearing impairment, saw this positively as a potential disturbance (Capper Williams, 2004) to which they could finally apply the model. In the last coaching and mentoring session, Lottie explained: So after talking with you last time we had this discussion that maybe we were getting a parent who there might be a disturbance or, you know, a change to how we operated who was hearing impaired. So we haven t had a staff meeting since we heard this person was going to come, but I still wrote a wee note there [on the notice board] and had it as an opportunity for us to start to use that [model drawn on the staff room white-board], but there s not a lot of writing from other people but it has prompted them to start putting some other little resources beside that, some books we have about sign language and that sort of thing. [CM5, p. 13] Lottie recognised the learning potential for herself and the teaching team inherent in this situation. To prepare for it, she had drawn a copy of a third generation activity theory model on the staff room white-board and invited teachers to progressively map the existing centre system, with regard to the object of welcoming this new parent and child to the centre. After the end of the project, Lottie sent an email to the facilitator/coach confirming that this parent had indeed decided to enrol her child: just thought I would share with you that the family with the mum who is hearing impaired have decided to enrol, so we have a fabulous opportunity to use triangle land to ensure a smooth transition and positive ongoing communication and relationship. Also I saw this quote which I thought was quite apt at looking positively at disturbances: Smooth seas don t make a skilful sailor. Regards Lottie. We have interpreted Lottie s email and her inclusion of the quote about smooth seas as an indication that while the centre did run very smoothly, they were looking forward to being a little disturbed, as they appreciated this as a tool that could support their ongoing learning and an area for expanding the object. (Many of the participants used the term triangle land to refer to the activity theory model. They appeared to use it themselves as a double stimulation strategy.) We make no judgement about Lottie and Tammy s definition of the situation, except to note that learning or taking up the model across the project appeared to work best for those who could work actively on localised imperatives within their centre practices. Lottie and Tammy s efforts to adapt the culture of the centre to include the new parent are an example of system expansion. Although fairly low-key, nevertheless they will have developed a better definition of inclusion by the time the child and his or her parent has enrolled. Participants across all three clusters explored the usefulness of Engeström s (2001) principle of contradiction. The examples above show a variety of responses to the ways in 75

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education which this construct was mediated by participants. In the previous chapter, Amy and Jade s experience of not being able to identify a contradiction is not unlike Tammy and Lottie s. Each of these dyads interpreted this as an effect of working collaboratively within their centres with little tension or disturbance. It is possible that such centres do not experience contradictions, at least at a conscious level, but the consequence is that there is little movement or potential for development. We return to the notion of contradiction in the next chapter, as it is deemed to be central to participants understanding of pedagogical leadership. In the next section we look at another powerful idea inherent in third generation activity theory that was enthusiastically appropriated by participants. This was a shift to conceptualising their centre as an object orientated system, rather than as a collection of individuals. Alignment with the concept of playing the system, not the person One of the key messages in our programme was that a systems approach to working on shared objects (tasks), via the tool of activity theory, promoted a systems analysis or playing the system approach to tension and challenge, rather than what we termed playing the person. Louise alluded to this previously when she said not focussing on the person. Playing the system and not the person is closely aligned with the notion of contradiction, as playing the system is partly about recognising that tension and contradiction can sometimes be a function of people s creative and idiosyncratic ways, as opposed to an overly rational and linear way of being (see Blackler, 1993). New ideas and the desire for change can inadvertently result in unintended contradictions between parts of the system. As can be seen in the earlier extracts from Pine, who initially equates contradiction with conflict, and Lorna, where contradiction is seen crucially as personal, early engagements with the notion of contradiction revealed a widespread allegiance to a person centred perspective. These particular participants were in all likelihood speaking through the dominant discourse of individualism. There was a cautious sense of freeing up that happened for participants when they were presented with this feature of playing the system, not the person, but particularly so the more they engaged with it. Taking the pressure off In the first coaching and mentoring session after Workshop 1, playing the system, not the person was mentioned by Felicity in response to the facilitator/coach s question about some bits that you were particularly interested in [CM1, p. 1]: I guess the maps, the systems, I think was a really good concept and me and Alice talked about it directly after and we shared it at the staff meeting as well [and] just how it was a good way to you know, take that pressure off individual people and blaming each other and faulting, like, individuals and kind of taking the emotion out of it a little bit. [CM1, p. 1] The notion of depersonalising issues talk resonated for Felicity and her colleague Alice, as it did for others in the project. The blaming and faulting Felicity talks about was a pathway Louise chose in the nappy changing scenario, as previously highlighted. In Louise s scenario, not playing the person appeared to have substantial benefits for all involved. 76

LEarning the Model Felicity returned to this source of alignment with the model in the last coaching and mentoring session. When asked about the most useful thing about the model she mentioned: being able to use it within the team, like with there being scenarios where we ve all sort of used it together and we ve each had a copy of it [diagram of model] and written our own thoughts and our own kind of perceptions of an issue and then shared them with each other, so it s really clear what we think are the tensions and how we feel about the issue or whatever is going on, and as well it takes that kind of personal element out of it slightly it s actually because of the reasons when you can plot it out it s easier for someone to kind of explain it s just really objective. [CM5, p. 5] Taking the personal element out (even slightly) made sense to Felicity, who found the model particularly useful in working through tensions with her centre management throughout the time of the project. When she talks about each person having a copy of the diagram (above), Felicity is alluding to how, as a leader, she asks colleagues to give some prior thinking to an issue in order to find a shared way forward. There are elements of systematic thinking evident within her talk; this was prevalent across all three clusters, as participants used the notion of mapping their issues to gain a broader perspective. A broader perspective was also evidenced in May and Barbara s talk. They, too, identified with the notion of taking the personal out of working with tensions and contradictions. As Barbara said: I think the main thing for me, like what I feel it s just taken the personal out of it I think I am careful like that anyway but I think it s just reassured me like the importance of realising there s others, like all the background stuff [rules, tools etc.] as well as that influence people s behaviour and yeah, sort of looking at the bigger picture before you respond or react. [CM5, p. 4] While already careful not to personalise issues, Barbara has been reassured about the complexity of early childhood centres as systems the bigger picture. Barbara does not by nature want to focus on the person; there is a sense here that she finds the notion of examining the system a very viable alternative, and activity theory explains this for her. May (Barbara s colleague) also found this aspect useful: just having the strategy or tool there to be able to look at what you want instead of looking at the people [CM5, p. 5]. May s response is linked to being quite a new leader and playing the system helped her to be more confident in dealing with problems that come up because I have a strategy that I can fall back on not having to feel I am struggling to deal with the team [CM5, p. 5]. This perspective was evident in what Louise said earlier in the chapter. Also an inexperienced leader, she revealed at the outset of the programme that she was scared of adults. This adds weight to our assumption that most centre leaders are qualified to teach children, but their knowledge of adult development is very limited. There are numerous instances in the data of this type of understanding of playing the system, not the person, signifying that (as stated earlier in this section) participants in our project found this an interesting and useful way of framing their work. We pick this feature up in the following chapter in relation to transformed leadership capacity. 77

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education Follow the system and become confident Fane and Tuulaki worked on their assessment practices as a focus for expanding a task. During a discussion after Workshop 2, they explained how they were trying to support the older teachers to use computers creatively when recording children s learning stories. The conversation turned to how the younger teachers were teaching the older teachers how to do this, and how this was due to the notion of finding a systems approach to the problem to moving their assessment task on: Fane: I mean we talk about the yeah, change the system not the Tuulaki: Not the person, not the individual but when we change, that s what we found when we change the system the individual starts slowly to starting to come to the system. to follow the system and become confident. [CM2, p. 4] Each of the examples above illustrate how participants learned to understand their centre as an object orientated system rather than a collection of individuals. Fane and Tuulaki clearly understand how a change to the system has the potential to change the person. They set up their assessment procedures to involve computer literate teachers working with those who are less so, not initially because it made sense in a type of apprenticeship relationship, but because they were trying to get maximum gain from a systems approach. They wanted everyone to be producing weekly learning stories, and those without computer skills were less productive than those with them. Nuttall (2013a) found in her study that some participants view certain staff as objects (i.e., tasks to be worked on and resolved) rather than as one person amongst a collective subject (p. 6). Elsewhere, Nuttall, Wood, and Thomas (in press) explore the effects of two decades of neo-liberal policy and a focus on the individual as contributing to undue emphasis on the individual at the expense of the potential of collective zones of proximal development for helping groups to work more productively. Given the strong base of developmental psychology (Burman, 2008; Cannella, 1997) that shapes the discursive landscape in early childhood education, with its focus on individualism, it is promising that centre leaders appeared to positively align themselves strongly with the notion of playing the system, not the person. Conclusion A key aim of the programme was to enable participants to rethink and therefore reframe their ideas of how to lead and perform acts of pedagogical leadership. This was to be achieved by supporting participants to picture the dynamics of their specific situations in activity theory/system terms, and to act with the aid of the model (tool). This is known as the double stimulation strategy (as described in Chapter 3). In this sense, the tool of third generation activity theory was donated to the participants to help them work on problems of practice (Ellis, 2010, p. 103). Like Ellis (2010) in his exploration of doublestimulation, we were interested in how participants take up and use the tools, including the sense they make of them, the ways in which their activity is shaped by tool-use and, potentially the ways in which subjects reshape the meaning of the tools all of which is studied in relation to how the subjects perceive and are motivated by the object (Ellis, p. 96). The programme supported participants to locate the tool in practice situations determined by them. Through the workshops and the coaching and mentoring sessions, participants 78

LEarning the Model were encouraged to learn the model and become familiar with it, in terms of the conceptual categories (nodes of the model see Figure 3). They were also encouraged to understand how these various components (including the principles of expansive learning theory) fitted together into a dynamic system, and could in turn be exploited by leaders to bring about development in their localised community of practice. At the beginning of this chapter, we drew on the saying that Lottie emailed us at the conclusion of the programme: smooth seas don t make a skilful sailor. We did so to signal how use of activity theory required some choppy water (and at times created it) in order to learn and use activity theory as a tool to navigate changes in leadership practices. This chapter has explored the ways in which participants engaged with and learned this tool. Our next chapter addresses the question: How does the tool of activity theory mediate and shape pedagogical leadership? 79

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education CHAPTER 6: Expanding pedagogical leadership Introduction This chapter focuses on participants understandings of third generation activity theory as a tool for expanding pedagogical leadership. It details ways in which participants used third generation activity theory (as explored through our project) as a mediating tool to expand their effectiveness as leaders, often resulting in a new sense of agency and a subsequent change in identity as a leader. Engeström (1987) states that expansive learning cycles begin with individual subjects [in our case the pedagogical leader/s] questioning the accepted practice [which] gradually expands into a collective movement or institution (p. 12). In the discussion below, we have called this moving from the individual to the collective. This constitutes a common thread in each of the examples presented in this chapter, supporting the notion that participants come to understand their centre as a system and not as a group of individuals. The majority of participants in our study used the model with their teaching teams, either as a tool which gave them a framework to organise their thoughts and actions as leaders, or more explicitly when they introduced the model to their teams as a tool for collaborative leadership and action. The chapter is structured around four significant key themes which were evident in the transcripts of the coaching and mentoring sessions. Together these themes comprise what the model of third generation activity theory gave leaders in this project, namely: A way of working more systematically; A framework for bringing contradictions to consciousness; A framework for redistributing knowledge and decision making across the collective; and A tool for leading pedagogical dialogue (and change). A way of working more systematically One of the aims of this project was that designated pedagogical leaders would come to understand their centre as a system rather than a group of individuals. This idea was introduced in the first workshop, where participants were introduced to third generation activity theory and the notion of their centre as an activity system, placing a focus on the system rather than the individuals within it. Laszlo s (2012) writing about evolutionary 80

ExpanDing pedagogical leadership leadership posits systems thinking as a way of leading change, and notes that systems thinking leads to new ways of systems being, i.e., living a new consciousness (p. 100). She states that engaging in systems thinking involves thinking in terms of processes rather than structures, relationships rather than components, interconnections rather than separation (Laszlo, 2012, p. 100). Whilst Laszlo writes through the lens of sustainability, this interpretation of a system is useful to the discussion that follows, as it hints at a change in identity and action. In the following section, three scenarios from the data are used to illuminate a view of the centre as a system, as expressed by Eleazar (Pasifika context), Eva, Pine and Mac (kaupapa Māori context) and Louise (education and care context). These illustrate some of the ways in which participants demonstrated this understanding of their centres as activity systems. Each of the scenarios reflects the role of the mediating tools (physical and conceptual) as a key element of their activity system, and therefore the context and situation in which the centres and their leaders operate. Scenario one In the first coaching and mentoring session, Eleazar an emerging ECE leader, taking responsibly for leadership of a newly established Pasifika centre shows a clear understanding of how her centre operates as a system, with an emphasis on collaboration. I think it was a real eye-opener, more a deep understanding really of leadership What I really enjoyed was that framework the CHAT and how it all lined in together and to me, just to see a picture and how it actually linked made sense to me, yeah. [CM1, p. 1] Here Eleazar sees the links between the components of the activity system of her centre. As she unpacks each node of the triangle in the subsequent coaching and mentoring session, she relates the system to her vision (outcome), which she had described in the needs analysis session as being: to include or encourage the Pacific people in the [specified] region to participate, to get their children to participate more in early childhood [NA, p. 1]. As the facilitator coaches Eleazar and they jointly map the triangles, Eleazar identifies a key concept (tool): collaborative work you know, that family gathering making it a small island in New Zealand [CM1, p. 3]. She expands this further when she is asked about who she envisages the collaboration as being between: It goes in many directions. It goes from the staff to the parents, to the families, to the children, and comes back, and bounces back, and I guess in a triangle form you know, and not always going in one direction all the time I guess just feeding each other with that collaboration, that teamwork. [CM1, p. 3] This suggests an awareness of multi-voicedness, and the operation of the (new) centre as a community. The use of the metaphor just feeding each other aligns with the synergy that comes from such collaboration. Prompted to describe the rules around collaboration, Eleazar responds: There are going to be rules what makes it really tricky is that they [Tongan, Samoan and Fijian] are three different islands the rules is to probably try and be respectful towards those three different islands cause in those three different islands there are their own ways of doing things [ ] in order to meet as a team, so it may be OK in a Samoan way but it won t be OK to do it in those [two], so I guess it s finding a more stable collaboration in order to feed in all of those three. [CM1, p. 4] 81

