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

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 (raise teachers’ awareness of their thinking, feeling and behavioral patterns, and encourage their search for alternatives)

Support school communities to become learning communities (dialog, shared vision, personal competency and effectiveness, interrelatedness, problem solving)

T

Responsibilities in the Model of HS

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 InterventionsThree Levels of Interventions

Level of Level of entire schoolentire school (all teachers) (all teachers) (workshops: didactic, process ...)(workshops: didactic, process ...)

Level of different Level of different groups groups of teachers: school of teachers: school leadership team, action research groups, leadership team, action research groups, support groups (workshops with teams, teams’ support groups (workshops with teams, teams’ working sessions, consultations)working sessions, consultations)

Level of individual Level of individual teacherteacher (or subject) (or subject) (workshops, consultations) (workshops, consultations)

T

The structure of school working teams The structure of school working teams T

Leadership team

Action research groups (example of one school)

AR 1: Motivation

AR 2: Communi-cation

AR 3: Teaching methods

AR 4: Cross-curricular themes

SDT Critical friend

Adviser for history Adviser for math

History teacher 2History teacher 1

Math teacher 2

Math teacher 1

School Level Training

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

B

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

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

Evaluation of the Effects of AR

Opportunity

Activity

Change

Individualiz.

Confusion

Risk

Obstacle

Passivity

Stagnation

Cooperation

Clarity

Certainty

Legend:

= M

= Mo

Evaluation of the Effects of AR (Cont.)

Systematical

Urgency

Enjoyment

Loss

Professionalism

Extra-standard

Casual

Lack of Urgency

Load

Acquisition

Unprofession.

Groundwork

Evaluation of the Effects of AR (Cont.)Progress

Meaningful

Real Change

My Wish

Nothing New

Creativity

Stagnation

Meaningless

Apparent Change

Wish of Others

Novelty

Rigidity

Evaluation of the Effects of AR (Cont.)

Curiosity

Seriousness

Freedom

For my professional development AR is:

Absolutely

Unimportant

Absolutely

Important

M=3,69

No Interest

Playfulness

Control

Importance of AR for my Professional Development

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Pomen AR

0

20

40

60

80

100

Fre

qu

en

cy

Mean = 3,69Std. Dev. = 0,731N = 127

Histogram

5 – very important

4 – quite important

3 – either important or unimportant

2 – quite unimportant

1 – very unimportant

Importance of AR

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

74 57,8

Professional development 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?

21 16,4

Higher creativity 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 77,3 Study of professional literature 108 84,4 Organized discussions 39 30,5 Critical friendship 107 83,6 Reflections 108 84,4 Classroom observations of consultant 64 50,0 Portfolio 48 37,5 Workshops 101 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?

Rupnik Vec ©

Form of cooperation with NEI

f %

Cooperation with my consultant 69 53,9

Workshops 45 35,2

Teachers’ meetings 18 14,1

My consultans’s classroom observations

8 6,3

Without answer 22 17,0

Will You Continue With AR in the Future?

YES: 89 (69,5%) YES, on condition: 19 (14,8%) NO: 5 (3,9%) Without answer: 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.”

ReferencesBrookfield, 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 (brigita.rupar@zrss.si)

Tanja Rupnik Vec (tanja.vec@zrss.si)

Zavod Republike Slovenije za šolstvoPoljanska 28, 1000 Ljubljana

www.zrss.si

National Education Institute, Poljanska 28, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia