- Email: [email protected]
Teacher leadership and autonomous student learning: Adjusting to the new realities
ARTICLE IN PRESS
International Journal of Educational Research 41 (2004) 367–382 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures
Chapter 6
Teacher leadership and autonomous student learning: Adjusting to the new realities Kokila Roy Katyal, Colin W. Evers Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong
Abstract This paper focuses on a most significant domain of inner power of teachers’ lives—their leadership of student learning. Traditional conceptions of teacher leadership owe much to the presumption of a classroom, or a formally designated site, where teacher instructed learning takes place. However, the rise of the Internet, with its ready availability of information has resulted in a shift towards much greater autonomy in student learning. The study reported here explores the perceptions of students, teachers, and parents about this shift to teacher-less learning, and the consequences it has for how we are to understand teacher leadership, especially where it concerns student engagement and participation in school. It also explores the efforts teachers themselves have made to understand their role amid these new realities. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Teacher leadership; Student learning; Student engagement
1. Introduction This paper focuses on a significant domain of the inner power of teachers’ lives— their leadership of student learning. Much student learning that is relevant to school now takes place not only within the school classroom, but also outside, in formal tutorial settings and also informally, usually in the home. Traditional conceptions of Corresponding author. Fax: +852 28585649.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K.R. Katyal), [email protected] (C.W. Evers). 0883-0355/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2005.08.007
ARTICLE IN PRESS 368
K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
teacher leadership owe much to the presumption of a classroom, or a formally designated site, where teacher-instructed learning takes place. However, the rise of the Internet, with its ready availability of information, and a broader shift in schooling’s emphasis on project and inquiry based learning, has resulted in a shift towards much greater autonomy in student learning. The study reported here explores the perceptions of students, teachers, and parents about this shift to teacher-less learning, and the consequences it has for how we are to understand teacher leadership, especially where it concerns student engagement in school. It also explores the efforts teachers themselves have made to understand their role amid these new realities. The genesis of the research lies in a number of large-scale quantitative studies conducted by Leithwood and Jantzi (1999, 2000) designed to explore the effects of principal and teacher leadership on student engagement with school. The first study, found that the effects of principal leadership on student engagement were weak but significant, whereas the effects of teacher leadership were not significant at all. The second study, a replication produced a similar result. Given the influence of teachers, in general, on student learning the finding concerning teachers seemed counterintuitive. Since contrary examples to the Leithwood and Jantzi (1999, 2000) results may lie hidden, or remain unreflected in the statistics of a large-scale study, an investigation of this result employing a qualitative in-depth study of a number of schools was undertaken. We used in-depth, semi-structured interviews and group discussions to capture various nuances, patterns and more latent elements to form a deeper understanding of the effect of teacher leadership on student engagement of a small group of teachers, students and parents in three school sites. 1.1. Definition of terms Yukl (1998) conceptualized leadership as an influence process that occurs naturally within a social system. The studies by Leithwood and Jantzi (1999, 2000) used this definition. In our study, teacher leadership was perceived as an influence that teachers have on students, both in terms of their instructional guidance and in terms of pastoral care. Leadership is thus viewed as a broader social construct. Moreover, this study deals with the leadership impact of teachers on students irrespective of their contribution in terms of formal or informal leadership in the school’s administration and hierarchy. Student engagement as observed by Leithwood and Jantzi (1999, 2000) has both behavioral and affective components. These are displayed by their desire to participate in school activities (behavioral) and the sense of belonging that they felt with the school (affective). It is believed that students continue to be engaged in schools because of their participation in school activities, which along with other influences bring about success in performance. This in turn builds esteem and fosters bonding and identification with schools (Finn, 1989). Finn identified four levels of engagement: (i) School attendance. (ii) Taking initiative in the classroom.
ARTICLE IN PRESS K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
369
(iii) Participation in activities outside the formal curriculum and added motivation in their own learning. (iv) Participation in the school governance. We used these four levels to gauge the level of engagement that students had with their school. 1.2. Research sites, participant profiles and framework The three research sites were an international school (School 1) and two schools within the local system of Hong Kong (Schools 2 and 3). Interviews were conducted with 14 teachers, 12 parents and three student groups of about ten students each. In order to better understand patterns of possible influences and modes of communication across the boundaries between school, home and the broader environment, an open systems perspective was employed (Hoy & Miskel, 2001; Scott, 1987). Such a perspective was assumed by Fullan (1993), for example, who argued for the importance of the connection of schools to the external environment and asserted that it is crucial for schools to cope with the complexities of a changing environment. Superficially, there appears to be little argument about the veracity of this point of view. After all, schools do not function in isolation and a study of teacher leadership should take into account the complexities of an outer environment as they impact on schools. However, the data revealed that not all aspects of the environment impact equally on schools—some aspects impact directly and others indirectly, if at all. Nor are the changes in the environment immediately reflected within schools and classrooms. The following table (Table 1) summarizes information about the research sites and participant profiles:
2. The macro-context of the school Though Hong Kong has been going through changes in its political and economic environment, these changes did not have any perceptible impact on the schools in this study. 2.1. The socio-cultural environment However, the socio-cultural environment of Hong Kong had an impact on teachers, parents and students. For example, we found that all three schools had some disparities between the mind-set of the teachers and that of the parents. In School 1, it is understandable, as the ethos of the teachers who are mostly from Western countries is different from that of the parents who were mainly Asians. The teachers had to consciously adapt to a situation where academic performance dominated all aspects of their work environment.
ARTICLE IN PRESS K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
370
Table 1 Summarizes information about the research sites and participant profiles Schools
Parents
Students
Teachers
Six parents interviewed. Mixed racial group. These parents were of a higher economic background than the other parents interviewed. All were members of the Parent Teacher Association (PTA)
Fourteen students from year 12. Mixed gender, mixed racial group. All students from the same form
Five teachers interviewed. All Caucasians. All teachers taught in the upper forms
School 2 Old, established, girls’ school with Chinese as the medium of instruction Reputed for its body of caring teachers
Five parents interviewed. All Chinese. All parents were members of the PTA
Ten students. Not members of the same class. All students were in the age group of 15+. Many were prefects
Five teachers interviewed. Four Chinese and one Caucasian teacher. All taught in the senior classes
School 3 Aided school. Run by members of a religious order. Keen to view itself as learning organization
One parent interviewed. Parent was from the Philippines
Ten students interviewed. Mixed gender group. All were from Form 6 and members of the same class
Five teachers interviewed. All Chinese. Diverse teaching areas but all taught in the senior classes
School 1 International School, has won an award for administration. School stresses on its over-all care program for the students
(John, teacher, School 1) I very much feel that teaching to get the best examination results is not necessarily the way to teach well. The parents, on the other hand, believed that the teachers were not pushing the students hard enough. This stress on examination results was in fact a unifying concern of all the teachers from all three schools. Teachers believed that, to a large extent, what they taught and how they taught was dictated by the external examinations. They pointed out that students who were taking the final examinations did not accept innovative teaching methods, as they believed that they would get better grades if the traditional methods of direct instructions were used. (James, teacher, School 2) If the kids perceive you to be too lax or loose, which is their perception of cognitive teaching, if you are trying to make the kids think, then things are not in convention. Then especially in the exam years the kids will be the first to protest, not the principal or the parents. I try to get a balance between the exam and making it interesting.
ARTICLE IN PRESS K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
371
In order to take into account what Numata (2003) called the examination hell, teachers tried to teach subjects within a broader and more holistic framework and this marks a change from the earlier form of pedagogy practiced in schools. (Mr. Tan, teacher, School 3) In factythe role of the teacher is quite different from what it used to be when I was studying here [this teacher was a student of School 3]yBecause 20 years ago, what the teacher said was an order and you simply had to obey ityNowadays the role is quite different because what you say is not an ordery what we are trying to do is to convince the students that something should be done and in a way we are helping them to do it. In a clever way, in a better way, we are supposed to give them the advice of the consequencesy You have to discuss with them more than just tell them. Apart from value placed on examination results by parents there were also more subtle socio-cultural discrepancies between teachers and parents in schools that were predominantly Chinese in character (Schools 2 and 3). The differences sometimes had to do with the ideology of the university graduate, teachers and the parents who came from ‘‘a little lower class’’ (Mr. Cheng, teacher, school 2). This led to occasional lacunae in communications. More often, there were also the differences in the cultural orientation of the Hong Kong teachers and the mainland parents. Teachers tried to overcome social distinctions by encouraging more informal interaction with the students so that there was a freer interflow of communication. No matter what the social differences were between the parents and the teachers, parents believed that imparting education was clearly the domain of those professionally best qualified to do so. Students also believed that their parents and teachers had clearly demarcated role responsibilities. Parents and teachers both shared in the socialization process but had separate roles in the sphere of academic education. Therefore, within the workplace, notwithstanding the pressure to ensure good examination grades, the teachers believed that they enjoyed a large degree of autonomy and more importantly, that they were in a position to influence the students and this view was endorsed by the parents and students. (Anne, parent, School 1) Each teacher is individualistic but I like to think that apart from educating the child in the subject they are teaching them to be good citizensy.they are help them in the process of learning. [Teachers play] huge role in motivating or not motivating [the students]yTheir personality also is a factor. Even when you get teachers whose personalities do not match the kids, I think that also is a learning procedurey I think when situations like this happenyteachers can address the situation and talk about ity I think teachers are needed more than before. yI think that children learn from teachers that they respect and that does not mean just the subjecty . 2.2. The impact of the Internet The most important impact of the outer environment on teachers, students and, to some extent the parents, was the changes brought in by information technology,
ARTICLE IN PRESS 372
K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
specifically the Internet. This concurs with the views presented by studies conducted in this area (Barlow & Turnbridge, 1995; Lee, 1998; Williams & McKeown, 1996). The students perceive that the impact of the Internet has resulted in learning being shifted to out-of-school settings and this Internet-based, teacher-less, autonomous learning is more ‘real’ than school learning. (Katyal & Evers, 2004). The parents and teachers of this study emphasized that the Internet had a very strong attraction for the students and agreed that the Internet was a powerful learning tool that should be utilized in the teaching/learning process. But, they were apprehensive and even alarmed (often with justification) about the dangers of students misusing the Internet. There was no such ambivalence in the perceptions of the students. This endorses Lee’s (1998, p. 41) argument that today’s students were likely to find existing schooling irrelevant, while Mumtaz (2000) referred to the ‘‘growing gap between the children’s experience of computers in their two environments of home and school’’. Real learning, according to the students, largely went on outside the school context, primarily via the Internet. (Group discussion with students, School 1) In school we will learn for grades and exams. Outside we learn other things, which may be better, like on the Internet. Thus, in the perceptions of the students there was a clear differentiation between learning for examinations (which was not equated with real knowledge) and outside learning, which was relevant and meaningful. Furthermore, the students from all three schools believed that the primary function of their schools was not to transmit knowledge but to help them to socialize. The teachers too implied that they were aware that schools were no longer the primary learning site: (George, teacher, School 1) The serious learning often goes on at homey in school there are a lot of introductory activitiesy At home they can consolidate this learningyy . Here they are very much into relationships and friends... Schools are more like a youth club. 2.3. Understanding of the teacher’s influence Amidst this complicated, socio-cultural-technological macro-context how do students and parents understand the teacher’s influence? What emerges from the data is that parents and students perceive the teacher’s influence to be two tiered. This provides for instructional leadership and has a social component as well. Within classrooms, providing instruction that promotes student engagement is a challenge that faces teacher leaders, mainly as they are aware of their diminished role as primary knowledge providers. In order to deal with this challenge the teachers have taken conscious steps so that they are clearly able to influence and promote schoolbased learning. Teachers, even in the more traditional schools (Schools 2 and 3), now teach in ways that connect the formal school curriculum to its real-life applications. This helps in minimizing the gap between learning for qualifications and real engagement in school. Where knowledge gained through the Internet competes
ARTICLE IN PRESS K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
373
directly with school knowledge, teachers are able to exercise influence by being interpreters of that knowledge in the sense of showing its practical relevance. This is a way in which an examination-oriented curriculum is made meaningful and relevant. (Researcher) What do you think you are giving to your students? (James, teacher, School 2) Focus. Interest. I am trying to teach them that the [English] language is not a subject but a communication toolyit makes teaching easier and broadens the horizons of the kidsy In School 1, the business studies teacher ran a business before coming to teach and students appreciated his ability to connect his classroom teaching to ‘‘what it is to work in the real world’’ (Group discussion, students, School 1). On the other hand, though the mathematics teacher was hard working, he clearly did not have a significant influence on the students as he had failed to make the students application of classroom mathematics to the outside world. (Group discussion with students from School 2) School teaches you how to do math, no one is really going to use math outside schooly we do not really need more than learning two times two, I think that is enough. We discuss the implications of the second dimension of the teacher’s influence, the socialization aspect, in the following section.
3. Teachers as change agents Complementary to the view of schools as open systems, is the emerging view that teachers are the agents through which the rapid changes in the environment are transmitted into school systems. Fullan (1998) stressed that the world in which schools function is changing at an accelerated rate causing educational leaders to operate in situations that are ‘‘increasingly complex and constrained’’. This assertion implies that leadership practices need to adapt to diverse contextual realities in which school leaders must function. Given the variety of challenges that educational systems face today, researchers tend to emphasize that the ability to cope with change becomes a necessity for teacher leaders (Cetron & Gayle, 1991). Analysis of the data in this study, however, suggests that sweeping changes in the political or economic setting do not have a direct impact on schools. Teachers are change agents, but they bring about change in the classrooms in less extravagant ways. In the daily professional lives of teachers there is little interest or opportunity to adapt or translate environmental changes to fit in with the needs, interests and the requirements of the students that they teach. Rather, they are change agents in their effort to mould the requirements of the school curriculum to suit the demands of the students—to add meaning to school learning so that students recognize the real life applications of this knowledge. More importantly, teachers are change agents because they help in the socializing process of their students by being a bridge between the world outside and the school.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 374
K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
John, a teacher from School 1 has this to say about his role as a classroom leader and his perceptions summarizes what most teacher leaders envision their roles to be: As a teacher, in loco parentis, the child is your responsibility. Basically children are under your guidance. As a teacher you have to holistically educate the child, not just the subject mattery . You are a role modely . I think that as a leader I function not only in the classroom but also in the whole picture. Conversations in the corridor or at the football match. I also think is that the leadership is shown through the subject. The students are very perceptive if you are not prepared for the class. That is also a part of teacher leadership; we should know what to do with the children. I think that that the leadership is far more than teaching them a body of concepts. The student will leave school and maybe forget the causes of World War 2 but might remember the skills of interpretation, analysis and so ony This is a question of life skills. In keeping with their role as change agents in this more modest sense, teachers function as role models in helping students in their socialization process. Teachers consciously teach ‘‘the hidden curriculum’’ (George, teacher, School 1). Parents and teachers both believe that the amount of time that the students spend with the teacher implies that teachers have to educate students holistically, rather than just academically. Students expect teachers to possess personal traits that are exemplary. Teachers who are ‘‘shirkers’’ (Group Discussion with students, School 1) are unacceptable to students, as are teachers who are perceived to teach because they have opted to teach for professional reasons not because they are ‘‘passionate’’ about the subject. Finally, teachers have brought about change in these schools by deliberately altering their mode of communication with students in an effort to build a more egalitarian school society. From being figures of authority they were keen to be seen as friends. (Nancy, teacher, School 3) Sometimes you have to take a very friendly approach and speak their languagey we cannot just sit and impose ourselves as teachersyTalk like a friend, put your hand on their shoulders, the language that you use, the tone that you use, speak slang and put down your image and be like them. Otherwise they would see you as authority and wouldn’t tell you anythingyI think our students are not afraid of us because we maintain a friendly relationshipyI went to a school where teachers were like gods. Teachers believed that an approachable demeanor would help in their pastoral and instructional relationship with the students. In these ways teachers are able to influence students to achieve the behavioral and affective components of engagement. To a large extent teachers have succeeded in breaking the traditional authoritarian moulds, even in the more traditionally run schools and this has resulted in teachers garnering more information about their students, both in terms of their school-based activities and their outside activities and this in turn helps them, in their role as teacher leaders.
