Transcript Document

Evaluation of Teachers’ Perceptions of Action
Research Process Effects;
What Leadership Style is Appropriate for the
Implementation of Change in Schools?
… in the Project “How to Become a Learning
Community?”
Tanja Rupnik Vec, M. Sc. and Brigita Rupar, sup. spec.
National Education Institute, Slovenia (NEI)
Presentation Overview



Model of Holistic Support (HS) to
Schools Implementing Change
Teachers’ Evaluation of Action
Research (AR) Process
Exploration of the Headteachers’
Leadership Style and the Role of
Leadership Team
Main Goals of “Model of HS” Project

T
To encourage and support teachers in their
search for ways to ensure the quality of
students’ development opportunity in school
(find ways to ensure students’ overall personal &
academic development)

Support teacher's professional development

Support school communities to become
learning communities (dialog, shared vision,
(raise teachers’ awareness of their thinking, feeling
and behavioral patterns, and encourage their search
for alternatives)
personal competency and effectiveness,
interrelatedness, problem solving)
Responsibilities in the Model
of HS
NEI
SCHOOLS teachers
Plans the project
goals and
strategies, offers
training,
coaching,
didactic
modules,networki
ng, evaluation
Own needs
assesment;
action research
teams around
problem –
didactics; Team
planning of
instruction
SCHOOLS headteachers
• Leadership
team establish;
culture
building,
motivation,
coordination in
school

The first year: 4 schools (2003)
The second year: 3 schools (2004)
The third year: 3 schools (2005)

Every headmaster forms a school leadership team;

Every school gets a critical friend and a team of
consultants;
 Critical friend works with school leadership team;
 Consultants work with teachers.


Our Learning Process

From autocratic change agents ...

"We know what you should do in your teaching!
We know what your problems are! We know the
truth!" --> implicit message
(top-down approach); we worked as content experts

... to real partnership with schools!

"What are your needs? What do you want to
improve in your practice?" --> explicit message
(bottom-up approach); we worked as process experts
Three Levels of Interventions

Level of entire school (all teachers)
(workshops: didactic, process ...)

Level of different groups of teachers: school
leadership team, action research groups,
support groups (workshops with teams, teams’
working sessions, consultations)

Level of individual teacher (or subject)
(workshops, consultations)
T
The structure of school working teams
T
SDT Critical friend
Leadership team
AR 1:
Motivation
History teacher 1
Adviser for history
AR 2:
Communication
Math teacher 2
History teacher 2
Action research
groups (example of one
school)
AR 3:
Teaching Math teacher 1
methods
Adviser for math
AR 4:
Crosscurricular
themes
School Level Training


B
Aims:
 Teachers raise awareness of thinking, feeling
and acting in classroom (e.g., conceptions
about learning, knowledge and teaching)
 Teachers systematically investigate their
practice and solve their actual professional
dilemmas
 Teachers search for alternatives in thinking,
feeling and acting in classroom
Strategies
 Workshops with all teachers, consultations
Leadership Teams’ Training

1st Session – Introduction
of the program/project,
SWOT, school climate
June, Avgust

2nd Session – School
quality (concept, models);
teachers' personal
development goals
September

3rd Session – Articulation
of action research question
October
Leadership Teams’ Training (cont.)