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education This shows her awareness of the complexity of this activity system, and the impact this might have on her role in leading this team. As the coaching session progresses, Eleazar begins to expose a number of contradictions focused on what she describes as the misunderstanding of cultural leadership [NA, p. 5], adding yet another layer of complexity, both personal and professional. Eleazar s story continued across successive coaching and mentoring sessions. Scenario two This example occurred in coaching and mentoring session 4, where three participants were sharing back their progress with the facilitator, discussing a recurring issue one they thought had been already resolved. Mac, Eva and Pine reflect on how they used the system to move the focus from the individual to a systems perspective; in doing so, they also expand their notion of leadership as sharing power: Eva begins the conversation by sharing a response to an email that had been sent out previously to the staff explaining an issue and updating staff on the current state of things: Eva: So she well, the way Mac reported it to me was she [colleague] was red and puffed and she was that emotional that right? Mac: I could see it was, yeah. She had taken it personally. Eva: And so Mac, you said Mac: Take, remove yourself, yeah, it s not about you, your name s not even in there. It s got nothing to do with you, you ve got to look at what it s about...take yourself out and just look at what the thing is Facilitator: So you were focussing back on the task or the purpose [CM4, p. 11] In this extract Mac frames the issue as a personal response, and redirects the teacher back to looking at what the issue actually is. In doing so she applies a systems view, by moving the focus away from a situation of blame to a position where the issue can be worked on. In fact she invites the teacher, by implication, to: just look at what the thing is, to start a process of reflection. Of note is Mac s leadership skill and uptake of the model, as she is a new leader (Kaiwhakaako/teacher of infants and toddlers) joining the more senior leadership team specifically for this project. The coaching and mentoring session continued with Eva recounting how Mac had come to her and Pine, and the three of them had decided to take the model to the team. Of note was Eva s leadership in deciding that they would do this now, as this was an issue that they re [the staff are involved] in [CM4, p. 11]. Reflecting on the email that then gets sent, Eva adds: I wanted to explain the intent of my actions was not personal, I m focused on the issue and what we need to do to progress it [CM4, p. 11]. Eva s reflection explains her actions clearly in terms of this systems view, at the same time recognising that the practical application of the theory is important to apply to an issue the staff are involved in. As part of the preparation for the hui to share the model (and discuss the particular issue), the key terms of the model are translated: we found the Māori terms for it so the staff would understand better [CM 4, p. 12]. The extract below outlines the way the model was presented to whānau. Eva explains their understanding of the model, and although the voice is Eva s, neither Pine nor Mac interrupt her, suggesting that this is a consensus view. The focus on the collective is evident throughout through the language used, e.g. the use of the pronoun we, with 82

ExpanDing pedagogical leadership other collective concepts underlined. Each component of the system is discussed, with a strong emphasis on contradiction as a potential for change. The notion of expanding the object (in this case working collectively) is obvious, and this is recognised when Eva says within the contradiction is the potential for change and therefore developing the system [CM 4, p. 13]. Eva: And so then we said what we, you know, what we d learnt [in the workshops] and then I stuck the whole mud play thing into the diagram [reference to mapping their system on paper] [...] And then we did it in Māori [...] saying the tools, you know, that we use [centre name] s.the way we launch new activities that the leaders, tikanga leaders (that s not how we call them but) of [our centre] always have an active role. The objectives of [this centre], Te Aho Matua [kura kaupapa curriculum], you know the [early childhood] curriculum, Te Whāriki. Facilitator: So those are your tools. Cool. Eva: Yeah the ultimate goal was to launch a new play space that would raise the quality of learning for children. And that the objects were those tasks that we had agreed at the staff meeting were to be done by everyone, staff. The the rules: that every staff member had agreed to trial the dirt space, that we had to do a bit of research about how we turn a garden into a play space, change the nature of it [...] that we would research, investigate it together, prepare it together and launch it together. That was one of our rules. [...] And then what does it look like? [inaudible] What does oh I can t remember how the English goes but what does the nature of our working together look like? in the system? [Eva translating for the facilitator] Facilitator: So this is your division of labour, yeah. Eva: Yeah the division of labour, that s right. Yeah who does what. How will we organise ourselves and what does where s the power sitting? So we had decided. the reds [referring to the diagram they had drawn mapping their system visually] are all our decisions. Every staff member.oh at the staff meeting every staff member agreed to carry a task and so the power lies with all the staff [...] And then the contradictions were oh no, no what I just said about the contradictions was that contradictions are a good thing.you know, can be a barrier but they re also a good thing because within the contradiction is the potential for change, and therefore further developing the system (italics added). [CM4, pp. 12 13] Eva then summarises the discussion by quoting from one of the workshop slides: It s not about any one person but it s more about the outcome. We ve learnt at our course that individuals come and go but systems don t change... It s taken me a while to get this model but I feel that if you are open to it, it will help you to view and use conflict as potential for change. [CM 4, p. 13] As an aside to the focus of this part of the chapter on working systematically, Eva s admission that it has taken her a while to understand the model supports the point made in Chapter 2 about professional learning needing sufficient time for taking on board new ideas and the centrality of dialogue in this process. One of the key features of the excerpt above is the discussion about power residing in the division of labour, and the notion that sharing power distributes responsibility and accountability to everyone, as in the statement: and so the power lies with the staff. This is often where it surfaces most obviously. But it actually permeates the whole system, 83

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education especially the relationship between rules and division of labour. Also of note is the strong message about contradictions being a good thing as a potential for change. Scenario three This final example tracks the progress of Louise as she discovers the power of working collectively and systematically with her colleagues. In response to the facilitator s opening question, what s on top? Louise explains that it is her staff, and how she is looking forward to the future about how to change this really big thing... I m thinking about the culture between our staff... [CM3, p. 1]. Louise reflects on how it s been a real eye opener [because] there s so many things I don t understand...and no-one else really knows why we do the things we do [CM3, pp. 1 2]. Clearly this is an example of a sedimented system, where the organisational culture has become so ingrained that the object of current practice is to maintain the status quo, and staff are resistant to change that might upset the current system. Louise goes on to say: Louise: It s a great question but it frustrates me cause I never have an answer... Facilitator: And nobody s got an answer? Louise: No, nobody, whether they don t feel they can say the answer or whether no one actually knows what the answer is, the stock standard answer is we ve always done it this way. Louise then identifies a contradiction, noting that we re not doing as good a job in that area as we could be...and what we say we do and what we re doing aren t lining up either [CM3, p. 3]. The facilitator then introduces the model subtly and lets the story unfold: Facilitator: And how did you, like you, I know you ve identified yourself many times as a process person? Louise: Yeah. Facilitator: And so you were thinking about having this discussion at a staff meeting? [ ] How did that work, like did it come up as a solution from your staff meeting? Louise: It did and it was actually worked really, really well and I didn t have to do much talking. Facilitator: Fantastic. [CM3, p. 5] Louise s admission that she didn t have to do much talking is significant and demonstrates how the model acts to mobilise the latent professionalism of staff (J. Nuttall, personal communication, May 25, 2013). The narrative continues: Louise: Which was the amazing part, it was all geared up [...] And then you know I opened up the discussion and then everybody just took it and I just went oh okay so just sat there taking notes. [...] And nobody took it personally and then you know anything like that, that this was amazing [...] As I said they all just took ownership of it. [...] And I really was just facilitating. Facilitator: That it s actually just inside the conversation [...] and the decision making processes. Louise: And that s exactly it and so they teased out the things. So the [teachers of the] two year olds shared their concerns about you know adding to stress of how that was going to work and the three year olds [teachers] shared theirs about how their routines were going to work and then the biggest learning curve for them 84

ExpanDing pedagogical leadership all has been communicating across a bigger group again now. And even though we ve had one licence for a year we ve still very much been unders and overs. [CM3, pp. 5 6] Louise then describes the impact this shift has on centre practice in terms of pedagogy and the goal she had stated at the beginning of the session. In doing so, she starts to resolve the contradiction. And it s been very hard to shake that imaginary wall that we knew for like three years we couldn t cross cause we were two licenses. But and so the communication between the two groups is evolving and just starting and they re actually having, you know they re talking to each other all right so we don t have two people in the bathroom in two spaces and then you know. And I don t have to direct anybody which has been amazing, I ve got teachers coming to me saying shall I go over here because Lynette s in the bathroom. [CM3, p. 6] And I can see the benefits from it already and the children know where to go, they can go back to that space which is their quiet space if they need to go and there s always one of those teachers they re familiar with is always there...and yet they re getting interactions from other people and the teachers are having more time to sit down for an, it s only an hour and a half a day but in that hour and a half being able to actually sit and engage with the children. [CM3, p. 8] The coaching session continues as the facilitator and Louise deconstruct the conversation and apply the model to the process, mapping each component in turn. Towards the conclusion of this exercise Louise reflects on her effort to get the team on board [CM3, p. 12], finally reaching the conclusion that she was perhaps trying to change the world, but realising I can t change the world by myself [CM3, p. 12]. This is an example of the shift from the individual to the collective and becoming more systems focused. A little later in the session, Louise attributes her progress to now having more skills and tools [CM 3, p. 13]. The extracts reveal a potentiality for a change in identity and actions for Louise. These examples introduce the notion of working at a systems level. Participants worked more or less explicitly in this way; however, every centre which mapped their system (and this formed the basis of most workshops and many of the coaching and mentoring sessions) was in fact learning about their centre as a system of cultural, historical and social activity, rather than a group of individuals operating within the centre. The next section gives examples where participants applied systems thinking to their leadership practice as ways of becoming more efficient. A number of comments in the needs analysis interviews related to the busyness of centre life, and the multiple tasks of leaders, which have been described as a balance between getting the job done and meeting people s needs (Rodd, 2006, p. 28). Some participants reported that third generation activity theory allowed them to work more systematically and thus use time more effectively. Becoming more efficient In coaching and mentoring session 2, the dyad of Raiha and Teina suddenly see the third generation activity theory through a systems lens: I ve just had a massive realisation sitting here, the way that we do things, [ ] we fly by the seat of our pants. [ ] This [the 85

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education model] gives us an opportunity to do things systematically so we can predict and we can analyse, and you know do all those things to establish systems, as a ropu [CM2, p. 7]. In the final session their identification with a systems view deepens, affirming current practice, with a link to goal setting and direction: We do know what we re doing but we lack systematic organisation of that, and consistency. so what s happening sometimes we might hit the mark, but I feel that this model offers us a more deliberate systematic approach, to landing where we want to land [CM4, p. 6]. There is a sense expressed by Raiha that she feels more effective and agentic in her leadership role, now that she has been introduced to a systematic process for leading change in her setting. Some dyads found looking at their centre through a systems lens allowed a deeper exploration of the components of the system and the relationships between the components. Raiha and Teina discuss the exploration [implying learning] of deeply examining each of those parts of the model, [CM3, p. 2] also noting the quality of the korero that this generated. One participant commented specifically on being more organised as a leader. It s all these, these personal changes. It s [the model] taught me to be more effective with time, meetings, goals, [and] avoiding distractions [Pine, FN, p. 6]. It can be argued that at a personal level, the individual acting as part of the collective has limited influence on the system, and this would be true if that individual were to leave the system (or in fact forgets or chooses not to use the model). However, as soon as the individual enters the system as a social actor and applies the model, the potential for change and possible expansion of the activity exists. A number of the participants who used the model systematically and successfully found the strategy of focusing on the object (task) and/or outcome (goal) to be a helpful strategy in leading conversations about contradictions. These tended to be in situations where the issue was complex and the dialogue became circular with no apparent end in sight. The following excerpt illustrates how, in a time-poor situation, participants were able to reach resolution that respected all members of the group. While this incident took place outside the project, it involved participants from two of the centres in one cluster. Although the story appears in both of the cluster transcripts of coaching and mentoring session 5, it is Katarina s version that is drawn on here. Katarina told the story of working on a joint task, i.e., the printing of a booklet for a conference, and how they applied the model. She began by describing how they were trying to sort out the finances for the conference, and noted that something was happening with the printing of the book, and we were trying to work out what we are going to do. This person wants this and this one wants that [CM5, p. 6]. They then tried different strategies for looking at the issue: We were talking about it as a process and Eva [the facilitator] would say focus on the task! [CM5, p. 6]. In referring to what was taking place as a process, Katrina makes reference to a systems analysis. Eva s comment on the task prompted the group to identify what the task was. They then deduced that if we focus on the task, the problem is not here or here [CM5, p. 6], thus working through the location of the contradiction in a systematic way. Katarina reflected on the process, saying : we were using it [the model] in that dilemma because we were trying to tell someone that their idea wasn t going to work and every way we put it made it sound as though we didn t appreciate what she d done already [ ] 86

ExpanDing pedagogical leadership The focus here is about the printing of the books and time constraints [CM5, p. 6]. Later in the same coaching and mentoring session, Katarina reflected further on the situation: It really relieved the pressure from us because we were struggling with a way through, like yeah, it s about the task, which you ve [the facilitator] always said, but I actually think I ve forgotten that [CM5, p. 6]. Here is evidence that we were seeing glimpses in the data of learning the model through externalisation. Importantly, in this scenario the principles that underpin the model appear to be understood. Not only were participants thinking about the centre or process they were engaged in as system, but there is also a renewed emphasis on object/task orientation. Bigger picture thinking This section focuses on the possibility of systems theory to create bigger picture thinking, where multiple systems are acknowledged both in terms of breadth and over time. Ebbeck and Waniganayake (2003) argue for a more integrated and holistic perspective to the study of leadership, in order to balance what they see as a lack of systems thinking. At centre level this might be seen as expanding leaders views, or seeing their work in a different way through a broader lens. The following discussion occurred in coaching and mentoring session 3. It is a facilitated discussion about finding a focus to use in order to practise mapping the centre system. Lee brings up an example of a current contradiction a child behaviour issue that takes up everybody s time, attention and energy and [that has] been ongoing for a very long time and [is] starting to come to a head now [CM3, p. 2]. Julia suggests that they try and use the system [...] to work out the best possible outcome [p. 2]. At first there is a sense of powerlessness as they discuss how they have called in outside help, because the situation is deemed beyond [their] scope [p. 2]. Eventually, as they are coached through the community aspect of the model, they realise that they have been working on the contradiction all along, when Julia says and bringing in outside help is part of it isn t it [...] we ve already begun this [p. 3]. The story continues as Julia shares how she has written about this boy on my thing [her copy of the model], noting how obviously our outcome would be to have a calm and happy centre [...] and the object would be to resolve the conflict that is going on with him [p. 4]. At this point Julia starts to focus on the outcome rather than the child; and then acknowledges how they are beginning to see it in a different way [...] than we have, which [has been] just to do something about the child. This she attributes to looking at it [the contradiction] in a more systematic way [CM3, p. 5]. During the hour-long session, the facilitator guides Lee and Julia through the process of mapping this activity system, and the expansion of the object becomes more explicit, as they discuss the changes they have been making (i.e., focusing on ourselves (staff), the environment, the wellbeing of other children, and working from the child s strengths and interests). It is at this point that they decide to take the model and the contradiction to the next staff meeting, bringing with it a shift from child-as-object to child-within-community. In the above excerpt, Julia recognises that as a leader she needs to act, and she sees an opportunity to use the model at the same time. In doing so, she realises that the pedagogical strategies that the team are using as part of their self-review are in fact part of the solution using the tool has given her a sense of agency and insight. Like many of 87

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education the examples presented in this report, this is a mere glimpse of a possible change. Julia and Lee did not get to take this to the staff meeting, and so at the closure of the project we do not know if in fact the model was effective in advancing the problem; all we can say is that the potential to see the contradiction in a new light might contribute to expanding the system in ways that afford positive change. The ability of the leader to articulate a clear vision and pathway to the future is another aspect of leadership that participants were cognisant of. A number worked on their philosophies using third generation activity theory, particularly as they became more aware of philosophy as a mediating artefact. In terms of actual goals set, the data from the final coaching and mentoring session where this was explored a little is inconclusive. As expected in the centres in our kaupapa Māori cluster, cultural aspirations were considered to be the desired outcome, and this was also expressed clearly in the Pasifika and kaupapa Māori centres in the other two clusters. There is some evidence that as the model was appropriated as a tool, participants became more aware of its use in areas such as staff appraisal and job descriptions. Some participants planned to use the model to guide the discussion around developing new staff appraisal systems. This links with the data in the needs analysis set, where staff dynamics was the most frequently mentioned challenge of leaders in this project. Thus the shift here is from staff to dynamics. One of the more specific comments about the use of the model, in terms of what might be seen as management aspects of pedagogical leadership, was Ria talking about having a new person on board within that role, it s a job share role so it was very timely in the sense that we can sit down together and have a korero about roles and responsibilities, or rules and you know apply the model to those things, it s sort of, it excites me in the sense that we can get this done in a non-confrontational manner [CM2, p. 3]. Again, the emphasis on systems thinking and action is evident in this plan, which focuses on bringing the new person into the community of learning (the stated leadership model of this centre), where the focus is on the collective and not the individual as a member of the group. A framework for bringing contradictions to consciousness This section reports on the value of the model as a framework that might help leaders to be more mindful in their role of bringing to consciousness contradictions, which in turn can be worked on as objects or tasks in ways that expand the system that is, the system learns from them. Capper and Williams (2004) give a useful definition of what they describe as the learning proposition (p. 9). They make the point that as long as the tools, rules, community and organisation operate as expected, the people within the activity system go about their tasks with predictable results this might be thought of as business as usual. However, the system (in our case the childcare centre and its supporting community) will often be interrupted by unanticipated events (described by Capper and Williams as disturbances ); or contradictions (tensions between the elements of the system) will be surfaced. Unless the team can learn how to deal with these, the whole system potentially becomes unstable. Alternatively, contradictions are simply suppressed and people put up with the effort to keep them that way expressed by Tammy earlier as you just live with them. 88

ExpanDing pedagogical leadership Disturbances or contradictions also present an opportunity for learning about the real world, and can be viewed as springboards for learning, innovation and development (Capper Williams, 2004). In this light, contradictions become the fulcrum for pedagogical change, and are viewed positively as a means to drive pedagogical leadership. In terms of the model, Engeström (1987) stated that the process of expansive learning theory should be understood as construction and resolution of successively evolving contradictions in the activity system (p. 12), and thus contradiction becomes a feature of any expansive system. While the notion of contradiction is present in each of the examples in the previous section as an element in the centres systems, this next section gives some further examples of how participants came to see contradiction/disturbance as a way of expanding the centre as a system. Inherent in each of the excerpts is a move away from the individual as the centre of attention, in favour of a focus on the group as a collective. Some participants were proactive in seeking out contradictions and responded very quickly to the homework from Workshop 1, which was to try and identify one or more contradictions at play in your centre/service and to find out if anyone else notices them. Part of the purpose of this exercise was to reinforce the idea that the role of the pedagogical leader is to identify and articulate the contradiction and to bring it to the attention of the people concerned or to the group as an object or task to be worked on collectively. The other purpose was to get participants to start to look more critically at the centre system for examples of invisible or undiscussable contradictions. Invisible contradictions are those that are embedded in everyday life and are part of the taken-forgranted organisational culture; undiscussable contradictions are those that most people are aware of but which never get talked about, because it is too uncomfortable to do so (Capper Williams, 2004). Barbara and May became very adept at locating contradictions very early on in the project, and throughout the coaching sessions they continued to identify possible contradictions within their centre system. As they noted in the final coaching and mentoring session [CM5, p. 5], they found it useful just having the strategy or the tool there to be able to look at what you want, instead of looking at the people and I think for me being quite a new leader it s sort of helped [me] probably be more confident in dealing with problems that come up. In coaching and mentoring session 3, they reflected on how they introduced the model to their team: We did sort of explain to them that if they come across things again just to, sort of, you can think about it in your head and not sort of take it personally. You can take that aspect out of it and just think so what is it that we actually want? and sort of what s getting in the way of achieving that? [CM3, p. 5] Here the use of the pronoun we indicates a move away from the individual to a more collective way of thinking. The emphasis on the task (objective), what is it we want?, and the implied contradiction, what s getting in the way? is an example of working with the team (i.e., in the collective) to bring contradiction to consciousness. As previously explored, a common theme around contradiction was participants use of third generation activity theory in situations to take the personal out of it, i.e. to focus on systems thinking rather than the individual. Nearly all of the examples already discussed imply or show this explicitly. The next two excerpts illustrate this very clearly, and suggest 89

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education that for some participants, the model has become a key tool in dealing with interpersonal situations (contradictions between subjects in the model): Tammy talks about an incident late last week with somebody, something happened and I needed to pass on. [ ] I raised at our seminar about that personality clash and things like that. And that was the first thing that went to my mind is this a personality thing or is this just something that I can deal with in a different way? You know on using that model as in looking at the issue rather than the, you know, the personalities and whatever else that comes with that. And so I guess it is starting to become [useful?]. [CM2, p. 7] Ella describes an incident in coaching and mentoring session 2 where she felt things between two teachers were getting out of hand: I didn t like that tension because it was getting quite frisky between the two of them and then one says oh, I can t be bothered any more and I thought well, that s not the attitude [ ] Then the other says, Oh well I m not going to be bothered any more. We were just going backwards here, not forwards. So [I decided] let s use the system and see if we can suss this out. [CM2, p. 5] Ella s decision to use the system enabled her to explore the contradiction that was at the heart of the tension between her colleagues, who appeared not to have the resources themselves to work this situation through. This is an example that supports Cardno and Reynolds (2009) claim that we require new theoretical models to support leaders to shift leadership practices, so that they embrace dilemmas as sites productive of teacher learning. Centres with a focus on a business model or an umbrella organisation may have leadership structures and organisational cultures that demand different roles and responsibilities of pedagogical leaders (Thornton, 2009). At the time of the needs analysis interviews, three participants (all in different centres) reported that they felt management structures impacted negatively on their effectiveness as leaders. Nuttall (2013a) reported a similar finding in her Melbourne project. All three participants were in centres focused on building enrolments, and all three had off-site managers who made decisions about curriculum implementation and operational management to some degree. (Two of these centres had been open less than one year.) All three participants used the model, particularly the principle of contradiction, as a tool to help them work more effectively with management over the research period. The motivation for doing so was different for each of these participants, and all three gained a sense of agency and comfort that they attributed to using the model. In this sequence we hear first from Katarina, who finds that the model gives her a new understanding of the intersection between two systems that of management and her own centre system so that she is able to reach a space where she feels both manager and herself are validated. Then Eleazar s story explores contradictions arising out of two different cultures (cultural systems). In the third story, Felicity prepares herself for a courageous conversation with management. I feel like I m being taught to suck eggs Katarina, a very experienced leader taking responsibility for establishing a new centre in what was an unfamiliar commercial structure for her, described one of her challenges as being agendas, our management agendas [...] the immediate people I answer to, so the agendas, and some of them are fiscally driven [NA 1, p 7]. Later in the same session she describes her motivation and focus, the reason why she took the job: it s about 90

ExpanDing pedagogical leadership reinventing me as a leader [NA, p. 19]. In response to the facilitator s reminder about her fiscal idea, she says that I fight with it just being on the side and not totally on the front [NA, p. 21] indicating that this is a new way of leading for her, having worked in positions of sole responsibility previously. In the second coaching and mentoring session there were two further discussions about how management in her setting do not understand how early childhood operates, and a further contradiction is uncovered about being on the floor and having to deal with national office inquiries. During the session, the facilitator introduces the concept of multiple systems of activity, each with their own ways of operating (rules, tools, division of labour etc). Towards the end, Katarina makes a breakthrough: Katarina: I feel a bit like that, I feel like I m being taught to suck eggs a lot. Facilitator: So instead of thinking about the people, think about how the system, [how] you might change. Katarina: Could we do it? Did you see [inaudible]? Did you hear the we there? Can it be different? Facilitator: Can you internalise the model enough to raise some of this stuff in discussion? [CM2, p. 24] Katarina realises herself that her thinking has shifted to a much more inclusive stance, as indicated by the change in the pronoun we. A short while later she says, Okay, that s changed my perspective now. I ve got to find a way to convince them and win their trust [CM2, p. 24]. At the very end of the session she says: Being able to see other perspectives. I think that s good, just nutting them out but there s something else in there, there s something that I think the system and the process it validates, no matter what, it validates [ ] s position. It validates me. I think that s pretty cool. [CM2, pp. 25 26] Understanding the model and how it relates to Katarina s situation gives Katarina a sense of being validated. Arguably she no longer feels subjected to the collective power of the umbrella organisation that she works under, but is now more empowered to acknowledge this reality and work with this organisation. Torn between culture and work Eleazar, introduced in the section above, felt that she was in a situation where she was being torn between... the culture and [her] work [CM1, p. 4]. Having identified this contradiction, she is coached towards taking her concerns to the manager. Coaching and mentoring session 3 starts with a discussion where Eleazar updates the facilitator on her progress to date, saying that she has had a word with the manager, and managed to get some resolution. Eleazar outlines how she has talked with her team and collected their views, reflecting that I then became their voice as well and also reflecting on the way that third generation activity theory has enabled this: At the same time I think the process really helped me, I guess it was that self-conflict about my culture and my professionalism, and my personality really, [thinking] do I really have to stand down as a person and just listen to that? That s my culture telling me just to wait there [to people] in authority, and everything might flow or everything might not. But my professionalism saw that that s a tension and if it s not dealt with it will just become a mountain [ ] and that really pushed in very hard and is trying to push through my personality, and push through my culture where it was 91

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education giving me that contradiction. So yeah like I said, I had to sort of prepare myself, amp myself up and I guess it was like preparing for an exam. [italics added] Facilitator: She talked to you about practising didn t she? Eleazar: Yeah so I did that, that was awesome and did the whole process, that was good but when I finished the whole thing, I was surprised how it all went.[ ]what I assumed might happen didn t happen, and the response was different so that was good, [ ] and maybe some of the things that had come from my past, you know with authority or something like that, was kind of hindering my relationship to try and connect with [the manager] her. I guess I was happy that I identified that, I worked through it and also empowered my team. [CM3, p. 1] In the above excerpt Eleazar uses the language of third generation activity theory, highlighting the contradiction between her own cultural ways of being and the expectations of leading her team in the Palangi world. This is a system to system contradiction. Having identified the contradiction, she is able to articulate the tension more clearly. This is also a clear example of how Eleazar acted to construct a shared object in her conversation with her manager. Rather than treating it as an adversarial situation between two individuals or one where Eleazar has to stand down as a person, she has a way of framing the situation and becoming agentic. Although this enables action at a personal level, awareness of the collective (Eleazar s team and advocacy for the individual Pasifika culture(s) that make up the centre system) also informs and drives this action. In the broader sense, the wider contradiction that set off this chain of events was all about clashes between different systems, and in particular a key conceptual tool of the collective. As noted in the introduction to this section, this is also an example of Engeström s successively evolving cycles of contradiction. I m not sure I want to have the conversation In the final coaching and mentoring session, Felicity reflects on the influence that third generation activity theory has had on herself as a leader, and in particular the principle of contradiction (Engeström, 2001). Engeström argues that this principle highlights the central role of contradictions as sources of change and development (p. 137). In the excerpt below, Felicity articulates very clearly the value of the model in raising contradictions to consciousness. She says: I definitely think it s had quite a bit of influence over the last few months, like some of the issues I ve had to deal with and some of the conversations I ve had, and things like that, that perhaps I wouldn t have or probably, potentially may have tried to avoid for a bit longer [ ] I think that s the biggest thing, really is, that it actually helps you to tackle those tensions rather than [to] actually confront them and challenge them. [CM5, p. 7] [ ] where a lot of it was things that I was doing probably more subconsciously but it just made me more aware of how I was doing it and why, and it s a lot easier to share with others rather than just trying to explain what s inside your head. [CM5, p. 6] One of the recurring themes in the coaching and mentoring session with Felicity was getting to grips with a system over which she felt she had relatively little control. This was the first time that she had worked with a more hands-on manager who was located off-site, but took responsibility for much of the day-to-day operational tasks, such as the roster and allocation of staffing across the multiple sites in the group. The manager s 92

ExpanDing pedagogical leadership perception of the combination of the centres as a single system was something that Felicity understood and was empathetic towards, but this contrasted with her own expressed desire to implement a primary caregiving system in the centre she was responsible for. At times during the project,felicity found herself on the roster of the other centres as the manager worked to allocate qualified staff across the group. She found this very difficult, as her interest lay in leading her own team and supporting them through an upcoming ERO review. Of her own team, she said: We have really good relationships and discussions about what is going on but I think I struggle in the opposite direction having those courageous conversations like, with management and things above me with my team it s fine but I m not sure I want to have that conversation but it s OK I just need to suck it up this is part of your job. [WFN4 ] As in Eleazar s story above, Felicity was aware of the responsibility of having to act, but did not have a tool that would give her the confidence to do this. Eventually she does initiate a courageous conversation with the manager, and with the upcoming ERO review providing further possible disturbances to the system, she achieves her goal of consistent staffing and additional non-contact time. In the final coaching and mentoring session, Felicity spoke about the value of the model in structuring her thinking: I think, like it was useful in thinking about, like kind of planning how I was going to have that conversation. I think once I had it in my head, what I needed to say and all that kind of stuff, I didn t really think about it at the time. I think it was helpful deciding in my head. [CM4, p. 3] The next section focuses on describing some of the changes that participants made at the systems level as they moved towards a more collective leadership. A framework for redistributing knowledge and decision making From the needs analysis data, it was clear that many participants recognised the individual strengths of team members and the contribution they make to pedagogical practice. A few centres stated explicitly that they regarded all teachers as pedagogical leaders, and some centres described themselves as communities of learning and/or communities of practice where pedagogical leadership was already shared. Thus within each of three clusters, there was an awareness of the practices inherent in distributed leadership. As participants engaged with third generation activity theory, we expected there to be a redistribution of knowledge and decision making, as the model requires new thinking about tools, rules and division of labour. This may be thought of as a move towards distributed leadership, where the role of all teachers and learners is recognised in implementing change and it is through collaboration and collectivity that expertise is developed (Clarkin-Phillips, 2009). Edwards and D Arcy (2004) suggest that successful transformation of the object of activity involves the deployment of resources or tools, which may be other people. They stress that change is more than mere collective action on an object: rather it is a capacity to recognise and use the support of others as resources to transform the object (p. 149). Many participants spoke about the necessity to get everyone on board so that there was shared understanding about centre practice; some participants recognised that third generation activity theory was useful as a mechanism for doing this. 93

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education The first examples discussed below show some of the ways in which knowledge and decision making moved from a location in the individual to that of the collective. As noted above, some participants were already working in situations where the principles of distributed leadership were practised, so examples of moving from a collective to a greater sense of collective follow. Earlier in this chapter, Louise talked about wanting to bring the two teaching teams together. Here the facilitator and Louise are discussing the development of a philosophy statement, and the coaching is in preparation for Louise to lead the discussion at the next team meeting. Louise is anxious about not putting her ideas directly into the group, but wants for people to feel like they can talk, and already I know that my team haven t felt they can make decisions, that they can have a voice [CM3, p. 2]. In the final coaching and mentoring session, Lottie talked with the facilitator about the changes she has made in her leadership through using third generation activity theory. Lottie responded by saying that she has moved towards having her team contribute more: You re thinking ahead of a situation that might happen and getting the staff to contribute and well hopefully they re feeling that they all have a role to play and a what s the word a contribution to make that doesn t have to be me saying how this will happen. I really want people to contribute. [CM5, p. 16] When they entered the project, Fane and Tuulaki had already begun a process of changing their centre leadership structure from one that had been more hierarchical to one of distributed leadership They found a great deal of alignment between third generation activity theory and the developments they were making, and were very quick to pick up the model and engage their staff. By coaching and mentoring session 3 they had held a workshop with staff to introduce the model and had asked the staff to bring contradictions to the team meeting. Tuulaki recounts their success: We brought up the key things [ ] and explained how we need to work towards being leaders, pedagogical leaders. [ ] we just suggested if we could come back and report any issues of any tension or contradiction [CM3, p. 1]. The staff apparently question what will happen if they do this. They are reassured by Tuulaki: I said when you report back then the rest of the team will have to decide the solution for it. We won t look at you, in a negative way but we will look at what you will report back as a positive step for us to work on towards a solution [ ] and that leads up to talking about being a critical reflector [CM3, p. 1]. In this short extract, Tuulaki gives a very clear explanation of contradiction as driving curriculum, at the same time making it a new rule that staff will contribute. Tuulaki then comments on how the staff, set up to work in pairs, are talking with each other about the issue, and starting to solve the problem before the next staff meeting. A little further on in the interview, Tuulaki says: Yeah, I was scared that it might be a negative outcome, [ ] it is a positive thing in a bigger picture [ ] it s safe to talk about it talking about it helps them [CM3, p. 3]. She goes on to say: They re more excited. They re getting a solution for what has been built up within them. Thus the model is used to unpack discussable contributions and possibly invisible contradictions through the reflection. By using a metaphor to explain the notion of collectivity, Tuulaki illustrates how metaphors operate as tools to mediate understandings. I use the garden. There is a gardener to the garden I use the flowers, beautiful flowers and stuff and if there s a part of your garden that is not growing it s the 94

ExpanDing pedagogical leadership gardener will come and and water it [ ] but if the gardener [laughs] I m going to get stuck in this one. And it s beautiful for people to come and look at and stuff and I was using the garden to explain the roles of the teachers, you know, as garden coconut plants that grow, we are there to nurture the children. The garden and the shepherd and a builder. The laying the concrete to build the house. [CM3, p. 5] Tuuaki continues: So I used the Pasifika house as a community of practice we have values, we have Pasifika values and cultural values that sometimes becomes, [ ] will stop us from talking, you know, that will discourage us from sharing and stuff but I also add on some other concepts that will help us unpack, you know, how to become leaders, pedagogical leaders. [CM3, p. 6] The facilitator and Tuulaki then discuss the impact that this new way of working is having. Tuulaki: They re working on there s three staff there and three are there and they re working closely now to identify Sometimes they come to me and ask questions and I will just come and talk with them. Facilitator: So they re now asking for help a lot more too. Tuulaki: Asking for help a lot more. Yes. Yes. A lot more. And and what makes me happy is the supervisors. The two supervisors in each the more they feel that they have a leadership role to play, they re more getting involved now and stuff and they re more approachable, the others approaching them more now than before. Tuulaki finishes by saying: That s my hope, they will be confident as pedagogical leaders, yes because they ll be looking at themselves as leaders, may not be positional leaders but leaders in all areas like children s learning, delivery the curriculum and stuff so they can be more confident. [CM3, pp. 9 10] Our last theme, related to expanding pedagogical leadership, illustrates how participants found the model highly supportive in leading pedagogical dialogue. Tool for leading pedagogical dialogue (and change) The Best Evidence Synthesis Interaction on School Leadership and Student Outcomes (Robinson, Hohepa, Lloyd, 2009) lists engaging in constructive problem talk as one of the leadership dimensions for raising student outcomes. They describe this dimension as being about the ability to name, describe and analyse problems in ways that reveal possibilities for school-based change (p. 43). This notion can be seen as similar to that of raising contradiction in third generation activity theory. The role of the leader in such problem talk is to engage their teams in dialogue that invites ownership and commitment to change, as teams examine teaching and learning practices (Robinson, Hohepa, Lloyd, 2009). As noted in the sections above, the dyads who used third generation activity theory engaged in systems thinking. This afforded some new ways of leading team discussion, based on the contractions the leader/s or collective brought to the group s attention. In most centres this happened at the staff meeting. The following excerpt describes one such event and the impact this had on the designated pedagogical leaders. During the needs analysis interview, both Ria and Lana described themselves in ways that suggested they were reluctant leaders. Lana said: It s difficult for me to see myself as a leader [NA, p. 6]. Ria gave an explanation of leadership as being distributed and more akin to leadership as an action than a position, saying: 95

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education I could probably give you a different perspective on the leadership [ ] because I see everyone has those different qualities so they might not have a title [ ] but they lead the team in [different] ways [ ] I see the value and we all see the value in each other [ ] we really try to work as a collective. [NA, p. 6] Thus Ria and Lana were already focused on the team as a collective at the outset of the project. In fact Ria stated: our strength is in our people that make up our learning community [NA, p. 18]. At the final coaching and mentoring session, what Ria and Lana say illustrates how they use third generation activity theory to structure the discussion. They celebrate their success with the facilitator. Lana comments on how the model has given her a lot of confidence to address that too, in probably a non-threatening way. Ria adds, even though it seemed like a lot it was manageable. (This refers to the teacher feedback telling them that it had been a lot to take on board, but had been effective in terms of getting the teachers thinking more deeply.) The task they chose to work on to introduce the model was the duties and roles of the inside/outside teachers something that involved everyone directly. This took place at a teacher only day, which possibly gave a period of focused time for the dialogue. Both participants state that they found the experience really positive, and were amazed by the response of the teachers to engage with the model, while at the same time exploring the topic: It was very intense I think [ ] but it got everybody on board, really thinking about what the procedure involves and we were able to nut out and unpack a little bit more, and reflect on it which I think was really, really good, without making anybody feel threatened or anything like that [CM5, p. 2]. (Several other participant groups in the research also talked about a desire to engage in what they called meaty or substantial dialogue.) Ria and Lana discuss the participation of the team: I felt like everybody contributed [ ] and felt like they could contribute [ ] which is always a very big positive when you ve got a reasonably big group [CM5, p. 4]. Later in the coaching and mentoring session, this is expanded when Lana says: and because it wasn t personal they didn t feel [ ] too shy to say something about that, [ ] like they were having a dig at that person. None of that was there; it was about the outcome that we wanted for the children at the end of the day This is an important statement, because it depicts the outcome orientation. Ria adds, we ended up with four or five totally, like radically [ ] rewritten duties that are absolutely child focused [CM5, p. 5]. This conversation suggests that the duties might have been an issue causing some friction within the team; although not stated openly, it seems possible that some of this falls into the category of undiscussable contradictions, i.e., those that no-one is prepared to voice, in the interests of maintaining respectful relationships. Conversely one might argue that not talking about problems is not respectful. The focus on the desired outcome quality for children describes a strategy for keeping the group on task, and is a feature of activity theory. The words totally and radically reinforce the depth of the change being discussed. Together with the number of duties rewritten to include a child focus, they suggest that this system has been expanded at the practice level. Ria and Lana s reflection on the process of leading the group, using third generation activity theory, suggests that the activity system of leadership also has been expanded Ria and Lana have appropriated a new tool that makes their leadership more effective. As they 96

ExpanDing pedagogical leadership continue the conversation with the facilitator, they reflect on how the tool has enabled the teachers and given them a voice. Because the teachers have been part of something done as a collective, they become accountable for implementing the change [CM5, p. 6]. This suggests a redistribution of power moving away from the individual towards a collective responsibility. It also brings the leadership strategy into alignment with their embodied philosophy of shared responsibility. Struggling with the lack of this alignment is possibly what leads to lack of leadership confidence. Some participants used third generation activity theory as a conceptual tool that enabled them to begin a more difficult conversation. Letitia, a leader who had 20 years experience but had never been on a leadership course, went to a workshop on courageous conversations during the project. In coaching and mentoring session 2, she discusses the impact of the conceptual tools from the other course, and how third generation activity theory becomes another tool that she can use to frame up the conversation: When you come up to a situation where something s happened, an altercation s happened and you have to have a courageous conversation, it s still quite difficult how you re going to word that, where triangle land gives you the way, this is how you get it... [CM2, p. 3]. Many of the participants became aware that their role was to raise the contradiction, but also to bring it to the group for solution. Coaching and mentoring session 2 helped to unpack the notion of the outcome. Julia says and remembering that we don t have to have all the answers, and the more we can just get ideas from everybody [...] that s involved, the more likely you are to have a good outcome, to which Lee responds you often think that as the leader it s up to you isn t it, to come up with all the ideas and the answers [CM2, p. 9]. Of relevance to this study is the way that activity theory goes further than simply stimulating discussion, by supporting leaders to ask different sorts of questions. This is crucial to redistributing leadership. Conclusion In the findings we have evidence of changes in leadership actions that can be attributed to the appropriation and externalisation of third generation activity theory. In this chapter, we have discussed four ways in which participants, as pedagogical leaders in their centres, expanded their understanding and practice of leadership. In some instances, these may constitute flickers of understanding that represent moments of struggle and breakthrough within and against the pervasiveness of existing beliefs. But in others, participants demonstrated deeply embedded and consistent practice that indicates deep change toward mastery of the model. As noted previously, the challenge for leaders most often mentioned in the needs analysis data was staff dynamics, managing personalities and working with diversity within teams. As the emphasis changed from the challenges they mentioned in the needs analysis interviews, it is no surprise that participants who engaged with third generation activity theory found it to be a useful model for dealing with contradiction and tension within teams. In the next chapter we further explore the findings set out across all three chapters above, by linking these to the research questions of the study and the objectives we set ourselves. 97

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education CHAPTER 7: Discussion and conclusions: Working in the shared zone Introduction This chapter begins by revisiting the coaching and mentoring methodology, before discussing the findings of this study in relation to the research questions and objectives of the project. We conclude with considering some of the implications of the study. The focus of this research and development project has been pedagogical leadership. It is centrally concerned with learning a model (third generation activity theory) and appropriating this as a tool with the potential to transform leadership practices. The model is premised on the methodology of expansive learning (and its theoretical foundations and assumptions). At the outset of the project, we saw this model as having considerable potential for reconceptualising and supporting effective leadership practice in early childhood settings. The methodology was actively taught to participants as a tool that allows for both continual change and shared understandings of social practices such as teaching and learning. A major assumption underpinning the project was related to the knowledge of those who assume designated leadership positions in early childhood settings in Aotearoa/ New Zealand. We assumed that while they are knowledgeable about theories of child development, they are unlikely to have an explicit theory of adult development. Our approach to leadership is similar to that of Hard (2006), who writes perhaps the essence of the term leadership revolves around the notion of creating positive change in organisations (p. 40). Leaders in this project were, in effect, taught a methodology of change, through supporting the teaching team to collectively solve problems (contradictions), or to move them along through a collective zone of proximal development. The focus was on the group and not the individual (as explored in previous chapters). The model enables pedagogical leaders to identify factors that afford and constrain effective pedagogical leadership. We chose to work with designated leaders, as this is currently the usual structural way of carrying out leadership associated with the division of labour in early childhood settings. Two key research questions and five objectives guided this project: 1. How can pedagogical leadership in early childhood settings in Aotearoa/New Zealand be transformed through knowledge and understanding of expansive learning theory? 98

Discussion and Conclusions: Working in the shared zone 2. How can kaupapa Māori pedagogy and leadership be informed and enhanced by expansive learning theory? These research questions arose from the four aims identified in the introductory chapter, which were operationalised through the following objectives: 1. To trial a methodology that has the potential to support and extend pedagogical leadership in early childhood centres/services 2. To explore possible alignment between pedagogical leadership in kaupapa Māori settings, kaupapa Māori research and expansive learning theory. The project s objectives for the participants were that they would: 3. learn a framework for identifying factors that afford and constrain pedagogical leadership in their early childhood centre/service 4. develop strategies to lead and develop the pedagogical practice of their teams in systematic and focused ways 5. develop confidence and a sense of self efficacy as pedagogical leaders. In this chapter we return to the research questions and objectives of the project and discuss these in the light of our findings and interpretations. Before doing so, however, we revisit third generation activity theory as our tool for mediating leadership at both a conceptual and an activity level, and describe how our project attempted to work a shared space between participants and ourselves as facilitators/coaches to create a jointly constructed object (Engeström, 2001, p. 136). Third generation activity theory as a mediating tool for leadership The first principle of third generation activity theory described by Engeström (2001) makes the prime unit of analysis [the] collective, artefact mediated and object-oriented activity system, seen in its network relations to other activity systems (p. 136). In terms of our project, this can be expressed as the intersection between the coaching and mentoring workshops as a system of activity and the participant s centre as another system, as illustrated in Figure 5 below. Each of these systems has complementary components (rules, tools, division of labour, etc.) specific to each context and situation. Engeström (2001) notes that there are multiple systems and interactions that impact on any one system. At a very basic systems level, the coaching and mentoring sessions/workshops can be thought of as one system; and the education and care centre as another. In terms of leadership, both systems share the joint outcome of quality leadership in early childhood education. It is at this point, where the two systems attempt to create a boundary zone, that shared meaning and purpose is negotiated. The facilitator used the model of third generation activity theory as a tool to structure and mentor the leader-participants from the centre system. Her task or object was to support pedagogical leaders to use the model of third generation activity theory. The object/task of the subjects in the centre system (i.e., our leader participants) was to surface or expose contractions to bring to the coaching and mentoring sessions for discussion. Thus each system was working on a common task, but from a different context. 99

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education The introduction of third generation activity theory became a disturbance (Capper Williams, 2004) in the centre system, and this in turn exposed contradictions for the leaders to work on, becoming the joint objective or task in the coaching and mentoring sessions. Figure 5 is a model of the centre after intervention by the pedagogical leader. Mediating artifacts: Centre situation and context. Existing leadership tools new tools which include third generation activity theory Subject: Pedagogical leaders as leaders of groups of teachers Pedagogical leaders as part of this system Object: Transforming pedagogical leadership using the model Outcome: Effective pedagogical leadership Rules: I we. Thinking and acting from individual the collective Community: Parents, whānau, wider ECE community and beyond Division of Labour: Traditional status and roles Everyone is a leader, power and decision making is shared Figure 5. The education and care centre after intervention Holding the notion of a shared space and a shared or jointly constructed object, we move on to discuss our findings as presented in the previous three chapters. We begin by addressing our second research question, that of the alignments between kaupapa Māori and expansive learning theory. How can kaupapa Māori pedagogy, leadership and expansive learning theory inform and enhance each other? Kua mārama: Do you understand? Nuku had lain on her belly facedown for so long, she knew not of what had become of her after the darkness had become light. In her deep sleep she heard chanting, the spirit world calling her, inciting her to awaken. Lips quivering, body cold, she felt 100

Discussion and Conclusions: Working in the shared zone alone, but knew that she was not. Wondering if she was alive, she could hear voices talking but not to her, their language foreign. Did they know she was there amongst them, did they see her, know her? The light blinded her senses with a constant throbbing pain throughout her body dulling them further, falling in and out of consciousness; she had a vague sense of crossing between worlds. Light faded into darkness, back to light. Nuku resisted the light seeking the comfort of the dark, she felt safe there. Something stirred deep in her gut, heaving, she rolled onto her back. For a long while she lay with her face turned upward to the sky. After what seemed forever, she woke to the kiss of light rain. A new born child squirmed at her side, the blood colour of red earth dry on his skin, on her. They had entered the world of light. This excerpt draws from the analogy of Te Ao Mārama. It will have aspects of familiarity for some, less so for others. It speaks of new beginnings to an ancient legacy. The writing expresses a sense of comfort in the world as we know it, and a sense of apprehension in facing new experiences, of crossing into other worlds. Sometimes the learning may give a sense of being foreign, but at the same time be recognised as familiar, thus resonating for the participants as they grappled with new concepts associated with activity theory. Their experience is consistent with the struggle of learning inherent in any meaningful learning process; as explored by Vygotsky through the use of the term perezhivanie (Edwards, 2010). From a Māori view of the world, whanaungatanga is the basis of all things. Everything is based on our relationships with each other and with the world, everything is connected. Whanaungatanga is central to our knowing of the world as it creates our place in the world. As we are born from the darkness of the whare tangata into the world of light, we constantly seek understanding of how we interact and connect with others. Just as third generation activity theory provides a tool in which to continually move forward as a system, aspects of Māori ways of being and doing in working as a collective hold similarities. The central theme here is the relationship of kaupapa Māori to pedagogical leadership. Within this context, kaupapa Māori is defined as the principle of whanaungatanga. The project s findings have established that there are some clear synergies between kaupapa Māori, leadership and expansive learning theory, in that there is alignment between the foundational concepts of each, and the notion of systems of activity. Basically, it is the notion of the collective and collective ways of being and doing that provide the foundation for this claim. As suggested in the data, Māori cultural practices and ways of working as a collective (marae) align with activity theory s view of systems as substantially mediating consciousness within groups. Although marae 3 are given as the example of collective ways of being as drawn from the data, the roles and responsibilities exemplified within kaupapa Māori driven initiatives in education also support this claim. Similarities around collective being were also experienced within the Pasifika centres in the project. 3 Māori who live in communities situated around marae will be familiar with at least two of the key nodule points in the model, the division of labour and the rules. The division of labour considers who does what, but is also considered within the concept of mahitahi interpreted as working as one. As discussed earlier, the division of labour relates to the roles and responsibilities involved with marae activity; everyone has a role and responsibility in how the marae functions, from performing the rituals of cultural protocols to washing the dishes. While the roles are quite distinct in the different areas of whare hui and whare kai, both roles require ongoing and continuous systems of activity. This requires a high level of commitment and responsibility on everyone s part. 101

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education Although there has been a sense of knowingness from the beginning of the project that there is a specific link between kaupapa Māori/Te Ao Māori/Māori leadership and pedagogical leadership, the project provides tangible examples of this. The basis of pedagogical leadership is about collective strength and ways of working, shared responsibilities, advancement and positive outcomes, thus connecting clearly with kaupapa Māori. In Te Ao Māori, the importance of relationships is held in high regard (Mane, 2009). While whanaungatanga is traditionally concerned with genealogical links of kinship, in current times it is also used in describing other relationships (Durie, 1997; Ritchie Rau, 2006), such as those held by groupings of people working together to support a common goal or purpose. Whanaungatanga is also drawn from the notion of collective being. Implicit within this notion are the concepts of manaaki (care/share) and tautoko (support/ encourage/stand by). Essentially the practical action of whanaungatanga is committed to shared responsibilities and working in collective ways. We argue that a strong base of whanaungatanga sets the conditions for pedagogical leadership. This in turn makes the tool of third generation activity theory so promising for enacting pedagogical leadership, because when the model can be woven into existing conceptual worlds to help unpack how whanaungatanga works (or should work) in a centre setting, where it operationalises the concept of whanaungatanga. How can pedagogical leadership in early childhood settings in Aotearoa/New Zealand be transformed through knowledge and understanding of expansive learning theory? We have suggested (in Chapter 6) that through this project, pedagogical leaders made sense of themselves within and against their developing understanding of expansive learning theory in four ways: by working more systematically; by gaining a framework for bringing contradictions to consciousness; by redistributing knowledge and decision making across the collective; and by having a tool for leading pedagogical dialogue in their centres. Underpinning each of these is how all participants were able to make sense of activity theory as a tool for understanding the centre as a system collectively focused on the achievement of shared objects. Our analysis suggests that this understanding was achieved by participants at different points in the research and development project, and was due to a range of motivations and opportunities. For some it was more noticeable and recurring than for others. For example (see Chapter 5), when participants faced a pressing situation in their centre, this appeared to propel them toward use of the model. We note that such examples were mostly recounted by leaders who were less experienced than those with many years of leadership under their belts. Letitia, an experienced leader as defined by number of years, was looking forward to enacting the model, but her opportunity to do so was removed due to her resignation from the centre. At the end of the programme, Lottie, another highly experienced leader, was keenly looking forward to a disturbance (in the form of a new parent who is hearing impaired) which would provide an authentic challenge to her as a leader and to the collective. These examples underscore the complexity of professional 102

Discussion and Conclusions: Working in the shared zone learning and its context dependent and situated nature (Edwards, 2000, 2009), coupled with the motivation to change. No judgement is made here; as Derrida (in Biesta Egeá- Kuehne, 2001) reminds us, understanding is elusive and misunderstanding is undervalued as a way of knowing in Western views of knowledge. The stories told in previous chapters are strongly suggestive of transformations having taken place both in participants understandings of pedagogical leadership, and practices and within their centres as systems of activity. While questions might be asked about the extent of this transformation, we are wary of highlighting one dyad s achievement over another, given the relationship between personal and contextual factors in learning and thus development. Each of the centres involved (as represented through their participants) were in various places developmentally and were working on a range of developmental tasks as a collective, always within broader contexts and systems that might impact synchronously with their outcomes and shared tasks, or discontinuously with them. For example, one of the centres involved in our project had recently restructured and had two relatively inexperienced leaders at the helm. Due to illness in the centre over the winter period and some financial difficulties related to recent government changes in funding, this centre had difficulty enabling both leaders to attend all workshops and coaching sessions. This situation appeared to impact negatively on their engagement in the project. At the conclusion of the previous chapter we suggested that many of our participants achieved flickers of understanding, as externalised through the stories they recounted in coaching and mentoring sessions (a number of which are illustrated within this report). It was not the purpose of this project to deduce whether these flickers translated into deeply embedded, consistent change or transformation. What we discuss here is how these constitute significant indications of transformations in the developing consciousness of leaders as active agents in their centres. We do this within the framework provided by the objectives for this project. Objective 1: Trialling a methodology In replicating the Melbourne project (Nuttall, 2013a) as an intervention-based research study, we hypothesised that pedagogical leadership could be enhanced through the appropriation of knowledge and theoretical tools associated with expansive learning theory (which itself sits within the theoretical perspective of cultural historical activity theory or CHAT). In turn, it was suggested, this would support leaders to engage with colleagues in change conversations in order to improve teaching and learning in their centres. Within the model of third generation activity theory, these conversations are structured so that the focus is on the object (or task) at hand, through a systematic analysis of the components of the activity system. Tasks are not static but dynamic, and have the potential for being expanded through a shared and collective process. Central to this process is the identification of contradictions which are potentially generative provided they are brought to consciousness and actively worked on (Nuttall, in press-b, n.p.). Professional conversations are therefore not simply a descriptive event in terms of what happened, but how it was that it happened. They are structured around the methodology of activity theory, providing participants with a systematic and focused way to enact leadership practice, while drawing on the intellectual and cultural capital of the collective. 103

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education We saw this in Felicity s excerpt in the previous chapter, where she had become more proactive in having conversations on topics that she revealed she may have tried to avoid for a bit longer in the past. She talks about being able to confront tensions and challenge them as an effect of being in our programme. Felicity s experience was widespread in our data. This resonates with the studies undertaken by Cardno and Reynolds (2009), where they found that leadership dilemmas were difficult to recognise and/or acknowledge or articulate, and that the ability to confront these was often obscured by a host of avoidance strategies on the part of managers and leaders. We have ample evidence for how participants at various stages across the project, furnished with their developing knowledge of third generation activity theory, carried out change conversations at times when they may have not previously known how to proceed effectively. Louise in Chapter 5 provides one such example, as she uses the framework of activity theory to confidently focus her colleagues on the situation (task). One of the keys to our programme was the way in which participants themselves brought to the learning process the situations they desired to confront and challenge. With the exception of a few early examples generated in the Melbourne project (Nuttall, 2013a) as starting points, all other examples derived from the lived experiences of the participants. Korthagen (2001) argues that teachers professional development is not so much grounded in knowing more, but in perceiving more in the practical contexts in which one has to teach (p. 71). Our data suggests that participants have expressed perceiving more with the mediated support of the tool. From this perspective, coming to understand activity theory and to enact it as leaders was encountered as a relational endeavour inextricably linked to the practices of teachers and to the messy lived world of participants. Objective 2: Exploring possible alignments Kaupapa Māori is defined within the project from the principle of whanaungatanga. Specifically, alignment to activity theory and expansive learning theory is essentially concerned with the collective mechanism and power of relationships and the roles and responsibilities held within this. As the kaupapa Māori centre (outside the kaupapa Māori cluster) makes the connection that the division of labour is where the power sits, this highlights that the power is in itself the division of labour, as it represents the collective. From a Māori view, the division of labour is the strength of the collective; a viewpoint also shared by Leont ev (in Engeström, 2001). This recognition is further raised by participants in the kaupapa Māori cluster as they make sense of how the model works as a system and the roles and responsibilities involved in the workings of the collective. The division of labour is the immediate point of recognition for Māori participants, in that it reflects the collective responsibilities akin to living as part of Māori communities. These concepts also have familiarity for non-māori in the cluster, as they live and work in highly populated Māori communities. While the claim of whanaungatanga as pedagogical leadership, made earlier, is upheld in this argument as a fundamental aspect of Māori pedagogical leadership, we suggest that this needs to be further explored. The case study provides different levels of understanding of activity theory through use of Engeström s model throughout the programme; as it also shows different examples of how participants have taken up the model. Some of these scenarios also relay barriers to taking up the model. Issues of resistance and breakthrough are a strong thread throughout the findings chapters, particularly for the kaupapa Māori cluster. At a theoretical level, when 104

Discussion and Conclusions: Working in the shared zone centres resist appropriating the model, analysis based on the model itself suggests that their object is to maintain the status quo. However, not liking the model does not mean that the model cannot be used to analyse their system. There is some evidence that the kaupapa Māori cluster were hoping for a distinctively Māori model, but clearly some of the pedagogical leaders broke through this resistance by adapting the given tool for a better cultural fit. This is a classic example of double stimulation: they did not simply take on the model unproblematically, but rather grappled with it, adapted it, and gave it a go. This means they are likely to have strong appropriation of its principles. Thus, the current study confirmed alignment of kaupapa Māori to activity theory and expansive learning theory, especially in recognition of how concepts of the model relate to the practical application of Māori systems of activity. Objective 3: Learn a framework Blackler (1993) suggests that activity theory offers a powerful package of ideas (p. 875). While he is suggesting these are useful for expanding understanding of organisation theory, participants found (as did we) that the package of ideas contained within activity theory and its relationship with expansive learning theory was similarly powerful for expanding understanding of pedagogical leadership. For example, in Cilla and Jenny s story in Chapter 5, each gets an insight into how their discomfort with conflict works in a contradictory way with their desire for team work (as the dominant mediating tool for enactment of their leadership practices). In another example, Tuulaki and Fane, in wanting to shift their centre leadership structure towards a distributed one, surfaced their colleagues anxiety about what might happen if they raised tensions or contradictions (see Chapter 6). These examples are each linked to one of the key principles of activity theory: the central role that contradictions play as potential sources of change and development (Engeström, 2001). As discussed in Chapter 5, participants responded to this principle in a range of ways. However, all came to understand that for them as pedagogical leaders, a wealth of potential learning exists within this feature, and their ability (and willingness) to surface and work with contradiction (or tension, disturbance, dilemma) in their centres. In Chapter 6 we explored how participants frequently mentioned that gaining an understanding of bringing contradictions to consciousness was a significant outcome of their learning in this project. This feature may well be one of the most significant pieces of learning for participants, given that staff dynamics was the most frequently cited challenge to leadership mentioned by them at the outset of this project. This is consistent with others findings (Reynolds Cardno, 2008). Pedagogical leaders now have a systematic way to address tension (dynamics) in their centre. Staff dynamics was said to be at the centre of the situation described in Chapter 6 by Ella, where a tension building between two teachers was addressed systematically by her. The package of ideas (tools) that activity theory offers participants constitutes a set of affordances that appeared to enhance aspects of their pedagogical leadership. Jenny s story of how she had patiently but unsuccessfully waited for members of her teaching team to stop leaving the door to the kitchen open is an example of how pedagogical leadership was not able to address this tension effectively before applying the tools of activity theory. Conversely, participants also began to understand factors that constrain pedagogical leadership. The principle of seeing the centre as a collective, artefact-mediated and 105

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education object orientated activity system (Engeström, 2001, p. 136) shifted the locus of control from the individual to the collective, both in terms of where (most) problems of practice lie, and where solutions are to be found. As discussed in Chapters 5 and 6, this notion resonated strongly with participants. The reasons were not explored with them, but we have hypothesised it is possibly related to their comments about staff dynamics, and how interpersonal relationships may be a constant source of tension in early childhood education. Hard s (2006) work on leadership surfaced a lingering discourse of niceness (p. 44) as an effect of notions of team work shaping leaders views of themselves. Robinson s (2007) study of early childhood teachers discourses of teaching found that they reflect the physically and emotionally intense nature of the work of early childhood teaching,: The relentless responsiveness and the intense nature of the relationships put immense demands on the psychological and emotional resources of teachers (p. 89). Robinson is critical of what she terms the team player discourse [as it] serves to keep the teacher doing the work, responding to others (p. 89). A focus on individuals came to be understood by many participants to be unproductive and a potential source of constraint on the work of the team or the collective. Other evidence suggests that participants have begun to understand how holding systematic, focused conversations is central to their pedagogical leadership, because staying task focused allows objects to be more thoughtfully appraised and understood by the collective. These conversations need to be carefully facilitated, but leaders have begun to see that they are not required to have all the answers, and to understand the benefit of drawing on the collective consciousness of the group. Objective 4: Developing strategies to lead This objective is linked to our aim of empowering leaders to build positive teaching and learning cultures in their settings, based on collective actions, by adapting the model in the professional learning programme. In Chapter 6 we discuss how participant data strongly suggests that participants experienced a systematic process for leading pedagogical discussions and for addressing persistent problems of practice. This began in the early stages of the project, by showing participants how to map their centres as systems of activity, identify contradictions, and plan for and carry out changes in their settings. All of these are done within the framework of an activity theory approach to the centre as a system, rather than as a collection of individuals. Louise s example in Chapter 5 is pertinent here: she could have made the baby slipping off the changing table an issue of one person s ineptitude, but instead recognised it for its potential to expand everyone s understanding of the task. In doing so, she surfaced a contradiction between the tools and rules. As she says, this situation exercised her leadership capabilities and she derived satisfaction from nailing it. What is not highlighted in that piece is how she also had to talk with the baby s mother. This potentially difficult conversation was made clearer for Louise through her systematic way of addressing the event previously with the teachers. We also coached participants to expand objects (tasks) through facilitating dialogue and drawing on the multi-voicedness (Engeström, 2001) of the immediate group and of their community. Eleazar s narrative in Chapter 6 shows how this became part of her foundational framework for leadership, as does Julia s comment about getting ideas from everybody. As for Lana and Ria s teacher-only day addressing job descriptions (Chapter 4), it is very likely that this may well turn out to expand the system, given the significantly changed job descriptions that came about as a collective shared task. 106

Discussion and Conclusions: Working in the shared zone Objective 5: Develop confidence and self efficacy We predicted that developing leaders confidence and sense of self efficacy would be related to our intervention based professional learning programme, built largely around the double stimulation strategy. In essence, we taught participants to map their centres as systems of activity in relation to specific tasks, which they identified, and then to identify contradictions that were obstructing the achievement of those tasks. This was the subject of early coaching and mentoring sessions, as we supported participants on how to do this. Through this process, participants identified with components of the model and used it as a new conceptual tool to aid their ability to foster pedagogical change in their settings. Eleazar s story of how she addressed her own culturally-based feelings and her emerging identity as a pedagogical leader (Chapter 6) is powerfully illustrative of her having developed a sense of confidence and self-efficacy through appropriating the tool of activity theory. This initially takes place through the shared space of the coaching and mentoring session, but is followed up by Eleazar, with her manager, acting on her new knowledge (tool). Tones of confidence and increased self-efficacy can be detected within many of the narratives recounted in this report. We conclude that the tool of third generation activity theory, coupled with the principles of expansive learning theory, while at times difficult to appropriate (as evidenced by stories of resistance and breakthrough), significantly contributed to providing participants with a new, potentially powerful way to frame their practice as pedagogical leaders. However, we also attribute this outcome to the structure of the professional learning programme, which supported and enabled participants to be empowered and agentic within it and to actively engage as learners. We turn now to a brief discussion of the key elements of the professional learning programme as they relate to participants narratives of confidence, before identifying some implications arising from the study. The professional learning model Four key features of our professional learning model stand out as significant in how participants engaged with the model and took up the tool. These are: (1) using teachers thinking as a starting point; (2) the importance of understanding teachers contexts including their real issues; (3) the importance of a trusting and caring environment; and (4) challenging normative notions of development. Using teachers thinking as a starting point This feature highlights the importance of working with teachers theories and beliefs, rather than seeing teachers as having a gap needing to be filled an approach which can result in new ideas sliding away. Over ten years ago, Wood and Bennett (2000) noted that there is an extensive stock of empirical data which attests to the effectiveness of achieving meaningful change by addressing teachers existing knowledge, beliefs and practices (p. 636). This shift reflects changes in the sociology of knowledge, together with shifts to a more socially constructed view of knowledge (Blackler, 1993). More recently, Suzie Edwards (2007) has discussed the importance of teachers existing cultural capital as an essential ingredient for professional learning, as well as opportunities for reflexivity; both of these enable teachers to be actively present and engaged with the learning and change process. This reflexivity is seen throughout the data shared in this report. 107

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education In this project there were understandably struggles and points of resistance as participants wrestled with new ideas, problematizing existing beliefs around, for example, the notion of contradiction. A back and forth motion, with a sense of disequilibrium, was part of the process. Cilla is able to express her existing beliefs and attitudes to conflict in the vivid phrase, the monster under the peace (see Chapter 5). In this scenario, both she and Jenny are able to reflect on their existing views of conflict, alongside an alternate view. Each problematises their existing beliefs and begins to reconceptualise them. It is important that professional learning initiatives provide opportunities for leaders to explain their ideas/thoughts and to have them acknowledged and respected. Wood and Bennett (2000) talk about teachers moving through three stages of professional learning. First, they bring their personal and informal theories to awareness; second, they problematise their practice; and lastly, they reconceptualise practice. This sequence allows tacit knowledge to be surfaced as a basis for investigating professional practice and changing or improving it. While this pattern was experienced by participants and was thus able to be identified within the data, it is not a smooth process. The length of the programme (spread over six months) enabled this sequence to be experienced across multiple opportunities. The importance of understanding teachers contexts, including their real issues This is supported in the professional learning literature on how change is generated when teachers have opportunities to work with real issues. This feature is aligned to the notion of knowledge as socially constructed and, importantly, as situated. The professional learning initiative appreciated the context of the participants work, and sought to understand their practice in that context. The project foregrounded teachers practice and created space for teachers to share stories about practice in both the workshops and the coaching and mentoring sessions. Furthermore, participants chose their own issues to work on. This enabled each participant s own issues to drive the learning process. As stated in Chapter 5, we found that many of our leaders were faced with urgent and demanding situations at work which required them to take the lead. These were the very situations whereby take up of the model appeared to have more resonance for some than for others. In Chapter 6, Eva, for example, is clearly focused and motivated to address a real issue: I m focused on the issue and what we need to progress it. Furthermore, take up of the model was speeded by the urgency of real issues, i.e., felt need. For Edwards (2009), [b]roadly speaking the focus is on understanding his/her practice. Ord (2010) argues that knowledge is not something applied to practice, but rather is located in practices in a dynamic way. Teachers (in her case student teachers) want to situate new knowledge in the context of practice, as this allows an interpretive context in which to try new knowledge. Similarly Edwards (2000, pp. 16 17, cited in Edwards, 2009a, p. 84) argues that research needs to be embedded in the practical-knowledge of the community of practitioners and [to] inform practitioners ways of seeing and being as they carry out their work. Tammy s personal example of finding a contradiction (Chapter 5) is illustrative here, as she sought to access a real context for understanding this term. 108

Discussion and Conclusions: Working in the shared zone The importance of a trusting and caring environment Recently Grey (2011) has written about the importance of a trusting and caring environment as a condition for critical inquiry and dialogue about teaching practice. This takes account of the subjective or interpretive nature of practice, which accords with the notion of mediation, whereby participants must actively construct understandings that are initially accessed in the social realm. In reference to her study of professional dialogue, Grey talks about how sharing ideas can arouse anxiety for participants. She gives a number of reasons for this, e.g., feeling that others are more experienced, feeling anxious that their practice may be found wanting, feeling anxious that others may be upset, or feeling anxious that their ideas may be misinterpreted and judged negatively. Grey says that for teachers to be motivated to participate, they must be able to perceive that the gain of participating outweighs any initial discomfort and anxiety (p. 25). Participants in this study seemed to trust that they could express their ideas and feelings safely. The recruitment of two participants from each centre was a deviation from the Melbourne project (Nuttall, 2013a); while it was mostly conceived to overcome a sense of loneliness (as discussed in Chapter 3) and to foster the ability to work jointly on the project with a colleague, it may well have played a part in participants feelings of trust. Tammy s example (Chapter 5) of linking the model to her personal life and her relationship with her partner, thus bringing affective elements into the learning, conveys how the project took a holistic view of participants that included an acknowledgement of their other lives outside the centres. Elsewhere Jenny talks about being a solo mum [CM 5, p. 20] and how this makes her very independent and self-sufficient [CM 5, p. 21]. She believes that this has a bearing on how she is as a leader. Participants are able to be honest in other ways too: I feel guilty but I still can t think of things that relate to [contradiction] (Chapter 5). The tensions and breakthroughs experienced by leaders in each cluster support the notion that professional learning initiatives respond to the emotional and intellectual development (Fleet Patterson, 2001, p. 3) of teachers. Authenticity was upheld through this programme, and participants appeared to feel able to tackle problems of practice. One dyad was worried that it was a bit like hanging their dirty washing out, but this did not appear to be widespread. Arguably this idea of trust is also paramount in relation to surfacing tensions/contradictions for Māori and Pasifika leaders in the project. Similarly, Tuulaki in her role as pedagogical leader reassures her team they will not be seen in a negative light if they report tensions/ contradictions (Chapter 5). Across our clusters, we applied the principle of manaakitanga and accordingly each Workshop provided refreshments as suitable to the time of day. Appropriate cultural protocols were observed in order to be inclusive. Challenging normative notions of development The last feature of professional learning that appears to have had a positive impact on participants sense of confidence and self-efficacy is related to challenging normative assumptions of (adult) development, and foregrounding social and cultural diversity. The normative view of adult development is challenged by this professional learning initiative. The project s perspective reflects professional learning as acknowledging diversity and difference. The kaupapa Māori cluster specifically set out to recruit Māori, while the other clusters had provisions in the selection criteria to recruit a diverse range of participants. When professional learning initiatives take such an approach, space is created for differing 109

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education viewpoints. Whilst the content and sequence of workshops was similar across clusters, each cluster and each centre participant negotiated their responses in their own idiosyncratic ways. The selection and use of data at times specifically aimed to highlight this diversity. We conclude from the data that a culturally diverse group of pedagogical leaders found that third generation activity theory has potential to transform their leadership practices through take up of the model. In particular it affords the surfacing of contradictions and tensions, including tensions of colonisation, language, identity and culture. Implications of the study In this section we raise five implications arising from this study: 1. NZCA procedures for researching with Māori 2. Opportunities for early childhood centres to participate/engage in research/pd 3. Future research by NZCA as a follow up study to evaluate sustainability 4. Collaborative research projects 5. Professional learning opportunities 1. NZCA procedures for researching with Māori The alignment between kaupapa Māori, activity theory and expansive learning theory is highlighted in this study, based firmly from the position of the collective. As discussed in different areas of this report, the place of Māori needs to be integral to any initiative that considers its role in upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi relationships and responsibilities. Several recommendations are made here to ensure that the aspirations of tangata whenua are explicit within future research endeavours. The involvement of the Māori Research Advisory Group is a key learning from this project. Retaining the role of a Māori Research Advisory Group is one way of ensuring the future direction of research within the organisation, as it adds rigour to the overall quality of the projects. The specific task of creating a kaupapa Māori research space within future Flagship research projects is further recommended. As key aspects of this project focus on transformational change in which to create the conditions for pedagogical leadership based on the understanding of systems as collectives, the positioning of kaupapa Māori within early childhood research is critical to reflecting the realities of Māori as tangata whenua. While there has been considerable research undertaken in the sector (such as this current study) that is positioned as bicultural or alternatively based within treaty relationships, we need to ensure the distinct voice of Māori is heard on their/our own terms and in their/our own ways. Other than the few examples drawn on in the literature review, where is this voice, the authentic, indigenous voice of Māori to be heard across early childhood education? While only briefly noted in the report, the roles of expansive learning theory and activity theory as decolonising artefacts require further exploration. The specific role of research as a decolonising artefact is important to future research undertaken within Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa/New Zealand Childcare Association and the early childhood sector more generally. As discussed in different areas of this report, kaupapa Māori needs to be integral to any initiative that considers its role in upholding te Tiriti responsibilities. Retaining the Māori Research Advisory Group for all research is important to the future direction of Te 110

Discussion and Conclusions: Working in the shared zone Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa, as is the specific task of creating a Māori research space within future research developments. 2. Opportunities for early childhood centres to participate/ engage in research/professional learning A common theme expressed by participants within our project was the lack of leadership development opportunities they had experienced as leaders. This suggests that the situation discussed by Thornton et al. (2009) has not since significantly improved. Advocating for leadership development programmes needs to be an important feature of NZCA s advocacy role. 3. Future research by NZCA as a follow up study to evaluate sustainability The aim of the research was to trial a methodology with the potential to empower participants to implement a sustainable programme of pedagogical leadership in their centres. A future research project focused on ascertaining the longer term sustainability and development of the model is proposed. This follow-up evaluative research study needs to take an ethnographic approach, to ensure that it extends beyond interpretive and phenomenological accounts within self-report. 4. Collaborative research projects Our project is congruent with research that explores distributed leadership or focuses on dilemmas of leadership. Collaborating with researchers in each of these research platforms has the potential to build research partnerships. 5. Professional learning opportunities The six-month time-scale and intensive nature of the research and development project appeared to act favourably in terms of providing the time and relationship development needed to engage in new learning. An exciting implication for NZCA is the potential to offer this intervention-based professional learning programme to other pedagogical leaders within the early childhood sector. It is doubtful, however, that all centres have the resources to fund this form of professional learning, in the current climate of reduced central funding of early childhood centres/services. Given the link between leadership and quality early childhood education (Thornton, et al., 2009), this situation requires the political will to address it. Conclusion Findings indicate that expansive learning theory, incorporating third generation activity theory, offered a package of tools and affordances that participants were able to appropriate to enhance aspects of their pedagogical leadership. The pedagogical leaders in this study made sense of themselves within and against their developing understanding of expansive learning theory by: (1) working more systematically; (2) gaining a framework for bringing contradictions to consciousness; (3) redistributing knowledge and decision making across the collective; and (4) having a tool for leading pedagogical dialogue in their centre. 111

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education This intervention-based professional learning project confirms the potential of third generation activity theory as a tool to go further than simply stimulating discussion it supported the leaders in this project to ask different sorts of questions. Changes in leadership actions were directly attributed to the appropriation and externalisation of third generation activity theory. These leaders came to understand their centres as a system and not as a group of individuals and actively aligned themselves with the notion of playing the system, not the person. This, in turn, provided an affordance to draw on the professionalism and synergies of the collective. The study found clear evidence of alignments between pedagogical leadership in kaupapa Māori settings, kaupapa Māori research and the theory of expansive learning. In particular, the concept of whanaungatanga provides the context for pedagogical leadership. When pedagogical leaders operationalise whanaungatanga in league with third generation activity theory, the triangle model can be woven into their existing conceptual worlds as another useful tool to help leaders to unpack how whanaungatanga works in a centre. This has the potential to become pedagogical leadership at its best in this time and place. 112

References References Anae, M., Coxon, E., Mara, D., Wendt-Samu, Finau, C. (2001). Pasifika Education Research Guidelines. Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Backhurst, D. (2009). Reflections on activity theory. Educational Review. 61(2), 197-210. Baptiste, I. (2001). Qualitative data analysis: Common phases, Strategic Differences Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(3), Art. 22, Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114- fqs0103226. Barnes, H. (2000). Kaupapa Māori-explaining the ordinary. Auckland: Whariki Research Group, University of Auckland. Baron, W., Moir, E., Gless, J. (2005). A Support Program with Heart: The Santa Cruz Project. Santa Cruz: New Teacher Support Center/ Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Bary, R., Deans, C., Charlton, M., Hullett, H., Martin, F., Martin, L. (2008). Ako Ngatahi: Teaching and learning together as one: From leadership to enquiry: Teachers work in an infants and toddlers centre. Centre of Innovation report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington, New Zealand. Retrieved from http://www. educationcounts.govt.nz/data/assets/pdf_ file/0011/22601/massey_childcare_centre_coi. Final_Report.pdf Bell, N. (2011, December). Growing leadership in Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa/NZ Childcare Association. Wellington: NZCA. Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P. A., Harvey, J. A. (2003, Spring) Distributed leadership: A review of literature. Full report. Nottingham, UK: National College for School Leadership. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org.uk Bevan-Brown, J., Bourke, R., Butler, P., Carroll-Lind, J., Kearney, A., Mentis, M. (2011). Essential elements in a professional learning and development programme: A New Zealand case study of autism professional development to promote collaborative practices. Professional Development in Education, 1-16. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2011.637225 Biesta, G Egeá-Kuehne, D. (2001). Opening: Derrida and education. In G. Biesta D. Egeá- Kuehne (Eds.), Derrida education (pp. 1 12). London: Routledge. Bishop, R. (1996). Collaborative research stories: Whakawhanaungatanga. Palmerston North: Dunmore. Bishop, R. (1999). Kaupapa Māori research: An indigenous approach to creating knowledge. In N. Robertson. (Ed.), Māori and psychology: Research and practice (pp. 1 7). Hamilton: Māori and Psychology Research Unit. Bishop, R. Glynn, T. (1999). Culture counts: Changing power relations in education. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press. Blackler, F. (1993). Knowledge and the theory of organizations: Organizations as activity systems and the reframing of management. Journal of Management Studies, 30(6), 863-884. Blaise, M. (2009). Revolutionising practice by doing early childhood politically settings. In S. Edwards J. Nuttall (Eds.), Professional learning in early childhood settings (pp. 27 48). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Brennan, M. (2005). They just want to be with us. Young children: Learning to live the culture. A post-vygotskian analysis of young children s enculturation into a childcare setting. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand. Boyd, S. (2009). Spotlight on leadership. An interview with Professor Viviane Robinson. Early Childhood Folio, 13, 37-38. Burr, V. (2003). Social constuctivionism (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge. Burman, E. (2001). Beyond the baby and the bath water: Post-dualistic psychologies for diverse childhoods. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 9, 5-22. 113

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education Burman, E. (2008). Deconstructing developmental psychology (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge. Buysse, V., Winton, P., Rous, B. (2004). Reaching consensus on a definition of professional development for the early childhood field. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28(4), 235-243. Cannella, S. G. (1997). Deconstructing early childhood education: Social justice and revolution. NY: Peter Lang. Capper, P., Williams, B. (2004). Cultural-historical activity theory: Enhancing evaluation using systems concepts. Enhancing evaluation using systems concepts. Washington, DC: American Evaluation Association. Retrieved from: http:// users.actrix.co.nz/bobwill/activity.doc Cardno, C., Reynolds, B. (2009). Resolving leadership dilemmas in New Zealand kindergartens: an action research study. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(2), 206-226. Carter, M., Curtis, D. (2010). The visionary director. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press. Chilvers, D. (2011). Improving the quality of social work field education: The efficacy of an analysis using cultural-historical activity theory. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work Review, 23(4), 76-86. Clarkin-Phillips. J. (2007). Distributing the leadership: A case study of professional development. (Unpublished master s thesis). University of Waikato, Hamilton, NZ. Clarkin-Phillips. J. (2009). Distributed leadership. Utilising everyone s strengths. Early Childhood Folio, 13, 22-26. Cochran-Smith, M., Fries, K. (2005). Researching teacher education in changing times: Politics and paradigms. In M. Cochran-Smith K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education. The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Colburg, M., Glover, A., Rau, C., Ritchie, J. (2007). Indigenous peoples and perspectives in early childhood education. In L. Keesing-Styles H. Hedges (Eds.), Theorising early childhood practice: Emerging dialogue (pp. 137 161). Castle Hill, Australia: Pademelon Press. Colmer, K. (2008). Leading a learning organisation: Australian early years centres as learning networks. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 16(1), 107-115. Cullen, J. (2009). Adults co-constructing professional knowledge. In A. Anning, J. Cullen, M. Fleer (Eds.), Early childhood education (pp. 80 90). London: Sage. Dalli, C., White, E. J., Rockel, J., Duhn, I., with Buchan, E., Davidosn, S., Ganly, S., Kus, L., Wang, B. (2011). Quality early childhood education for under-two-year-olds: What should it look like? A literature review. Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Daniels, H., Edwards, A. (2010). Introduction. In H. Daniels, A. Edwards, Y. Engeström, T. Gallagher, S. R. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Activity theory in practice: Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies (pp. 1 24). London: Routledge. Day, P. (1994). Radio Years: A History of Broadcasting in New Zealand. Auckland: University Press in association with the Broadcasting History Trust, New Zealand. Denzin, N. K. (2001). Interpretive interactionism (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dunlop, A.W. (2008). A literature review on leadership in the early years. Retrieved from: educationscotland.gov.uk Durie, M. H. (1997). Whānau, whanaungatanga and healthy Māori development. In P. Te Whāiti, M. McCarthy, A. Durie (Eds.), Mai i rangiātea. Māori wellbeing and development (pp. 1 24). Auckland: Auckland University Press with Bridget Williams Books. Durie, M. (1998a). Te mana, te Kawantanga: The Politics of Māori self-determination. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Durie, M. (1998b). Whaiora, Māori Health Development. (2nd ed.). Auckland, NZ: Oxford University Press. Durie, M. (2012). Interview. Kaupapa Māori: Shifting the social. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies. He Hautaki Mātai Mātauranga o Aotearoa. Special Issue: He aha te kaupapa? Critical conversations in kaupapa Māori, 47(2), 21-29. Ebbeck, M. A., Waniganayake, M. (2003). Early childhood professionals: Leading today and tomorrow. Sydney, NSW: MacLennan Petty. ECE Taskforce. (2011). An agenda for amazing children. Final report of the ECE Taskforce. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Education Review Office. (2008). Māori children in early childhood: Pilot study July 2008. Wellington, New Zealand: Author. Education Review Office. (2010, August). Quality in early childhood services. Wellington: Author. Edwards, A. (2000). Looking at action research through the lenses of sociocultural research and activity theory. Educational Action Research, 8, 195-204. 114

References Edwards, A. (2004). Understanding context, understanding practice in early education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 12(1), 85-101. Edwards, S. (2007). From developmentalconstructivism to socio-cultural theory and practice: an expansive analysis of teachers professional learning in early childhood. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 5(83), 83-106. Edwards, S. (2009a). Beyond developmentalism. In S. Edwards J. Nuttall (Eds.), Professional learning in early childhood settings (pp. 81 95). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Edwards, A. (2009b). Agency and activity theory: From the systemic to the relational: relational agency and activity theory. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, K. D. Gutierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory. (pp. 197 211). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Edwards, A. (2010). How can Vygotsky and his legacy help us to understand and develop teacher education. In V. Ellis, A. Edwards, P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Cultural-historical perspectives on teacher education and development. Learning teaching. (pp. 63 77). Hoboken, NJ: Taylor Francis. Edwards, A., Collison, J. (1996). Mentoring and developing practice in primary schools. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Edwards, A., D Arcy, C. (2004). Relational agency and disposition in sociocultural accounts of learning to teach. Educational Review, 56(2), 147 155. Edwards, S., Nuttall, J. (2009). Professional learning in early childhood settings. In S. Edwards J. Nuttall (Eds.), Professional learning in early childhood settings (pp. 1 8). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Ellis, J. (2010). Studying the process of change. The double stimulation strategy in teacher education research. In V. Ellis, A. Edwards, P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Cultural-historical perspectives on teacher education and development. Learning teaching. (pp. 95 114). Hoboken, NJ: Taylor Francis. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to dev elopmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit. Engeström, Y. (1993). Engeström, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In S. Chaiklin J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 64 103). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at Work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 134-155. Engeström, Y. (2009). The future of activity theory: A rough draft. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, K. D. Gutierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory.(pp. 303 328). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., Sunito, A. (2002). Can a school community learn to master its own future? An activity-theoretical study of expansive learning among middle school teachers. In G. Wells G. Claxton. Learning for life in the 21st century: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Engeström, Y., Keosuo (2007). From workplace learning to inter-organizational learning and back: the contribution of activity theory. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19(6), 336-342. Eun, B. (2008). Making connections: Grounding professional development in the developmental theories of Vygotsky. The Teacher Educator, 43, 134-155. Feiman-Nemser, S., Norman, P. J. (2000). Teacher education: From initial preparation to continuing professional development. In B. Moon, M. Ben-Peretz, S. Brown (Eds.), Routledge international companion to education (pp. 732 755). London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. Fleer, M. (2001). Early childhood education as an evolving community of practice or as lived social reproduction? Researching the takenfor-granted. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 4(1), 64-79. Fleet, A., Patterson, C. (2001). Professional growth reconceptualised: Early childhood staff searching for meaning. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 3(2), 1-13. Fleet, A., Patterson, C. (2009). A timescape. In S. Edwards J. Nuttall (Eds.), Professional learning in early childhood settings (pp. 9 25). Rotterdam; Sense Publishers. Formosinho, J., Oliveira-Formosinho, J. (2005). National Professional Qualification in Integrated Centre leadership (NPQICL) pilot programme: An evaluative research study. Corby, UK: Pen Green Research Centre. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Middlesex, UK: Penguin Books. Freire, P. (1972). Cultural action for freedom. Cambridge: Harvard Educational Review. 115

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education Georgeson, J. (2009). The professionalisation of the early years force. In S. Edwards J. Nuttall (Eds.), Professional learning in early childhood settings (pp. 115 130). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Goble, C., Horn, D. (2010). Take charge. Young Children, 65, 86-91. Gonzalez-Mena, J., Eyer, D. W. (2012). Infants, toddlers and caregivers. A curriculum of respectful, responsive, relationship-based care and education. New York: McGraw-Hill. Grey, A. (2011). Professional dialogue as professional learning. New Zealand Journal of Teachers Work, 8(1), 21-32. Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership. In K. Leithwood, P. Hallinger, K. Seashore-Louis, G. Furman-Brown, P. Gronn, W. Mulford, K. Riley. (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration. Dordrecht:Kluwer. Guskey, T. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Guskey, T. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 381-391. Hard, L. (2006). Horizontal violence in early childhood education and care: implications for leadership enactment. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 31(3), pp. 40 48. Hashim, N., H. Jones, M. (2007, September). Activity theory: A framework for qualitative analysis. Paper presented at the 4th International Qualitative Research Convention (QRC). Malaysia. Hedges, H. (2010). Blurring the boundaries: Connecting research, practice and professional learning. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(3), 299-314. Heikka, J., Waniganayeke, M. (2011). Pedagogical leadership from a distributed perspective within the context of early childhood education. International Journal of leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 14(4), 499-512. Helterbran, V., Fennimore, B. (2004). Collaborative early childhood professional development: Building from a base of teacher investigation. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(4), 267-271. Henare-Solomona, R. (2011). Whakaaro rua. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Hohepa, M. K. (1999). Hei tautoko i te reo, Māori language regeneration and whānau bookreading practices. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. Hohepa, M., Jenkins, K. (2004). The Evaluation of Te Putahitanga Matauranga. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education. Hoskins, T. K. (2012). A fine risk: Ethics in kaupapa Māori politics. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 47(2), 86-99. Hoskins, T. K. (2013, 21 Feb). Faculty academics launch a new era for New Zealands s top educational journal. He aha te kaupapa. Retrieved from http://www.education.auckland. ac.nz/uoa/home/news/template/news_item. jsp?cid=549181 Howe, N., Jacobs, E., Vukelich, G., Recchia, H. (2012). In-service professional development and constructivist curriculum: Effects of quality of child care, teacher beliefs and interactions. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 57(4), 353-378. Irwin, K. (1988). Māori, Feminist, Academic. Sites, 17, 30-38. Isaac, P., Trodd, L. (2008). Sustaining leadership learning: the tutor and mentor voice on NPQICL. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 16(1), 39-52. Janesick, V. J. (2000). The choreography of qualitative research design: Minuets, improvisations, and crystallization. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2, 379-399. John, K. (2008). Sustaining the leaders of children s centres: The role of leadership mentoring. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 16(1), 53-66. Jones, A. (2012). Dangerous liaisons: Pākehā, kaupapa Māori, and educational research. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies. He Hautaki Mātai Mātauranga o Aotearoa. Special Issue: He aha te kaupapa? Critical conversations in kaupapa Māori, 47(2), 100-120. Jones, A., McCulloch, G., Marshall, J., Smith G. H., Smith, L. T. (1990). Myths and realities: Schooling in New Zealand. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press. Lambert, L. (2002). A Framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership. 59(8), pages 37-40. Laszlo, C. K. (2012). From systems thinking to systems being: The embodiment of evolutionary leadership, Journal of Organizational Transformation Social Change, 9(2), 95 108, doi: 10.1386/otsc.9.2.95_1 Lee, W. (2008). ELP: Empowering the leadership in professional development communities. European Early Childhood Research Journal, 16(1), 95-106. 116

References Luke, A., Luke, C., Mayer, D. (2000). Redesigning teacher education. Teaching Education, 11 (1), 5-11. Ka ai, T., Moorfield, J., Reilly, M., Mosley, S. (2004). Ki te whai ao: An introduction to Māori culture and society. Auckland, New Zealand: Pearson Education. Kaptelinin, V. (2005). The Object of Activity: Making Sense of the Sense-Maker. Mind, Culture and Activity, 12(1), 4-18. Kemmis, S. (2005). Knowing practice: Searching for saliences. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 13(3), 391-426. King, M. (1977). Te Ao Hurihuri The World Moves on: Aspects of Māoritanga. Wellington, New Zealand: Hicks Smith and Sons. Korthagen, F. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lind, P. (2009). New Zealand s early childhood education needs cohesive leadership. Media release, 10 July. Retrieved from http:// archive.teacherscouncil.govt.nz/news/media/ eceleadership.stm Mane, J. (2009). Pāho Māori: The impact of Māori language broadcasting on Māori language survival. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. Mane, J. (2010). Kaupapa Māori: A community approach. Mai Review, 3, 1-9. Retrieved from: http://review.mai.ac.nz Mane, J., Armstrong-Read, A., Brown-Cooper, P. (in press). Te whakapakari kaiārahi āhuatanga ako kōhungahunga: The dynamics of kaupapa Māori in developing pedagogical leadership in early childhood settings. Occasional Paper. Wellington, NZ: NZCA. Marsden, M. (2003). The Woven Universe. Mauriora ki-te-ao. Masterton: Living Universe Ltd, Printcraft. McLachlan, C. (2011). An analysis of New Zealand s changing history, policies and approaches to early childhood education. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(3), 36-44. Meade, A., Kirikiri, R., Paratene, D., Allan, J-F. (2011). Te Heru: A framework for Māori success within an initial teacher education programme. Wellington, NZ: NZCA. Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whāriki. He whāriki mātauranga mō ngā mokopuna o Aotearoa: Early childhood curriculum. Wellington, NZ: Learning Media. Ministry of Education. (2002). Pathways to the future: Ngā huarahi arataki. A 10-year strategic plan for early childhood education 2002-2012. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Government. Ministry of Education. (2009). Ka Hikitia: Managing for Success/Māori Education Strategy 2008-2012. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Government. Mitchell, L., Cubey, P. (2003). Best evidence synthesis: Characteristics of professional development linked to enhanced pedagogy and children s learning in early childhood settings. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Moir, E., Barlin, D, Gless, J., Miles, J. (2009). New teacher mentoring. Hope and promise for improving teacher effectiveness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Muijs, D., Aubrey, C., Harris, A., Briggs, M. (2004). How do they manage? A review of the research on leadership in early childhood. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2(2), 157-169. Nelson, T. H., Deuel, A., Slavit, D., Kennedy, A. (2010). Leading deep conversations in collaborative inquiry groups. The Clearing House, 83, 175-179. Nepe, T. (1991). E hao nei tenei reanga, Te Toi Huarewa Tipuna. (Unpublished master s thesis). University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. Nivala, V. (2002). Leadership in general, leadership in theory. In V. Nivala E. Hujala. Leadership in early childhood education. Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 13 23). Oulu, Finland: Oulu University Press. Northedge, A. (2002). Organizing excursions into specialist discourse communities: A sociocultural account of university teaching. In G. Wells G. Claxton. Learning for life in the 21st century. Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education. (pp. 252 264).Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Nuttall, J. (2003). Weaving Te Whariki. Aotearoa New Zealand s early childhood curriculum in practice. Wellington, NZ: NZCER Press. Nuttall, J. (2012, October). Third generation activity theory as a tool to foster the leadership of professional learning in early childhood education. Presentation to Te Tari Puna ora/nz Childcare Association, Wellington, New Zealand. Nuttall, J. (2013a). City of Knox Children s Centre Coordinator Pedagogical Mentoring and Coaching Program Development Project: Final Report. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Catholic University. Nuttall, J. (2013b, April). Affordances and constraints facing educational leaders in Australian early childhood centres. Presentation to the Annual 117

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California. Nuttall, J. (2013c). (Ed.).Weaving Te Whāriki. Aotearoa New Zealand s early childhood curriculum document in theory and practice. (2nd ed.). Wellington: NZCER Press. Nuttall, J. (in press-a). Challenges, opportunities, and capacity building in early childhood teacher education research in Australia and New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies. Nuttall, J. (in press-b). The potential of Developmental Work Research as a professional learning methodology in early childhood education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 14(3). Nuttall, J. (nd). Institutional learning and teacher identity in early childhood education: Some findings from the Lady Gowrie project. Melbourne: Monash University. Nuttall, J., Wood, E., Thomas, L. (2013, in press). Travelling policy reforms re-configuring the work of early childhood educators in Australia. Globalisation, Societies and Education. [Accepted 4 April 2013]. Nuttall, J., Thomas, L. (2013, in press). Time and temporality in early childhood educators work. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. [Accepted 15 March 2013]. Nuttall, J., Coxon, L., Read, S. (2009). Structure, agency and artefacts: Mediating professional learning in early childhood education. In S. Edwards J. Nuttall (Eds.), Professional learning in early childhood settings (pp. 97 114). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Nuttall, J., Edwards, S. (2009). Future directions in researching professional learning in early childhood settings. In S. Edwards J. Nuttall (Eds.), Professional learning in early childhood settings (pp. 131 137). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Ord, K. (2010). Bodies of knowledge: Early childhood teachers experiences of their initial teacher education programme and sense of preparedness for teaching. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Pihama, L. (2001). Tihei Mauriora, Honouring Our Voices, Manawahine as a Kaupapa Māori Theoretical Framework. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. Podmore, V., with Wells, C. (2011). Induction and mentoring pilot programme: Early childhood education by teachers for teachers. Wellington: New Zealand Teachers Council. Pohatu, T. (2005). Principles of kaupapa Māori. Retrieved from http://www.rangahau.co.nz/ research-idea/27 Rameka, L. (2012). Te whatu kākahu: Assessment in kaupapa Māori early childhood practice. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Waikato, Hamilton, NZ. Rata, E. (1991). Māori survival and structural separateness. (Unpublished master s thesis). University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. Rata, E. (2004, July). Ethnic ideologies in New Zealand. What s wrong with Kaupapa Māori? Paper presented at the Teacher Education Forum of Aotearoa New Zealand Conference, Auckland College of Education. Reynolds, B. (2011). Between a rock and a hard place: Leadership dilemmas in Tasmanian early childhood education and care centres. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice. 26(2), pp. 26 34. Reynolds, B., Cardno, C. (2008). Leadership dilemma in New Zealand early childhood education and care centres. New Zealand Journal of Educational Leadership, 32(1), 18-29. Ritchie, J. (2002). It s becoming part of their knowing : A study of bicultural development in an early childhood teacher education setting in Aotearoa/New Zealand. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. Ritchie, J., Rau, C. (2006) Whanaungatanga: Partnerships in bicultural development in early childhood care and education. Final Report. Teaching and Learning Research Initiative. Wellington: NZCER. Roberts, S., Crawford, P., Hickman, R. (2010). Teacher research as a robust and reflective path to professional development. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 31, 258-275. Robertson, J. (2004). Leadership learning through coaching. SET, 3, 44-48. Robertson, J. (2005). Coaching leadership. Building educational leadership capacity through coaching partnerships. Wellington: NZCER Press. Robertson, J. (2011). Partnership in leadership and learning. In J. Robertson H. Timperley (Eds.), Leadership and learning (pp. 213 226). London: SAGE Publications. 118

References Robinson, L. (2007). Discourses of teaching in selected childcare centres. (Unpublished master s thesis). Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand Robinson, V. Hohepa, M. (2010). Tu Rangatira: Māori Medium Educational Leadership. Ministry of Education. Wellington: New Zealand. Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., Lloyd, C. (2009). School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why. Best evidence synthesis iteration [BES]. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Rodd, J. (2006). Leadership in early childhood (3rd ed.). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen Unwin. Scrivens, C. (2003a). Educational leadership. What might we learn from research in schools? Early Education, 31, 29-35. Scrivens, C. (2003b). What decisions? Whose decisions? Issues for professional leaders in decision-making in New Zealand childcare centres. Early Education, 33, 29-37. Scrivens, C. (2006, August). Distributed leadership within a community of practice in a New Zealand/Aotearoa context. Paper presented at the 16th annual conference of the European Early Childhood Education Research Association, Iceland. Scrivens, C., Jordan, B., Bary, R., Deans, C., Charlton, M., Hullett, H., Martin, F., Martin, L., Moana, P., Waugh, O. (2007). Distributing leadership. Action research at Massey Childcare Centre, 20-23. Sheridan, S., Edwards, C., Marvin, C. Knoche, L. (2009). Professional development in early childhood programs: Process issues and research needs. Early Education and Development, 20(3), 377-401. Shore, R. (2012). Professional Development for early childhood education: A national perspective, NHSA Dialog: A Research-to-Practice. Journal for the Early Childhood Field, 15(1), 1-7. Simons, J., Smith, L. T. 2001. A civilising mission, Perceptions and reflections of the New Zealand Native Schools system. Auckland: Auckland University Press. Skerrett, M. (2010). A Critique of the Best Evidence Synthesis with relevance for Māori leadership in education. Christchurch: University of Canterbury, NZ. Smagorinsky, P. (2010). A Vygotskian analysis of the construction of setting in learning to teach. In V. Ellis, A. Edwards, P. Smagonisky (Eds.), Cultural-historical perspectives on teacher education and development: Learning teaching (pp. 13 29). Hoboken, NJ: Taylor Francis. Smith, G. H. (1990/1992). Research Issues Related to Māori Education. Paper presented to NZARE Special Interest Conference, Massey University, reprinted in 1992, The Issue of Research and Māori, Research Unit for Māori Education, The University of Auckland, New Zealand. Smith, G. (1997). The development of Kaupapa Māori: Theory and praxis. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. Smith, G. (2012). Kaupapa Māori: The Dangers of Domestication. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies. He Hautaki Mātai Mātauranga o Aotearoa. Special Issue: He aha te kaupapa? Critical conversations in kaupapa Māori, 47(2), 10-20. Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonising methodologies, research and indigenous peoples. Dunedin: University of Otago Press/London: Zed Books. Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonising methodologies, research and indigenous peoples. (2nd ed.). Dunedin, NZ: University of Otago Press/Zed Books. Smith, L. T., Reid, P. (2000). Māori research development: Kaupapa Māori principles and practices: A literature review. Auckland: International Research Institute for Māori and Indigenous Education and Te Puni Kokiri. Soutar, B., with Te Whānau o Mana Tamariki (2010). Growing raukura. In A. Meade (Ed.), Dispersing waves: Innovation in early childhood education. Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER Press. Spoonley, P. and Hirsh, W. (1990). Between the lines, racism and the New Zealand media. Auckland: Typocrafters Ltd. Stoll, L. (2011). Leading professional learning communities. In J. Robertson H. Timperley (Eds.). Leadership and learning (pp. 103 117). London: SAGE Publications. Tamati, A., Hond-Flavell, E., Korewha, H., whānau of Te Kōpae Piripono. (2008) Centre of innovation research report of Te Kōpae Piripono. Wellington: MoE. Available from: http://www. educationcounts.govt.nz Taylor, C. (2012): Learning in Australian early childhood education and care settings: Changing professional practice. Education 3-13. International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 40(1), 7-18. Te Kopae Piripono. (2006). Ngā takohanga e wha. The four responsibilities Retrieved from: http://www.lead.ece.govt.nz/ CentresOfInnovation/COIDocsAndResources/ SrvcSpecificDocsAndResources/ NgaTakohangaeWhaTheFourResponsibilities.htm 119

Developing Pedagogical leadership in early childhood Education Thornton, K. (2009). Blended action learning: Supporting leadership learning in the New Zealand ECE sector. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand. Thornton, K. (2003). Teacher refresher courses and effective professional development for teachers. New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 12 75-94. Thornton, K. (2010). Leadership development in the New Zealand ECE sector: past, present and future. The Space, 20, 6-7. Thornton, K. (2011). Editorial. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 26(2), 1-2. Thornton, K., Wansbrough, D., Clarkin-Phillips, Aitken, H., Tamati, A. (2009). Conceptualising leadership in early childhood education in Aotearoa New Zealand. Occasional paper. Number 2. Wellington: New Zealand Teachers Council. Timperley, H. (2011). Leading teachers professional learning. In In J. Robertson H. Timperley (Eds.), Leadership and learning (pp. 118 130). London, UK: SAGE Publications. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walker, S. (1996). Kia tau te rangimarie, Kaupapa Māori theory as a resistance against the construction of Māori as the other. (Unpublished master s thesis). University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. Wardekker, W. (2010). Afterward. CHAT and good teacher education. In V. Ellis, A. Edwards, P. Smargorinsky (Eds.), Cultural-historical perspectives on teacher education and development: Learning teaching (pp. 241 248). Hobeken, NJ: Taylor Francis. Weisz-Koves, T. (2011). Developing teacher leadership in early childhood education in Aotearoa through a potentials-based approach. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 26(2), pp. 35 47. Wells, G., Claxton, G. (2002). Learning for Life in the 21st Century. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: UK: Cambridge University Press. Williams, N. M. with Broadley, M-L, Lawson Te Aho, K. (2012). Research Report: Ngā taonga whakaako: Bicultural competence in early childhood education. Wellington: Ako Aotearoa. Wood, E. (2009). Foreword. In S. Edwards J. Nuttall (Eds.), Professional learning in early childhood settings (pp. vii viii). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Wood, E., Bennett, N. (2000). Changing theories, changing practice: Exploring early childhood teachers professional learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 635 647. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Activity systems analysis methods: understanding complex learning environments. New York: Springer. 120

Glossary Glossary Aotearoa New Zealand Ehara taku toa, he toa takitahi, engari he toa takitini my strength is not that of one, but that of many Hapū sub tribe He aha te mea nui o te ao? he tangata, he tangata, he tangata what is the important thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people Hui meeting Iwi tribe, taken from the word koiwi bones Kaiako teacher Kaitiaki guardian Kaiwhakaako teacher Kanohi-ki-kanohi face to face Karakia prayer Kaupapa Māori Māori foundation, purpose/ Māori-led Kōhanga Reo language nest Kōrero discussion, talk Kua mārama be clear, understand Kura school Kura Kaupapa Māori Māori language education setting Mā wai e mahi who will do the work Mahia te mahi do the work Manaaki sharing, caring for Mana motūhake Māori Māori identity Marae meeting place for cultural activities, Māori community hub Māramatanga insight, understanding Mātauranga knowledge Ngā hua result, outcome Ngā mahi the work/task/object Ngākau heart Ngā taputapu tools Reo language Take a roopu issue identified by group Tamariki children Tangata Whenua people of the land Taputapu gear, equipment Tauiwi foreign people Tautoko support Te Ao Māori The Māori World Te Tiriti o Waitangi The Treaty of Waitangi Māori version holds authority under international law Te reo Māori me ōna tikanga The language and protocols of Māori people Tikanga/ture cultural protocols or rules Tikanga Māori Māori cultural protocols Tino rangatiratanga self-determination Tiriti treaty Ture to make laws, law Tū Rangatira Stand chiefly Whakapapa genealogy Whakataukī proverbial saying Whānaungatanga relationships Whānau family 121

Established in 1963, Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa/New Zealand Childcare Association (NZCA) is an incorporated society, representing around 600 early childhood education (ECE) services that provide education and care to thousands of infants, toddlers and young children. Governed by a Council comprised of elected and appointed members, NZCA is a bicultural organisation promoting high quality ECE through initial teacher education, professional development, advocacy and membership services. Registered by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) as a Private Tertiary Education (PTE) provider, NZCA is today one of New Zealand s largest providers of early childhood initial teacher education (ITE) with, at the time of this report, over 80 academic staff based at 15 sites throughout the country. NZCA has a long history of improving standards of practice within the early childhood sector. In addition to its centrebased Bachelor of Teaching (ECE) degree, it delivers Ministry of Education (MoE) funded professional development to hundreds of ECE services. This publication reports the third of a series of Flagship research studies undertaken by NZCA. These projects facilitate our goal to generate new, credible, and useful research knowledge related to early childhood education or teacher education in the Aotearoa context. Typically collaborations between staff, ECE communities and experienced researchers, these projects also expand and develop our staff research capability. The focus of this third Flagship research project is effective pedagogical leadership in early childhood services. Pedagogical leadership is an emerging discourse in early childhood. It refers to the way in which the central task of improving teaching and learning takes place in educational settings. This report investigates the implementation of a research and development project designed to enhance pedagogical leadership practice in early childhood centres. By learning to understand the centre as a social (activity) system, leaders who participated in the study learned to play the system rather than the person as they engaged in change conversations within their workplace settings. ISBN 978-0-473-25326-4 (print version) 978-0-473-25327-1 (online PDF)