ARTICLE IN PRESS K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
375
4. Micro context of the school Since the industrial age, the dominant perspective of organizations has been that of a machine. Weber’s (1947) model of bureaucracy was built on this frame. Presentday researchers contend that such models restrict an organization’s needs and a leader’s ability to adapt to the needs of a rapidly changing society. Leadership is understood as a process of meaning making that must be socially critical and oriented towards social vision and change and not just organizational goals (Foster, 1986). This point of view is complementary to the literature on school leadership, which in the past few years has stressed on the importance of transformational leadership and distributed leadership with its attendant connotations of collegiality, collaboration and flatter management structures within schools. It is also generally assumed that the extent which teachers exercise their leadership is shaped by organizational factors. Research in this area, therefore, tends to examine the organizational environment of the given schools. (Hargreaves, 2003). Frost and Harris (2003) emphasized that these arrangements clearly affect the extent to which teachers can exercise their leadership. However, the empirical data from this study reveal some surprising results on the internal structures of the schools. A common bond uniting the three schools is that they viewed themselves as learning organizations and were seen to be keen to adopt and adapt to the times. But, irrespective of differences in their funding/governing bodies, staff, and student, and parent profiles, they are all run on Weberian bureaucratic lines. Surprisingly, in spite of functioning within very tight hierarchical structures, teachers do not perceive that the administration impinges on their leadership and (except for one teacher), there is no call for transparent management structures. (Researcher) What is the hierarchy like? (Miss Kwan, teacher, School 2) There is the board of management, then the principal, I am also in the board as I am a representative, the church also plays a role, we have meetings 3 times a year to discuss influential things. Under the principal are the two vice principals and the senior teachersy what we call the administrative departments. Under each department there will be some team members. I think that it is well organized. It works efficiently and seriously. We take everything very seriously and strictly. As long as teachers were clear about what was expected from them and about the reporting structure of the school’s hierarchy they had no problems in fulfilling these requirements. In School 3, there has been an effort to democratize the management system by involving a large number of teachers in its various committees, bodies and panels. However, teachers from this school acknowledged that they were often at a loss when it came to taking decisions and many of the teachers professed that they preferred tighter structures as they believed it would ease their working conditions. The teacher participants believed that the culture of the school had very little to do with what went on inside the classroom and believed that
ARTICLE IN PRESS 376
K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
they had total freedom to teach in the way that they thought was the best, without any interference. (Researcher) How much flexibility to do have while with the kids? (George, teacher School 2 ) Totaly I love working here, the students, the buildings; no body bothers me in my classroom. I have responsibilities and I do my job.
5. Impact of teacher leadership Contemporary literature on school leadership emphasizes forms of transformational leadership and distributed leadership. Distributed leadership theory advocates that schools ‘‘decentre’’ the leader. In this sense leadership is more appropriately understood as ‘‘fluid and emergent, rather than a fixed phenomenon.’’ (Gronn, 2000). It reflects the view that every person can, in one way or another, demonstrate leadership (Goleman, 2000). Sergiovanni’s (2001) concept of teacher density is also of import here. He argued that high concept of leadership density means that a larger number of people are involved in the work of others and are involved in the leadership process. In such a situation, all teachers are potential leaders. Though the research literature tends to be dominated by empirical studies derived from studying the head teachers, school administrators and others with formal leadership roles, an important result that has been reinforced by recent work on effective leadership is that the authority to lead need not be located in the person of the formal head of the hierarchy (Day, Harris, Hadfield, Tolley, & Beresford, 2000; MacBeath, 1988). Leadership thus is separated from role and status and is primarily concerned with the relationships and connections among the individuals within a school. This study endorses many of the underlying beliefs and assumptions about distributed leadership. It sanctions the belief that for school leadership to be effective, it must come from those who are the closest to the students: the teachers. Principals are, by and large, on the periphery as students seldom have direct contact with them. (George, teacher, School 1) I think if you were to talk to the students their experiences of the day have been shaped by the teachers that they had. Teachers have the biggest impact on them. The headmaster is there when he is needed, an authority figure but he doesn’t have a teaching timetable so individual teachers implement the policies or not. All that matter is that you have a relationship with studentsy. There is, nevertheless, one critical difference between the tenets of distributed leadership and the reality of leadership in schools. The assumption is that this form of leadership exists in school between teachers and their peers. But in these schools, the data suggest that the form of leadership that is most powerful exists between
ARTICLE IN PRESS K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
377
teachers and their students. Teachers are able to influence students through implicit and explicit means. (Robert, parent, School 1) The teachers interact with them during the formative years and they have the kids captive 5/6 hour a day and they have to act as role models. Teachers are quasi parents. They can hold the respect of kids through the authority of their position, which parents struggle to do sometimesy . I think teachers are very influential. Though all teachers can collectively display leadership and indeed all teachers are potentially leaders, the ‘followers’ are not other teachers but the students. Teachers, parents, and students, believe that teacher leaders facilitate the complex dynamics of pedagogical interaction by motivating, communicating and nurturing the growth of students. They lead students towards the larger world of social cooperation and universal knowledge. Transformational leadership, which is theorized to be central to the implementation of much current school reform, is viewed as the quality of a person to motivate people to change individual behavior to cooperative group behavior and to give direction to the lives of other people (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House & Howell, 1992). Leaders define a vision that is congruent with followers’ key values and construct a culture that provides shared meanings where followers can pursue tasks and strive for success. However, in the classrooms of this study, when teachers and students interact there is little, if any, stress on vision-building or shared goals. Rather the emphasis is on a humbler (though not less important) aspect of leadership. Teachers are expected to ease the way towards their students’ journey of socialization. Thus the personal characteristics of the teacher are deemed to be more important than their ability to create shared visions. A synthesis of the data collected from the participants reveals that the nature of the leadership that teachers exhibit in schools is exemplified by a number of characteristics by which they are influence the students. Some of these attributes are:
Being committed to their students (Group discussion with students, School 2). Some teachers are always thinking of us. Not just thinking of the subjects but care about other things. Being fair (Group discussion with students, School 3) Some of the teachers are very fair. Being humane (Group discussion with students, School 2) I would like her to speak to me as her daughter. Being seen to be free from personal biases (Group discussion with students, School 2) Teachers should not have biases. They may hate one girl and do a lot of mean things to them. Having good communicative skills (Group discussion with students, School 2) Some talkative teachers are goody.Teachers are very busy but some teachers find time to talk to usy.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 378
K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
Being empathetic (Group discussion with students, School 1)y. they treat us with respect. Being supportive (Group discussion with students, School 1) They give support and counselingyEqual opportunities to all the kidsy.Sometimes the teachers do not do this they give too much attention to some kids and not enough to others. Being approachable (Group discussion with students, School 3) If there is a teacher with a young heart we can get close to her because they understand what we think. So it is easy for us to talk to them. People who understand usy.Some are young and active and they care about our lives not just the studies and they like to play with us. But some are serious, they always deduct marks because of our uniform Having good pedagogical skills (Group discussion with students, School 1) They teach well. Being hardworking (Group discussion with students, School 1) If the teachers are putting in work, it is obvious. Others do not put in the work. Some teachers are slackers. When you know that teachers are slackers, I do not respect them.
Thus, only the charismatic dimension of the transformational leadership model seems relevant to the form of leadership that teachers practice in these three schools. (And this may even be explained by appeal to the earlier trait theories of leadership.) It is the teacher’s personal qualities that are important in school settings.
6. Conceptualization of teacher leadership In examining the nature of teacher leadership, it is worth comparing the findings of this study with three significant models of teacher leadership. The earliest model focused on teacher leaders as efficient managers (Evans, 1996). Leithwood and Jantzi’s studies (1999, 2000) also took managing classroom conditions to be an aspect of leadership. The findings of this study, however, highlight the fact that teachers and students perceive that the leadership impact of teachers extends beyond the classroom (and schools). Teacher leadership transcends the formal learning sites and even the years that students spend in schools. (Group discussion with students, School 1)yI think we realize that now but when we look back we may realize that we have learnt thingsythey have influenced you, how hard you can work. The second model focuses on teachers as instructional guides. Though current researchers tend to downplay the importance of teachers as instructional leaders we would argue that classroom leadership is complex and instructional leadership forms an important and integral part of teacher leadership. Students believe that faulty pedagogical content knowledge, lack of communication skills of the teachers and even the work habits of teachers have serious repercussions in their ability to lead
ARTICLE IN PRESS K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
379
students. The extent to which teachers can exercise leadership and the way they do this is also affected by the value of their personal knowledge. (Group discussion with students, School 1) Within the subject they will pass on their past experiencey Thus pedagogical knowledge that is well articulated and publicly demonstrable is an important component of the teachers’ repertory. In the current literature there may be found a strong belief in the collegial professionals who build collaborative cultures within school. While we have no argument with the truth of this belief, for indeed if all teachers are to be leaders there has to be a form of distributed leadership working within schools, with attendant implications for building strong inter-relations within members of the teaching fraternity, the emphasis on teachers as collegial professionals is not central to the context of teacher leaders leading students. Once the doors of the classrooms close, interaction is limited to individual teachers and their students. It is the teacher’s personal attributes that influence students to be more or less engaged with learning. Teachers who are approachable and hard working, are perceived by students to be leaders, not teachers who are highly professionalized or who have the ability to lead their colleagues. In fact students believe that teachers who treat teaching as a paid job and therefore lack what they call ‘‘passion’’ for the subject that they teach do not have leadership impact: (Group discussion with students, School 1) Some are teachers not because they have a passion for teaching but just because the pay here is good. They have no passion for the subject. You can feel that they come here and do what they have to do for the subject not because they love ity .
7. Implications Scholars and advocates of teacher leadership frequently cite Hoffer’s (1973, p. 32) pithy comment: In a time of drastic change, it is the learners who inherit the future. The learned usually find themselves equipped to live in a world that no longer exists. The sense of urgency that this statement evokes is echoed in such titles as ‘‘Teacher Leadership: Its Time Has Come’’ (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 1996). The underlying assumptions of these proclamations are that since the world that we are now living in is changing at a pace that has been unparalleled in history, the ‘‘learned’’ (or educators) too should respond to the clarion call of change and mould themselves to fit the shifting times. But the argument of this research is that teacher leadership is not to be construed as a product of changing times. Indeed, changes in society are not reflected very strongly in schools. Having begun with the more generous assumption that schools are open systems, sensitive to the nuances of their changing environment, it turns out that a more restrictive assumption would have sufficed.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 380
K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
The schools in this study turned out to be relatively closed. Nor is leadership an issue that demands special empowerment for teachers from external sources. It is clearly very much an aspect of the teacher’s day-to-day professional lives. It exists in the interactions between teachers and their students. Given that teacher leadership is a part of the teacher’s daily lives some implications about this leadership are: 1. All teachers by their unique professional role (and the length of time spent with them) have the potential to influence the students they teach. In schools, leadership is an influence process that manifests itself most strongly between teachers and their students, rather than on teachers and their colleagues, which is the basis of some current leadership studies. Students and parents perceive teachers to be role models. The teachers’ personal traits come under scrutiny during their interactions with students, both as professional and individuals. Teacher leadership in schools has both instructional and social aspects. 2. The task of instructional leadership becomes more challenging and complex because of the impact of the Internet and the fact that students do not attribute real life meaning to school learning and thus find it boring and repetitive. Teacher training and teacher development programs need to be aware of the fundamental dichotomy that exists in teachers’ professional lives. Teachers feel strong pressure exerted by external examinations and students are expected to perform well in these examinations, yet in the perception of students the academic content of these examinations—as opposed to their certification value—is ultimately meaningless. Teachers also need to be conscious of the expectations that students have of them in assisting to bridge the gap between schools and the outside world. 3. There is little to support the notion that teacher leadership implies a grand systemic change. Teachers have no additional concerns with regard to working in hierarchical structures, providing there are clear-cut indications of the expectations that administrators have on them. There does not have to be a specialized call for empowering teachers, as the teachers in this study believed that when it comes to formal and informal interaction with students, there is no intervention from figures higher up the hierarchical ladder. 4. With reference to the conclusions drawn by Leithwood and Jantzi (1999, 2000), the causal relationships between teacher leadership and student engagement in our study, were complicated by the fact that we could partition student learning into school-site learning and autonomous learning that takes place outside of school. We also found that autonomous self-learning was perceived as being more authentic to the lives of students, whereas school-site learning was motivating primarily through its credentialing function. And within this context, teachers’ success in promoting student participation depended crucially on how they managed to structure the social relations of pedagogy so as to make school-site learning more authentic, or connected to the real life applications that students expected. However, if this is how teachers influence student engagement with school then it will be almost entirely missed by the data categories used in the Canadian studies (especially the 1999 study) because they document teacher leadership mostly in terms of teachers influencing other teachers (Leithwood &
ARTICLE IN PRESS K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
381
Jantzi, 1999, p. 689). Of course one can do that, but defining leadership widely as an influence process and then defining teacher leadership narrowly in terms of processes that influence other teachers, helps to create the impression that teachers have little or no influence over students’ and the nature of their participation in school. Clearly, the notion of teacher leadership is complex and subtle, and requires further analytical work.
8. Conclusion Within the context of the new realities that involve widespread autonomous student learning, an enhanced understanding of teacher leadership cannot be developed in the absence of a broader view of the teachers’ influence. More so, because the results of this study indicate that teacher leadership is an expansive, ongoing influence process that impact in a range of ways on student engagement in schools. This leadership is complex and multi-faceted as it manifests itself both in its instructional and social roles within schools, as well as adjusting and adapting to the pertinent issue of the student’s autonomous learning outside schools. Within the context of instructional leadership, teacher leaders now need to exercise a more holistic form pedagogy that focuses on meaning making and the practical application of school-based knowledge to-out-of-school situations. Instructional leadership, however, forms only a part of the influence that teacher leaders have on their students. There is a socialization component to teacher leadership and this implies that teacher leaders are called upon to be role models to their students, both in terms of their personal attributes and work habits. Teachers strongly believe that their leadership (viewed as a broad construct of an influence process) is embedded in their professional lives and is generally not impeded by organizational constraints. They have thus adapted their pedagogical styles and manner of interaction with their students in order to enhance their leadership on student engagement amidst the new realities that face schools today. References Barlow, J. P., & Turnbridge, N. (1995). The cyberspace cowboy. Australian Personal Computer, 2–4. Cetron, M., & Gayle, M. (1991). Educational resistance: Our schools at the turn of the century. New York: St. Martins Press. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 637–647. Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M., Tolley, H., & Beresford, J. (2000). Leading schools in times of change. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Evans, R. (1996). The human side of school change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from schools. Review of Educational Research, 59(2), 197–228. Foster, W. (1986). Paradigms and promises. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus. Frost, D., & Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership: Towards a research agenda. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 479–496.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 382
K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer Press. Fullan, M. (1998). Change forces: The sequel. London: Falmer Press. Goleman, D. (2000). The new teachers: Transforming the art of leadership into the science of results. London: Little Brown. Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational Management and Administration, 28(3), 317–338. Hargreaves, D. (2003). From improvement to transformation. Keynote lecture. Paper presented at the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Sydney, Australia. Hoffer, E. (1973). Reflections on the human condition. New York: Harper and Row. House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 3(2), 81–108. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2001). Educational administration: Research and practice. Boston: McGrawHill. Katyal, K. R., & Evers, C. W. (2004). Student learning, engagement with schools, and teacher leadership: Case studies in Hong Kong. Leading and Managing, 10(2), 41–52. Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (1996). Awakening the sleeping giant: Leadership development for teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc. Lee, M. (1998). Addressing the teaching Iinversion. The Practicing Administrator, 20(3), 38–41. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). The relative effects of principal and teacher sources of leadership on student engagement with school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(Suppl.), 679–706. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). Principals and teacher leadership effects: A replication. School Leadership and Management, 20(4), 415–434. MacBeath, J. (1988). Effective school leadership: Responding to change. London: Paul Chapman Publishers. Mumtaz, S. (2000). Children’s enjoyment and perception of computer use in the home and the school. Computers & Education, 36(4), 347–362. Numata, H. (2003). What children have lost by the modernisation of education: A comparison of experiences in western Europe and eastern Asia. In M. Bray (Ed.), Comparative education: Continuing traditions, new challenges and new paradigms (pp. 241–264). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Scott, W. R. (1987). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Sergiovanni, T. J. (2001). Leadership: What’s in it for Schools?. London: Routledge Falmer. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations. New York: Free Press. Williams, M., & McKeown, L. (1996). Definitions of the net that teachers experience. Australian Educational Computing, 11(2), 4–9. Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
International Journal of Educational Research 41 (2004) 367–382 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures
Chapter 6
Teacher leadership and autonomous student learning: Adjusting to the new realities Kokila Roy Katyal, Colin W. Evers Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong
Abstract This paper focuses on a most significant domain of inner power of teachers’ lives—their leadership of student learning. Traditional conceptions of teacher leadership owe much to the presumption of a classroom, or a formally designated site, where teacher instructed learning takes place. However, the rise of the Internet, with its ready availability of information has resulted in a shift towards much greater autonomy in student learning. The study reported here explores the perceptions of students, teachers, and parents about this shift to teacher-less learning, and the consequences it has for how we are to understand teacher leadership, especially where it concerns student engagement and participation in school. It also explores the efforts teachers themselves have made to understand their role amid these new realities. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Teacher leadership; Student learning; Student engagement
1. Introduction This paper focuses on a significant domain of the inner power of teachers’ lives— their leadership of student learning. Much student learning that is relevant to school now takes place not only within the school classroom, but also outside, in formal tutorial settings and also informally, usually in the home. Traditional conceptions of Corresponding author. Fax: +852 28585649.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K.R. Katyal), [email protected] (C.W. Evers). 0883-0355/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2005.08.007
ARTICLE IN PRESS 368
K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
teacher leadership owe much to the presumption of a classroom, or a formally designated site, where teacher-instructed learning takes place. However, the rise of the Internet, with its ready availability of information, and a broader shift in schooling’s emphasis on project and inquiry based learning, has resulted in a shift towards much greater autonomy in student learning. The study reported here explores the perceptions of students, teachers, and parents about this shift to teacher-less learning, and the consequences it has for how we are to understand teacher leadership, especially where it concerns student engagement in school. It also explores the efforts teachers themselves have made to understand their role amid these new realities. The genesis of the research lies in a number of large-scale quantitative studies conducted by Leithwood and Jantzi (1999, 2000) designed to explore the effects of principal and teacher leadership on student engagement with school. The first study, found that the effects of principal leadership on student engagement were weak but significant, whereas the effects of teacher leadership were not significant at all. The second study, a replication produced a similar result. Given the influence of teachers, in general, on student learning the finding concerning teachers seemed counterintuitive. Since contrary examples to the Leithwood and Jantzi (1999, 2000) results may lie hidden, or remain unreflected in the statistics of a large-scale study, an investigation of this result employing a qualitative in-depth study of a number of schools was undertaken. We used in-depth, semi-structured interviews and group discussions to capture various nuances, patterns and more latent elements to form a deeper understanding of the effect of teacher leadership on student engagement of a small group of teachers, students and parents in three school sites. 1.1. Definition of terms Yukl (1998) conceptualized leadership as an influence process that occurs naturally within a social system. The studies by Leithwood and Jantzi (1999, 2000) used this definition. In our study, teacher leadership was perceived as an influence that teachers have on students, both in terms of their instructional guidance and in terms of pastoral care. Leadership is thus viewed as a broader social construct. Moreover, this study deals with the leadership impact of teachers on students irrespective of their contribution in terms of formal or informal leadership in the school’s administration and hierarchy. Student engagement as observed by Leithwood and Jantzi (1999, 2000) has both behavioral and affective components. These are displayed by their desire to participate in school activities (behavioral) and the sense of belonging that they felt with the school (affective). It is believed that students continue to be engaged in schools because of their participation in school activities, which along with other influences bring about success in performance. This in turn builds esteem and fosters bonding and identification with schools (Finn, 1989). Finn identified four levels of engagement: (i) School attendance. (ii) Taking initiative in the classroom.
ARTICLE IN PRESS K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
369
(iii) Participation in activities outside the formal curriculum and added motivation in their own learning. (iv) Participation in the school governance. We used these four levels to gauge the level of engagement that students had with their school. 1.2. Research sites, participant profiles and framework The three research sites were an international school (School 1) and two schools within the local system of Hong Kong (Schools 2 and 3). Interviews were conducted with 14 teachers, 12 parents and three student groups of about ten students each. In order to better understand patterns of possible influences and modes of communication across the boundaries between school, home and the broader environment, an open systems perspective was employed (Hoy & Miskel, 2001; Scott, 1987). Such a perspective was assumed by Fullan (1993), for example, who argued for the importance of the connection of schools to the external environment and asserted that it is crucial for schools to cope with the complexities of a changing environment. Superficially, there appears to be little argument about the veracity of this point of view. After all, schools do not function in isolation and a study of teacher leadership should take into account the complexities of an outer environment as they impact on schools. However, the data revealed that not all aspects of the environment impact equally on schools—some aspects impact directly and others indirectly, if at all. Nor are the changes in the environment immediately reflected within schools and classrooms. The following table (Table 1) summarizes information about the research sites and participant profiles:
2. The macro-context of the school Though Hong Kong has been going through changes in its political and economic environment, these changes did not have any perceptible impact on the schools in this study. 2.1. The socio-cultural environment However, the socio-cultural environment of Hong Kong had an impact on teachers, parents and students. For example, we found that all three schools had some disparities between the mind-set of the teachers and that of the parents. In School 1, it is understandable, as the ethos of the teachers who are mostly from Western countries is different from that of the parents who were mainly Asians. The teachers had to consciously adapt to a situation where academic performance dominated all aspects of their work environment.
ARTICLE IN PRESS K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
370
Table 1 Summarizes information about the research sites and participant profiles Schools
Parents
Students
Teachers
Six parents interviewed. Mixed racial group. These parents were of a higher economic background than the other parents interviewed. All were members of the Parent Teacher Association (PTA)
Fourteen students from year 12. Mixed gender, mixed racial group. All students from the same form
Five teachers interviewed. All Caucasians. All teachers taught in the upper forms
School 2 Old, established, girls’ school with Chinese as the medium of instruction Reputed for its body of caring teachers
Five parents interviewed. All Chinese. All parents were members of the PTA
Ten students. Not members of the same class. All students were in the age group of 15+. Many were prefects
Five teachers interviewed. Four Chinese and one Caucasian teacher. All taught in the senior classes
School 3 Aided school. Run by members of a religious order. Keen to view itself as learning organization
One parent interviewed. Parent was from the Philippines
Ten students interviewed. Mixed gender group. All were from Form 6 and members of the same class
Five teachers interviewed. All Chinese. Diverse teaching areas but all taught in the senior classes
School 1 International School, has won an award for administration. School stresses on its over-all care program for the students
(John, teacher, School 1) I very much feel that teaching to get the best examination results is not necessarily the way to teach well. The parents, on the other hand, believed that the teachers were not pushing the students hard enough. This stress on examination results was in fact a unifying concern of all the teachers from all three schools. Teachers believed that, to a large extent, what they taught and how they taught was dictated by the external examinations. They pointed out that students who were taking the final examinations did not accept innovative teaching methods, as they believed that they would get better grades if the traditional methods of direct instructions were used. (James, teacher, School 2) If the kids perceive you to be too lax or loose, which is their perception of cognitive teaching, if you are trying to make the kids think, then things are not in convention. Then especially in the exam years the kids will be the first to protest, not the principal or the parents. I try to get a balance between the exam and making it interesting.
ARTICLE IN PRESS K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
371
In order to take into account what Numata (2003) called the examination hell, teachers tried to teach subjects within a broader and more holistic framework and this marks a change from the earlier form of pedagogy practiced in schools. (Mr. Tan, teacher, School 3) In factythe role of the teacher is quite different from what it used to be when I was studying here [this teacher was a student of School 3]yBecause 20 years ago, what the teacher said was an order and you simply had to obey ityNowadays the role is quite different because what you say is not an ordery what we are trying to do is to convince the students that something should be done and in a way we are helping them to do it. In a clever way, in a better way, we are supposed to give them the advice of the consequencesy You have to discuss with them more than just tell them. Apart from value placed on examination results by parents there were also more subtle socio-cultural discrepancies between teachers and parents in schools that were predominantly Chinese in character (Schools 2 and 3). The differences sometimes had to do with the ideology of the university graduate, teachers and the parents who came from ‘‘a little lower class’’ (Mr. Cheng, teacher, school 2). This led to occasional lacunae in communications. More often, there were also the differences in the cultural orientation of the Hong Kong teachers and the mainland parents. Teachers tried to overcome social distinctions by encouraging more informal interaction with the students so that there was a freer interflow of communication. No matter what the social differences were between the parents and the teachers, parents believed that imparting education was clearly the domain of those professionally best qualified to do so. Students also believed that their parents and teachers had clearly demarcated role responsibilities. Parents and teachers both shared in the socialization process but had separate roles in the sphere of academic education. Therefore, within the workplace, notwithstanding the pressure to ensure good examination grades, the teachers believed that they enjoyed a large degree of autonomy and more importantly, that they were in a position to influence the students and this view was endorsed by the parents and students. (Anne, parent, School 1) Each teacher is individualistic but I like to think that apart from educating the child in the subject they are teaching them to be good citizensy.they are help them in the process of learning. [Teachers play] huge role in motivating or not motivating [the students]yTheir personality also is a factor. Even when you get teachers whose personalities do not match the kids, I think that also is a learning procedurey I think when situations like this happenyteachers can address the situation and talk about ity I think teachers are needed more than before. yI think that children learn from teachers that they respect and that does not mean just the subjecty . 2.2. The impact of the Internet The most important impact of the outer environment on teachers, students and, to some extent the parents, was the changes brought in by information technology,
ARTICLE IN PRESS 372
K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
specifically the Internet. This concurs with the views presented by studies conducted in this area (Barlow & Turnbridge, 1995; Lee, 1998; Williams & McKeown, 1996). The students perceive that the impact of the Internet has resulted in learning being shifted to out-of-school settings and this Internet-based, teacher-less, autonomous learning is more ‘real’ than school learning. (Katyal & Evers, 2004). The parents and teachers of this study emphasized that the Internet had a very strong attraction for the students and agreed that the Internet was a powerful learning tool that should be utilized in the teaching/learning process. But, they were apprehensive and even alarmed (often with justification) about the dangers of students misusing the Internet. There was no such ambivalence in the perceptions of the students. This endorses Lee’s (1998, p. 41) argument that today’s students were likely to find existing schooling irrelevant, while Mumtaz (2000) referred to the ‘‘growing gap between the children’s experience of computers in their two environments of home and school’’. Real learning, according to the students, largely went on outside the school context, primarily via the Internet. (Group discussion with students, School 1) In school we will learn for grades and exams. Outside we learn other things, which may be better, like on the Internet. Thus, in the perceptions of the students there was a clear differentiation between learning for examinations (which was not equated with real knowledge) and outside learning, which was relevant and meaningful. Furthermore, the students from all three schools believed that the primary function of their schools was not to transmit knowledge but to help them to socialize. The teachers too implied that they were aware that schools were no longer the primary learning site: (George, teacher, School 1) The serious learning often goes on at homey in school there are a lot of introductory activitiesy At home they can consolidate this learningyy . Here they are very much into relationships and friends... Schools are more like a youth club. 2.3. Understanding of the teacher’s influence Amidst this complicated, socio-cultural-technological macro-context how do students and parents understand the teacher’s influence? What emerges from the data is that parents and students perceive the teacher’s influence to be two tiered. This provides for instructional leadership and has a social component as well. Within classrooms, providing instruction that promotes student engagement is a challenge that faces teacher leaders, mainly as they are aware of their diminished role as primary knowledge providers. In order to deal with this challenge the teachers have taken conscious steps so that they are clearly able to influence and promote schoolbased learning. Teachers, even in the more traditional schools (Schools 2 and 3), now teach in ways that connect the formal school curriculum to its real-life applications. This helps in minimizing the gap between learning for qualifications and real engagement in school. Where knowledge gained through the Internet competes
ARTICLE IN PRESS K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
373
directly with school knowledge, teachers are able to exercise influence by being interpreters of that knowledge in the sense of showing its practical relevance. This is a way in which an examination-oriented curriculum is made meaningful and relevant. (Researcher) What do you think you are giving to your students? (James, teacher, School 2) Focus. Interest. I am trying to teach them that the [English] language is not a subject but a communication toolyit makes teaching easier and broadens the horizons of the kidsy In School 1, the business studies teacher ran a business before coming to teach and students appreciated his ability to connect his classroom teaching to ‘‘what it is to work in the real world’’ (Group discussion, students, School 1). On the other hand, though the mathematics teacher was hard working, he clearly did not have a significant influence on the students as he had failed to make the students application of classroom mathematics to the outside world. (Group discussion with students from School 2) School teaches you how to do math, no one is really going to use math outside schooly we do not really need more than learning two times two, I think that is enough. We discuss the implications of the second dimension of the teacher’s influence, the socialization aspect, in the following section.
3. Teachers as change agents Complementary to the view of schools as open systems, is the emerging view that teachers are the agents through which the rapid changes in the environment are transmitted into school systems. Fullan (1998) stressed that the world in which schools function is changing at an accelerated rate causing educational leaders to operate in situations that are ‘‘increasingly complex and constrained’’. This assertion implies that leadership practices need to adapt to diverse contextual realities in which school leaders must function. Given the variety of challenges that educational systems face today, researchers tend to emphasize that the ability to cope with change becomes a necessity for teacher leaders (Cetron & Gayle, 1991). Analysis of the data in this study, however, suggests that sweeping changes in the political or economic setting do not have a direct impact on schools. Teachers are change agents, but they bring about change in the classrooms in less extravagant ways. In the daily professional lives of teachers there is little interest or opportunity to adapt or translate environmental changes to fit in with the needs, interests and the requirements of the students that they teach. Rather, they are change agents in their effort to mould the requirements of the school curriculum to suit the demands of the students—to add meaning to school learning so that students recognize the real life applications of this knowledge. More importantly, teachers are change agents because they help in the socializing process of their students by being a bridge between the world outside and the school.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 374
K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
John, a teacher from School 1 has this to say about his role as a classroom leader and his perceptions summarizes what most teacher leaders envision their roles to be: As a teacher, in loco parentis, the child is your responsibility. Basically children are under your guidance. As a teacher you have to holistically educate the child, not just the subject mattery . You are a role modely . I think that as a leader I function not only in the classroom but also in the whole picture. Conversations in the corridor or at the football match. I also think is that the leadership is shown through the subject. The students are very perceptive if you are not prepared for the class. That is also a part of teacher leadership; we should know what to do with the children. I think that that the leadership is far more than teaching them a body of concepts. The student will leave school and maybe forget the causes of World War 2 but might remember the skills of interpretation, analysis and so ony This is a question of life skills. In keeping with their role as change agents in this more modest sense, teachers function as role models in helping students in their socialization process. Teachers consciously teach ‘‘the hidden curriculum’’ (George, teacher, School 1). Parents and teachers both believe that the amount of time that the students spend with the teacher implies that teachers have to educate students holistically, rather than just academically. Students expect teachers to possess personal traits that are exemplary. Teachers who are ‘‘shirkers’’ (Group Discussion with students, School 1) are unacceptable to students, as are teachers who are perceived to teach because they have opted to teach for professional reasons not because they are ‘‘passionate’’ about the subject. Finally, teachers have brought about change in these schools by deliberately altering their mode of communication with students in an effort to build a more egalitarian school society. From being figures of authority they were keen to be seen as friends. (Nancy, teacher, School 3) Sometimes you have to take a very friendly approach and speak their languagey we cannot just sit and impose ourselves as teachersyTalk like a friend, put your hand on their shoulders, the language that you use, the tone that you use, speak slang and put down your image and be like them. Otherwise they would see you as authority and wouldn’t tell you anythingyI think our students are not afraid of us because we maintain a friendly relationshipyI went to a school where teachers were like gods. Teachers believed that an approachable demeanor would help in their pastoral and instructional relationship with the students. In these ways teachers are able to influence students to achieve the behavioral and affective components of engagement. To a large extent teachers have succeeded in breaking the traditional authoritarian moulds, even in the more traditionally run schools and this has resulted in teachers garnering more information about their students, both in terms of their school-based activities and their outside activities and this in turn helps them, in their role as teacher leaders.