4th Session – Concepts of
learning, teaching and
knowledge
November/December

5th Session – AR, final
articulation of action
research plan
January

6th Session – Evaluation
May
Second and Third Years of Our Cooperation
With Schools
• More initiative left to schools,
• not “one-size fits for all”professional trainining
anymore
• Connect AR identified problems with training
offerings;
• Give reposibility to LT, be open to their initiatives
• NEI’s role: provide continous assistance by
coach assigned to each school
• External evaluation, networking
T
Evaluation of AR Process Effects on
Teachers
Research questions:
 What was the meaning of AR for teachers in
the project?
 How did they experience the action
research process?
 How do teachers perceive the effect of their
AR on their identifying subjectively
perceived effects of their involvement in AR
process?
 Are teachers willing to and feel the need for
further systematic research of their practice?
Evaluation of the Effects of AR
Instruments:
 Semantic differential
 Questionnaires (combination of open
and close questions)
Sample:
128 teachers from six Gymnasiums
which were partners in the project
Legend:
=M
Evaluation of the Effects of AR
= Mo
Opportunity
Obstacle
Activity
Passivity
Change
Stagnation
Individualiz.
Cooperation
Confusion
Clarity
Risk
Certainty
Evaluation of the Effects of AR (Cont.)
Systematical
Casual
Urgency
Lack of
Urgency
Enjoyment
Loss
Professionalism
Extra-standard
Load
Acquisition
Unprofession.
Groundwork
Evaluation of the Effects of AR (Cont.)
Progress
Stagnation
Meaningful
Meaningless
Real Change
Apparent Change
My Wish
Wish of Others
Nothing New
Novelty
Creativity
Rigidity
Evaluation of the Effects of AR (Cont.)
No Interest
Curiosity
Playfulness
Seriousness
Control
Freedom
For my professional development AR is:
Absolutely
Important
Absolutely
Unimportant
M=3,69
Importance of AR for my Professional
Development
Histogram
5 – very important
100
4 – quite important
Frequency
80
3 – either important or
unimportant
60
2 – quite unimportant
1 – very unimportant
40
20
Mean = 3,69
Std. Dev. = 0,731
N = 127
0
0
1
2
3
4
Pomen AR
Importance of AR
5
6
Evaluation of the Effects of AR

Did you change your practice in the
process of your action research?
Yes = 81 (63,3%)
No = 40 (31,3%)
Without answer = 6 (4,7%)
What Did You Change in the Process of
Action Research?
Change
f
%
Method of teaching
67
52,3
Relationships with students
13
10,2
Team teaching
12
9,4
Assessment
9
7,0
Crosscurricular themes
8
6,3
What are Positive Outcomes of AR?
Positive Outcomes of AR
f
%
Better cooperation and communication
with my colleagues
Professional development
74
57,8
39
30,5
Higher quality of my work
33
25,7
The habit of systematic reflection of my
work
26
20,3
Positive change in my relationship? My
work? With students?
Higher creativity
21
16,4
16
12,5
Obstacles in AR Process
Obstacles
f
%
Lack of time
75
58,6
Students’ passivity
29
23,5
Need for systematic writing (reports)
28
22,7
Overloaded syllabus
18
14,1
Absence of some important
knowledge
13
10,2
Which Activities Have you Planned in
Your AR?








f
Peer classroom observation
99
Study of professional literature 108
Organized discussions
39
Critical friendship
107
Reflections
108
Classroom observations of consultant
64
Portfolio
48
Workshops
101
%
77,3
84,4
30,5
83,6
84,4
50,0
37,5
78,8
What Did you Learn in AR About
Yourself?
Some answers (quotations):
 “I’m able to create interesting lessons.”
 “If I had more theoretical knowledge, I would
work better.”
 “I’m not always right. I have to change my
approach to students, I have to give them
more opportunitiy in my lessons.”
 “I can’t work or think or learn instead of my
students.”
What Did you Learn About Your
Students?
Some examples of answers:
 “I found out what they like and what
motivates them.”
 “They are different from my (negative)
stereotype: they are willling to work,
but they need challenge and support.”
NEI Provides Diferent Kinds of
Support. Which Did You Find Useful?
Form of cooperation with
NEI
f
%
Cooperation with my consultant
Workshops
69
45
53,9
35,2
Teachers’ meetings
18
14,1
My consultans’s classroom
observations
8
6,3
Without answer
22
17,0
Rupnik Vec ©
Will You Continue With AR in the
Future?




