In the previous chapter, I explained Phase 1 of the programme in which I worked with my collaborators to introduce the concept of TL, enable participants to identify their professional concerns and consult their colleagues within the wider professional community. In the first phase everyone involved experienced disorientation. Previous assumptions and norms were challenged, and we all struggled to adjust to the challenges of the programme. However, Phase 2 proceeded on more solid ground as we had been able to achieve a degree of re-orientation and could begin to enact.
In this chapter I explore Phase 2 of the programme during which the participants started to enact the leadership of their development projects. The enactment of TL took place in relation to organisational structures: the participants had to wrestle with the tension between school requirements and the aspirations of their development projects. Therefore, it was pivotal to engage the school leadership teams in the programme and provide individual support to each participant. This led to growing activism on the part of my co-facilitators, who were mainly members of school leadership teams, as well as awakening of participants’ agency. This chapter looks at a crucial period of the programme when the participants slowly made the transition from the norm of merely reacting to external requirements to a more proactive stance in which they could begin to engage in reflective action to bring about improvements in practice.
The following narrative is based on data obtained through in situ analysis of the programme development and post hoc analysis of the programme materials, which includes minutes of the meetings, research journal entries, group session materials, participants’ reflective proforma, co-facilitators’ written observations, notes on lesson observations, participants’ written reflections and feedback on the network event. The narrative was structured around key events such as first periodic review, two group sessions, two one-to-one meetings and the second School Network event (see Figure 8). These events took place between 18th of January and 11th of March 2017. I now begin the
Figure 8. The main events of the Phase 2 of the programme
First periodic review with the project teams
The second project team meetings took place in four schools separately between 18th and
26th of January 2017. The purpose of these meetings was to review Phase 1 of the
programme, record the barriers, adjust the programme and identify further plans in collaboration with school leadership teams. I envisaged that this would enhance their roles in the programme, contribute to organisational learning and ensure the sustainability of the programme. The meeting lasted for one hour and involved the school directors and my co-facilitators. I prepared power point presentations with the analysis of achievements and barriers to the programme during Phase 1 for each school separately. In order to ensure open conversation, I did not record the meeting, as it could have been intimidating. So, instead, I wrote minutes straight after each meeting. Discussion in these meetings featured several themes, which I discuss below.
Involving the directors
This was the second time I was meeting with the directors. The meetings took place in the directors’ offices. Although, as discussed in Chapter 4, I knew that holding the meetings in the directors’ offices might diminish the role of other members of the project team, my external position left me with little control over the internal procedures of the
Creating the
conditions ReorientingPhase 1.
Phase 2.
Enacting ReflectingPhase 3.
Ø First periodic review Ø Third group session Ø Third one-to-one meetings Ø Fourth group sessions Ø Fourth one-to-one meetings Ø Second School Network event
schools. As with the first meetings, the directors were actively engaged in the discussion about structural barriers to the programme, whereas I had to have a separate meeting with the vice-directors and my co-facilitators to examine the programme details and discuss our further plans.
The directors did not engage in discussion about the programme details, but concentrated on how to address organisational barriers. The major ones included the lack of time, space and access to resources in Kazakh, which was observed in schools to a different degree. For example, the lack of time was particularly evident in Birlik school, where holding the group sessions was a challenge as the participants’ time-tables spanned the period 08:00- 18:45. Although Yntymaq school had the teachers’ room for collaborative purposes, Birlik, Alga and Talap schools had no such space. Moreover, the libraries in all four schools had no up-to-date literature to support teachers’ professional learning. These queries were addressed to a different degree too. The Director in Birlik school suggested that we hold group sessions after the working day. However, she could not provide any clear answer on creating space for teachers and providing resources. The Director in Alga school said that they were refurbishing one of the classrooms and that her teachers would have their own staff room in the next couple of months. In Yntymaq school, the Director told me that he could buy books if his teachers provided a list of the books they needed. Apart from that, neither of the directors engaged with further planning of the programme. One of the reasons could have been the directors’ perceived roles in the schools. School directors in Kazakhstan operate in a highly centralised and hierarchical system, wherein countless reporting to external entities is prioritised over internal instructional practices (see Chapter 1). Therefore, the directors’ roles were confined to handling maintenance issues rather than leading innovation in the school’s teaching and learning processes (Frost et al., 2014; Yakavets et al., 2017a). In such a scenario, there is limited possibility that the external facilitation could ensure innovation and change within the schools in Kazakhstan. Nevertheless, I had to find ways to involve the directors more closely in the programme in order to motivate teachers and increase their self-efficacy. Otherwise, their development projects could have been perceived merely as the individual pursuit of professional development rather than a part of the school improvement process (Frost and Durrant, 2004).
Meanwhile, there was a certain expectation that it was the vice-director’s role to take charge of teaching and learning within the schools. Consequently, the vice-directors played key roles in implementing the programme, as they had more detailed information about teaching and learning processes. As an external facilitator, I had to adjust to the division of roles in the schools and hence, our further conversation about the programme’s details continued in my co-facilitators’ offices. In a similar vein, Mariya invited the Vice- director for Research and Methodology to join our conversation in Birlik school. Co-planning Phase 2
As I provided a sketch of the third group session, my co-facilitators noted the importance of introducing action research in their schools, which was part of the reform initiative (MoES, 2016). This prompted me to adjust our further plans to meet the schools’ teaching and learning needs.
It became clear that implementing action research in schools was part of the reform (see Chapter 1). Dana showed me the annual MoES report for 2016-17 academic year, which suggested that the teachers who attended the Centre of Excellence programmes (Level II and I) should be able to conduct and promote action research in their schools (MoES, 2016). Having completed Level I of the Centre of Excellence programme, Mariya also highlighted that they were required to conduct action research in their schools (Research Journal, 17.01.2017). Despite having limited experience with action research, school leadership teams and the participants had to demonstrate evidence that they are conducting it. Thus, my co-facilitators expected that our programme would enable the participants to learn how to conduct action research. For example, Dinara highlighted that her teachers publish papers and attend conferences at the final stage of the programme (Research Journal, 26.01.2017). However, this was not a case in Yntymaq school, where the majority of the teachers did not attend the Centre of Excellence programmes (Level I and II) and hence, they were not expected to conduct action research (Research Journal, 19.01.2017). This all raised a dilemma between enabling my colleagues to demonstrate competency in action research and facilitating genuine commitment to improvement. As discussed in Chapter 2, I aimed to enable teachers to construct professional knowledge in collaboration with their colleagues, which would primarily benefit the professional
2013). On the other hand, facilitating participants’ reflections on practice was identified as increasingly important during Phase 1. Therefore, we agreed that I provide an overview of the inquiry process but remain open to participants’ own interpretations.
The first periodic review with the project team members enabled me to obtain support from the school directors and raise awareness about the structural barriers to the programme. Moreover, these meetings revealed the centrality of the vice-directors’ roles in implementing professional learning opportunities in the schools. The majority of the vice-directors highlighted the importance of action research in their schools, which prompted me to make further adjustments to our plan.
The third series of group sessions
The dates and times of the group sessions were identified through the WhatsApp group chat. They were scheduled to take place between 19th-28th January 2017 in all four
schools. As discussed earlier, the purpose of this session was to provide an overview of the inquiry process to enable the participants to reflect on their practices and lead their development projects. At this point of the programme, it became clear that guidance was crucial because of the ambiguity of self-directed learning as well as the necessity of enabling participants to consider alternative perspectives on their practice (Brookfield, 1986). Therefore, I provided an overview of the inquiry process to enable the participants to reflect on their professional concerns, challenge and change their practice, thereby produce knowledge and make informed decisions. By owning their own learning, participants could influence the learning of others, which was indispensable to TL (Swaffield and MacBeath, 2009; Poekert, 2011). As a result, I, engaged participants in discussion about ethical issues in leading the development project, made a power point presentation about the tools for inquiry and provided step-by-step guidance on planning the project.
Providing an overview of the inquiry process
Our conversation started with identifying the ethical issues that the participants could face in leading their development projects. In order to enable them to reflect on ethical issues, I adopted the ITL tool that included the checklist with questions on complying with the
schools’ policies; seeking permission from students and parents/carers; sending out informed consent forms to parents/carers; consulting with colleagues and the school leadership team about the viability of their development projects; establishing clear protocols on privacy and reputation of students, colleagues etc. and ensuring anonymity. As the schools did not have any clear regulations related to conducting action research, I offered a sample of informed consent form to enable the participants to adapt it to their projects. Further on, I introduced the purpose and process of action research.
Whilst getting prepared for this session, I learned that there was limited amount of literature on action research in Kazakh. The only source in Kazakh was the handbook on action research co-authored by Elaine Wilson and Aizhan Abibullayeva (Wilson and Abibulayeva, 2016). The handbook helped me to introduce the purpose of action research and tools for inquiry. In order to provide clarity about the process of research, I adopted the spiral of actions by Kemmis et al., (2014). After that, I invited the participants to reflect on their own projects by filling in step-by-step planner (see Appendix 10). It became evident that the majority of the participants had no previous experience in conducting action research. Their post-session reflective proformas indicated the emerging appreciation of learning as an integral part of leadership (MacBeath et al., 2018).
Teacher leader is a life-long learner. It feels that the discussion that we had today marked the beginning of our leadership. I learned about the tools and ways of inquiry.
(Kulimkoz, Yntymaq school, Reflective proforma) I realised that leadership is not about being a leader but the process of self- learning and developing. My next step will be to search the resources.
(Sherim, Talap school, Reflective proforma) The participants noted that introducing the tools for inquiry and providing step-by-step guidance helped them to clarify their further actions. Alua put it as follows:
I need to plan my further actions […]. I will draft the informed consent form, search for resources and identify the tools for inquiry. (Alua, Talap school, Reflective proforma)
Raigul interpreted the tools for inquiry as a means to structuring her actions. The action was central to Raigul’s understanding, whilst notions such as inquiry and reflection were emerging concepts for her.
This session helped me to develop a clear idea about where to start with and identify my further steps to lead the project. It also ensured that our actions are more structured.
(Reflective proforma, Raigul, Birlik school) In a similar vein, Zauresh theorised inquiry from the prism of her daily practice:
In order to lead the project, I will plan my lessons, I will conduct my lessons and reflect on them.
(Reflective proforma, Zauresh, Alga school) This prompted me to remain vigilant about participants’ interpretations of inquiry. On one hand, given the centralised implementation of action research, participants could inquire into practice for the sake of inquiry. On the other hand, they could engage in limited reflection on practice and hence, yield no improvement. I had therefore to provide individual support to enable participants to plan their further actions.
In general, the third group sessions enabled me to offer further scaffolding by introducing an overview of the inquiry process. Participants’ interpretations of inquiry required providing further support to enable them to reflect and improve practice, which I attempted to target during the third one-to-one meetings.
The third series of one-to-one meetings
Third one-to-one meetings took place between 30th January- 7th February 2017. The
purpose of these meetings was to navigate towards reflection and action. Therefore, my role was to help the participants develop tools and provide critical friendship. I was also able to involve the schools’ senior leaders in the process and support the participants’ adjustments to the external circumstances.
Developing the tools
As indicated earlier, I provided an overview of the inquiry process to meet the schools’ needs as well as promote participants’ reflection in action (Schön, 1987). It is argued that enabling teachers to grow as inquirers is integral to enhancing their leadership capacity (Poekert et al., 2016). However, practitioners find it hard to view the research as a part of their daily practice which suggests the need for ongoing support and facilitation (McLaughlin et al., 2014).
Participants required different kinds of facilitation, as they were at different levels of enactment of their projects. Whilst some were still contemplating their plans, others had already developed tools and used them in their practice. In both cases, however, participants failed to integrate reflection into their action. It was particularly challenging when participants lacked the experience and knowledge of their development project. For example, Zamira, who started her teaching career that academic year, did not know where to begin. As indicated in the following excerpt, I helped Zamira to develop a tool, so that she could plan her next steps based on her students’ feedback, as indicated below:
Zamira wants to develop tools that would enhance her Year 6 students’ engagement in Biology classroom. She is still not sure where to begin with. I suggested that we could explore students’ opinion on the teaching materials that she is currently using. So, we developed a small questionnaire to get her students’ feedback. She is going to distribute it to her students tomorrow.
(Research journal, 23.01.2017, p. 67) Although more experienced teachers had planned their next steps, they appreciated new ideas and resources to help them enact their projects. In Bibigul’s case, for example, I helped to find up-to-date resources related to her project. As those resources were scarce in Kazakh, I had to bring materials in English. Bibigul managed to translate those materials, make meaning and use them, which I reflected on in my research journal:
Bibigul’s Year 9 students are struggling to construct and analyse graphs in Biology. Last time I met her, I brought some materials in English. Although her English is at the elementary level, she managed to translate the materials, interpret them and develop a step-by-step guidance in Kazakh to her students. Above that, she is translating a Biology textbook from Russian into Kazakh to address her professional concern.
The knowledge of practice was the key for experienced participants (Schön, 1987; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). As they set the direction of their projects, they started developing tools to address their professional concerns. Central to their professional concerns was finding practical solutions to their problems (Argyris and Schön, 1996). For example, Ainur decided to experiment with her classroom practice by developing a tool to improve her students’ learning, as indicated in the following excerpt:
Ainur’s professional concern revolves around her Year 9 students, who cannot differentiate styles in art. So, she is developing a tool to help her students to keep track of their interpretations of styles and categorise them according to their types.
(Research journal, 31.01.2017, p. 86) It was unclear, however, whether Ainur experienced, what Schön (1987) referred to as reflection-in-action, or whether it was her knowing-in-practice. In both cases, it was important that Ainur started to act. In order to systematise her actions, I suggested Ainur that she collect her students’ notes periodically, take notes of her daily observations and invite her colleagues to observe her students’ progress.
Interestingly, the experience was not the sole driver of participants’ actions. Although Zauresh was in her first year of teaching, she managed to plan and enact her project without my direct involvement. The following entry describes Zauresh’s proactiveness: Zauresh is aiming at improving her own time-management skills in maths classroom. She has 45 minutes to introduce new topic, enable students to solve maths tasks, assess 25-30 students and get their feedback on the lesson. To do so, she is exploring and using new digital programmes. It looks like she has already sheared her ideas and tools with other colleagues.
(Research journal, 02.02.2017, p. 105) As a result, her project started sparking interest among other colleagues. Therefore, I suggested that she could involve her colleagues in identifying the effectiveness of digital