ARTICLE IN PRESS K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
375
4. Micro context of the school Since the industrial age, the dominant perspective of organizations has been that of a machine. Weber’s (1947) model of bureaucracy was built on this frame. Presentday researchers contend that such models restrict an organization’s needs and a leader’s ability to adapt to the needs of a rapidly changing society. Leadership is understood as a process of meaning making that must be socially critical and oriented towards social vision and change and not just organizational goals (Foster, 1986). This point of view is complementary to the literature on school leadership, which in the past few years has stressed on the importance of transformational leadership and distributed leadership with its attendant connotations of collegiality, collaboration and flatter management structures within schools. It is also generally assumed that the extent which teachers exercise their leadership is shaped by organizational factors. Research in this area, therefore, tends to examine the organizational environment of the given schools. (Hargreaves, 2003). Frost and Harris (2003) emphasized that these arrangements clearly affect the extent to which teachers can exercise their leadership. However, the empirical data from this study reveal some surprising results on the internal structures of the schools. A common bond uniting the three schools is that they viewed themselves as learning organizations and were seen to be keen to adopt and adapt to the times. But, irrespective of differences in their funding/governing bodies, staff, and student, and parent profiles, they are all run on Weberian bureaucratic lines. Surprisingly, in spite of functioning within very tight hierarchical structures, teachers do not perceive that the administration impinges on their leadership and (except for one teacher), there is no call for transparent management structures. (Researcher) What is the hierarchy like? (Miss Kwan, teacher, School 2) There is the board of management, then the principal, I am also in the board as I am a representative, the church also plays a role, we have meetings 3 times a year to discuss influential things. Under the principal are the two vice principals and the senior teachersy what we call the administrative departments. Under each department there will be some team members. I think that it is well organized. It works efficiently and seriously. We take everything very seriously and strictly. As long as teachers were clear about what was expected from them and about the reporting structure of the school’s hierarchy they had no problems in fulfilling these requirements. In School 3, there has been an effort to democratize the management system by involving a large number of teachers in its various committees, bodies and panels. However, teachers from this school acknowledged that they were often at a loss when it came to taking decisions and many of the teachers professed that they preferred tighter structures as they believed it would ease their working conditions. The teacher participants believed that the culture of the school had very little to do with what went on inside the classroom and believed that
ARTICLE IN PRESS 376
K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
they had total freedom to teach in the way that they thought was the best, without any interference. (Researcher) How much flexibility to do have while with the kids? (George, teacher School 2 ) Totaly I love working here, the students, the buildings; no body bothers me in my classroom. I have responsibilities and I do my job.
5. Impact of teacher leadership Contemporary literature on school leadership emphasizes forms of transformational leadership and distributed leadership. Distributed leadership theory advocates that schools ‘‘decentre’’ the leader. In this sense leadership is more appropriately understood as ‘‘fluid and emergent, rather than a fixed phenomenon.’’ (Gronn, 2000). It reflects the view that every person can, in one way or another, demonstrate leadership (Goleman, 2000). Sergiovanni’s (2001) concept of teacher density is also of import here. He argued that high concept of leadership density means that a larger number of people are involved in the work of others and are involved in the leadership process. In such a situation, all teachers are potential leaders. Though the research literature tends to be dominated by empirical studies derived from studying the head teachers, school administrators and others with formal leadership roles, an important result that has been reinforced by recent work on effective leadership is that the authority to lead need not be located in the person of the formal head of the hierarchy (Day, Harris, Hadfield, Tolley, & Beresford, 2000; MacBeath, 1988). Leadership thus is separated from role and status and is primarily concerned with the relationships and connections among the individuals within a school. This study endorses many of the underlying beliefs and assumptions about distributed leadership. It sanctions the belief that for school leadership to be effective, it must come from those who are the closest to the students: the teachers. Principals are, by and large, on the periphery as students seldom have direct contact with them. (George, teacher, School 1) I think if you were to talk to the students their experiences of the day have been shaped by the teachers that they had. Teachers have the biggest impact on them. The headmaster is there when he is needed, an authority figure but he doesn’t have a teaching timetable so individual teachers implement the policies or not. All that matter is that you have a relationship with studentsy. There is, nevertheless, one critical difference between the tenets of distributed leadership and the reality of leadership in schools. The assumption is that this form of leadership exists in school between teachers and their peers. But in these schools, the data suggest that the form of leadership that is most powerful exists between
ARTICLE IN PRESS K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
377
teachers and their students. Teachers are able to influence students through implicit and explicit means. (Robert, parent, School 1) The teachers interact with them during the formative years and they have the kids captive 5/6 hour a day and they have to act as role models. Teachers are quasi parents. They can hold the respect of kids through the authority of their position, which parents struggle to do sometimesy . I think teachers are very influential. Though all teachers can collectively display leadership and indeed all teachers are potentially leaders, the ‘followers’ are not other teachers but the students. Teachers, parents, and students, believe that teacher leaders facilitate the complex dynamics of pedagogical interaction by motivating, communicating and nurturing the growth of students. They lead students towards the larger world of social cooperation and universal knowledge. Transformational leadership, which is theorized to be central to the implementation of much current school reform, is viewed as the quality of a person to motivate people to change individual behavior to cooperative group behavior and to give direction to the lives of other people (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House & Howell, 1992). Leaders define a vision that is congruent with followers’ key values and construct a culture that provides shared meanings where followers can pursue tasks and strive for success. However, in the classrooms of this study, when teachers and students interact there is little, if any, stress on vision-building or shared goals. Rather the emphasis is on a humbler (though not less important) aspect of leadership. Teachers are expected to ease the way towards their students’ journey of socialization. Thus the personal characteristics of the teacher are deemed to be more important than their ability to create shared visions. A synthesis of the data collected from the participants reveals that the nature of the leadership that teachers exhibit in schools is exemplified by a number of characteristics by which they are influence the students. Some of these attributes are:
Being committed to their students (Group discussion with students, School 2). Some teachers are always thinking of us. Not just thinking of the subjects but care about other things. Being fair (Group discussion with students, School 3) Some of the teachers are very fair. Being humane (Group discussion with students, School 2) I would like her to speak to me as her daughter. Being seen to be free from personal biases (Group discussion with students, School 2) Teachers should not have biases. They may hate one girl and do a lot of mean things to them. Having good communicative skills (Group discussion with students, School 2) Some talkative teachers are goody.Teachers are very busy but some teachers find time to talk to usy.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 378
K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
Being empathetic (Group discussion with students, School 1)y. they treat us with respect. Being supportive (Group discussion with students, School 1) They give support and counselingyEqual opportunities to all the kidsy.Sometimes the teachers do not do this they give too much attention to some kids and not enough to others. Being approachable (Group discussion with students, School 3) If there is a teacher with a young heart we can get close to her because they understand what we think. So it is easy for us to talk to them. People who understand usy.Some are young and active and they care about our lives not just the studies and they like to play with us. But some are serious, they always deduct marks because of our uniform Having good pedagogical skills (Group discussion with students, School 1) They teach well. Being hardworking (Group discussion with students, School 1) If the teachers are putting in work, it is obvious. Others do not put in the work. Some teachers are slackers. When you know that teachers are slackers, I do not respect them.
Thus, only the charismatic dimension of the transformational leadership model seems relevant to the form of leadership that teachers practice in these three schools. (And this may even be explained by appeal to the earlier trait theories of leadership.) It is the teacher’s personal qualities that are important in school settings.
6. Conceptualization of teacher leadership In examining the nature of teacher leadership, it is worth comparing the findings of this study with three significant models of teacher leadership. The earliest model focused on teacher leaders as efficient managers (Evans, 1996). Leithwood and Jantzi’s studies (1999, 2000) also took managing classroom conditions to be an aspect of leadership. The findings of this study, however, highlight the fact that teachers and students perceive that the leadership impact of teachers extends beyond the classroom (and schools). Teacher leadership transcends the formal learning sites and even the years that students spend in schools. (Group discussion with students, School 1)yI think we realize that now but when we look back we may realize that we have learnt thingsythey have influenced you, how hard you can work. The second model focuses on teachers as instructional guides. Though current researchers tend to downplay the importance of teachers as instructional leaders we would argue that classroom leadership is complex and instructional leadership forms an important and integral part of teacher leadership. Students believe that faulty pedagogical content knowledge, lack of communication skills of the teachers and even the work habits of teachers have serious repercussions in their ability to lead
ARTICLE IN PRESS K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
379
students. The extent to which teachers can exercise leadership and the way they do this is also affected by the value of their personal knowledge. (Group discussion with students, School 1) Within the subject they will pass on their past experiencey Thus pedagogical knowledge that is well articulated and publicly demonstrable is an important component of the teachers’ repertory. In the current literature there may be found a strong belief in the collegial professionals who build collaborative cultures within school. While we have no argument with the truth of this belief, for indeed if all teachers are to be leaders there has to be a form of distributed leadership working within schools, with attendant implications for building strong inter-relations within members of the teaching fraternity, the emphasis on teachers as collegial professionals is not central to the context of teacher leaders leading students. Once the doors of the classrooms close, interaction is limited to individual teachers and their students. It is the teacher’s personal attributes that influence students to be more or less engaged with learning. Teachers who are approachable and hard working, are perceived by students to be leaders, not teachers who are highly professionalized or who have the ability to lead their colleagues. In fact students believe that teachers who treat teaching as a paid job and therefore lack what they call ‘‘passion’’ for the subject that they teach do not have leadership impact: (Group discussion with students, School 1) Some are teachers not because they have a passion for teaching but just because the pay here is good. They have no passion for the subject. You can feel that they come here and do what they have to do for the subject not because they love ity .
7. Implications Scholars and advocates of teacher leadership frequently cite Hoffer’s (1973, p. 32) pithy comment: In a time of drastic change, it is the learners who inherit the future. The learned usually find themselves equipped to live in a world that no longer exists. The sense of urgency that this statement evokes is echoed in such titles as ‘‘Teacher Leadership: Its Time Has Come’’ (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 1996). The underlying assumptions of these proclamations are that since the world that we are now living in is changing at a pace that has been unparalleled in history, the ‘‘learned’’ (or educators) too should respond to the clarion call of change and mould themselves to fit the shifting times. But the argument of this research is that teacher leadership is not to be construed as a product of changing times. Indeed, changes in society are not reflected very strongly in schools. Having begun with the more generous assumption that schools are open systems, sensitive to the nuances of their changing environment, it turns out that a more restrictive assumption would have sufficed.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 380
K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
The schools in this study turned out to be relatively closed. Nor is leadership an issue that demands special empowerment for teachers from external sources. It is clearly very much an aspect of the teacher’s day-to-day professional lives. It exists in the interactions between teachers and their students. Given that teacher leadership is a part of the teacher’s daily lives some implications about this leadership are: 1. All teachers by their unique professional role (and the length of time spent with them) have the potential to influence the students they teach. In schools, leadership is an influence process that manifests itself most strongly between teachers and their students, rather than on teachers and their colleagues, which is the basis of some current leadership studies. Students and parents perceive teachers to be role models. The teachers’ personal traits come under scrutiny during their interactions with students, both as professional and individuals. Teacher leadership in schools has both instructional and social aspects. 2. The task of instructional leadership becomes more challenging and complex because of the impact of the Internet and the fact that students do not attribute real life meaning to school learning and thus find it boring and repetitive. Teacher training and teacher development programs need to be aware of the fundamental dichotomy that exists in teachers’ professional lives. Teachers feel strong pressure exerted by external examinations and students are expected to perform well in these examinations, yet in the perception of students the academic content of these examinations—as opposed to their certification value—is ultimately meaningless. Teachers also need to be conscious of the expectations that students have of them in assisting to bridge the gap between schools and the outside world. 3. There is little to support the notion that teacher leadership implies a grand systemic change. Teachers have no additional concerns with regard to working in hierarchical structures, providing there are clear-cut indications of the expectations that administrators have on them. There does not have to be a specialized call for empowering teachers, as the teachers in this study believed that when it comes to formal and informal interaction with students, there is no intervention from figures higher up the hierarchical ladder. 4. With reference to the conclusions drawn by Leithwood and Jantzi (1999, 2000), the causal relationships between teacher leadership and student engagement in our study, were complicated by the fact that we could partition student learning into school-site learning and autonomous learning that takes place outside of school. We also found that autonomous self-learning was perceived as being more authentic to the lives of students, whereas school-site learning was motivating primarily through its credentialing function. And within this context, teachers’ success in promoting student participation depended crucially on how they managed to structure the social relations of pedagogy so as to make school-site learning more authentic, or connected to the real life applications that students expected. However, if this is how teachers influence student engagement with school then it will be almost entirely missed by the data categories used in the Canadian studies (especially the 1999 study) because they document teacher leadership mostly in terms of teachers influencing other teachers (Leithwood &
ARTICLE IN PRESS K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
381
Jantzi, 1999, p. 689). Of course one can do that, but defining leadership widely as an influence process and then defining teacher leadership narrowly in terms of processes that influence other teachers, helps to create the impression that teachers have little or no influence over students’ and the nature of their participation in school. Clearly, the notion of teacher leadership is complex and subtle, and requires further analytical work.
8. Conclusion Within the context of the new realities that involve widespread autonomous student learning, an enhanced understanding of teacher leadership cannot be developed in the absence of a broader view of the teachers’ influence. More so, because the results of this study indicate that teacher leadership is an expansive, ongoing influence process that impact in a range of ways on student engagement in schools. This leadership is complex and multi-faceted as it manifests itself both in its instructional and social roles within schools, as well as adjusting and adapting to the pertinent issue of the student’s autonomous learning outside schools. Within the context of instructional leadership, teacher leaders now need to exercise a more holistic form pedagogy that focuses on meaning making and the practical application of school-based knowledge to-out-of-school situations. Instructional leadership, however, forms only a part of the influence that teacher leaders have on their students. There is a socialization component to teacher leadership and this implies that teacher leaders are called upon to be role models to their students, both in terms of their personal attributes and work habits. Teachers strongly believe that their leadership (viewed as a broad construct of an influence process) is embedded in their professional lives and is generally not impeded by organizational constraints. They have thus adapted their pedagogical styles and manner of interaction with their students in order to enhance their leadership on student engagement amidst the new realities that face schools today. References Barlow, J. P., & Turnbridge, N. (1995). The cyberspace cowboy. Australian Personal Computer, 2–4. Cetron, M., & Gayle, M. (1991). Educational resistance: Our schools at the turn of the century. New York: St. Martins Press. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 637–647. Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M., Tolley, H., & Beresford, J. (2000). Leading schools in times of change. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Evans, R. (1996). The human side of school change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from schools. Review of Educational Research, 59(2), 197–228. Foster, W. (1986). Paradigms and promises. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus. Frost, D., & Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership: Towards a research agenda. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 479–496.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 382
K.R. Katyal, C.W. Evers / Int. J. Educ. Res. 41 (2004) 367–382
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer Press. Fullan, M. (1998). Change forces: The sequel. London: Falmer Press. Goleman, D. (2000). The new teachers: Transforming the art of leadership into the science of results. London: Little Brown. Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational Management and Administration, 28(3), 317–338. Hargreaves, D. (2003). From improvement to transformation. Keynote lecture. Paper presented at the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Sydney, Australia. Hoffer, E. (1973). Reflections on the human condition. New York: Harper and Row. House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 3(2), 81–108. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2001). Educational administration: Research and practice. Boston: McGrawHill. Katyal, K. R., & Evers, C. W. (2004). Student learning, engagement with schools, and teacher leadership: Case studies in Hong Kong. Leading and Managing, 10(2), 41–52. Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (1996). Awakening the sleeping giant: Leadership development for teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc. Lee, M. (1998). Addressing the teaching Iinversion. The Practicing Administrator, 20(3), 38–41. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). The relative effects of principal and teacher sources of leadership on student engagement with school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(Suppl.), 679–706. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). Principals and teacher leadership effects: A replication. School Leadership and Management, 20(4), 415–434. MacBeath, J. (1988). Effective school leadership: Responding to change. London: Paul Chapman Publishers. Mumtaz, S. (2000). Children’s enjoyment and perception of computer use in the home and the school. Computers & Education, 36(4), 347–362. Numata, H. (2003). What children have lost by the modernisation of education: A comparison of experiences in western Europe and eastern Asia. In M. Bray (Ed.), Comparative education: Continuing traditions, new challenges and new paradigms (pp. 241–264). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Scott, W. R. (1987). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Sergiovanni, T. J. (2001). Leadership: What’s in it for Schools?. London: Routledge Falmer. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations. New York: Free Press. Williams, M., & McKeown, L. (1996). Definitions of the net that teachers experience. Australian Educational Computing, 11(2), 4–9. Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.