YES:
YES, on condition:
NO:
Without answer:
89 (69,5%)
19 (14,8%)
5 (3,9%)
16 (12,5%)
Why:

AR process helps me raise the quality of my work: 20 (15,6%)

AR helps me develop as a professional: 13 (10,1%)
Semi-Structured Interview
With Headteachers
AIMS
 To explore their leadership style from
distributed leadership perspective (source
Marzano et all, 2005)

To explore the role of leadership team
Leadership for Second –Order
Change (Marzano et al, 2005)



Distribution of internal resposibility and
authority across the members
Being the driving force behind the
innovation
Being knowledgeable about how the
innovation will affect curricular
practices
Leadership for Second –Order
Change (Marzano et al, 2005)-cont.




Being willing to move forward without a
guarantee of success
Continually monitoring the impact of
the innovation
Adapting leadership style to the needs
of specific situation
Demonstrating behaviors that are
consistent with beliefs
HTs’ Activities to Support
Change Process




Share their responsibilities and
leadership tasks with LT
Develop open and effective lines of
communication with staff
Share beliefs about school, teaching,
and learning with teachers
Are directly involved in design of
curricular and instructional activities
HTs’ Activities to Support
Change Process – cont.



Increase number of classroom
observations
Evaluate the progress of the project
and its impact on school’s practice
Inspire teachers to accomplish things
“Headteacher has to believe in change – that’s the first
condition for success.”
The Role of Leadership Team


Felt to be “an engine” of change: they
discussed innovation, supported each other,
planned work with teachers together,
offered support to school community;
Spent a lot of time getting the information
across to the school community;
The Role of Leadership Team
– cont.


From putting in practice everything that NEI
recommeded to critically evaluating what
was suitable for their particular school and
making independent decisions;
From overseeing the process to working on
the climate of trust and collaboration and
serving as a catalyst for school’s
development.
Effects at the School Level




More active learning methods in
teachers’ practice;
Involvement of the majority of teachers
in the design and implementation of
curriculum, instruction and assesment;
Peer observations become general
practice;
More “genuine” contacts with students.
What HTs Learnt from the
Project

Systemic change affecting the primary
processes in school is impossible
without distributing leadership

One of the HT says: “Teachers from LT had
to be my advisors. I had learnt the most from our
discussions. I did not decide about the changes, I
was only a coordinator.”
References
Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a Criticaly Reflective Teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
DiBella, A. J. in Nevis, E. C. (1998). How Organizations Learn? An integrated Strategy for
Building Learning Capability. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, inc.
Fullan, M. G. (1993). The New Meaning of Educational Change, 2nd ed. London: Cassell.
Giles, C. (1997). School Development Planning. A practical Guide to the Strategic
Management process. Plymouth: Northcote House.
Hargreaves, D. H., Hopkins, D. (2001). Šola zmore več. Management in praksa razvojnega
načrtovanja. Ljubljana. Zavod RS za šolstvo.
Marzano,R.J., Waters, T., McNulty, B.A. (2005). School Leadership that Works. From
Research to Results.
Senge, P. M. (1993). The fifth discipline. The art and practice of the learning organisation.
London: Century Business.
Senge, P. in sod. (2000). Schools that learn. A fifth discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents,
and Everyone Who Cares About Education. New York, London: Doubleday.
Schollaert, R. (2006a). The meaning of educational change according to BASICS. V:
Schollaert, R. Leenheer, P. (ur). Spirals of Change. Educational Change as a Driving
Force for School Improvement (17 – 26). Leuven: LonnooCampus Publishers.
Sentočnik, S. (2007). Schools Implementing Change: Development of Distributed Leadership in
High Schools in Slovenia. International Community-Building Symposia Session UCEA
Convention, Washington D.C.
For Additional Information
Please contact:
Brigita Rupar ([email protected])
Tanja Rupnik Vec ([email protected])
Zavod Republike Slovenije za šolstvo
Poljanska 28, 1000 Ljubljana
www.zrss.si
National Education Institute, Poljanska 28, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia