Building the disposition of self
improvement through teaching as
inquiry
An exploration of teaching as inquiry and its
impact on teachers willingness to self-improve,
teaching confidence, reflective practice and
building the disposition of self improvement
through teaching as inquiry.
"'Inquiry is necessary for forming and reforming personal purpose'.
-Fullan, 1993
‘Inquiry - a world view, a habit of mind, a dynamic and fluid way of knowing
and being in the world of educational practice, that carries across the course
of professional career; not a teacher training strategy, a sequence of steps for
solving classroom or school problems or a skill to be demonstrated by
beginners to show competence.’
- Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 2009
Introduction
These quotes along with numerous others have been the trigger for my
journey into better understanding how teachers perceive teacher self
improvement through teaching as inquiry and what it takes to build the
disposition of teacher self improvement through teaching as inquiry.
According to Aitken, Sinnema and New Zealand (2008) teaching as inquiry is a
model of pedagogy. In the NZC it is clearly referred to as a cyclical framework,
Clarke and Erickson (2006) state that it is a form of professional practice and
for Fichtman Dana and Yendol-Hoppey (2014) it is a role teachers perform. The
reader will not be surprised to learn that there is not one agreed on definition
of teaching as inquiry. While there are often subtle nuance between the
definition of teaching as inquiry all agree that its purpose is to achieve
1
improved outcomes for all students (New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2007;
Clarke and Erickson, 2003; Aitken and Sinnema, 2003). While they agree that
successful teachers are constantly inquiring into how their practice impacts on
students learning, many educators, however, misunderstand what is meant by
teaching as inquiry believing that is means teachers inquiries. This is not the
case. Teaching as inquiry according to the New Zealand Ministry of Education
has three distinct phases. There is a focusing inquiry where direction is
determined, when teachers decide what is worth spending time on given
where students are at; the teaching inquiry, when teachers select evidence
based strategies to support the improvement of outcomes for tamariki and the
learning inquiry where teachers reflect on the impact of interventions, their
research findings and what the implications for future learning might be. This
then clearly states that the TAI model is about change in teaching practice in
order to enhance success for tamariki ( Aitken and Sinnema, 2008 ; The New
Zealand Curriculum, 2007). But I can see that it has the potential to be more
than that.
Teaching as Inquiry is an attractive opportunity to build the disposition of self
improvement in teachers. By optimizing teachers habits of mind and shaping
their natural mental and emotional outlook toward teaching as inquiry there
is potential to strengthen teachers pedagogy resulting in improved outcomes
for tamariki but beyond that it is an opportunity to help teachers see
themselves as ‘lifelong learners’ and in a very real and authentic way
demonstrate their comment to this ethos. By specifically focusing on teaching
as Inquiry there is the opportunity to carry on business as usual as required by
the New Zealand Curriculum (Teaching as Inquiry pp 34-36) while digging
deeper into the attitudes, beliefs and funds of knowledge that teachers call
upon as they develop the disposition of self improvement.
Leadership
The study carried out by Hargreaves and Braun (2010) entitled, Leading for All,
not only unpacked leadership from an across schools perspective it also
reshaped in part my lens on leadership. The findings of Hargreave and Braun
(2010) found that top-down leadership doesn’t work. It is not sustainable even
when you get the mixture right, because buy in from the bottom is
inconsistent and unpredictable. Equally a bottom up change (e.g. teacher
2
autonomy) does little to improve a school, its systems and pedagogy do not
improve because while in some classrooms there is positive change in others
there is not. In both cases I have found this to be true so what I decided to do
was to slow down and reflect on how best to lead my school and our deliberate
change in how we approach teaching as inquiry. The implication being that if
we continue to do as we have always done, we will continue to get what we
have always got. The key question, then became, how can we as a kura
achieve the strongest system coherence, capacity and commitment to
teaching as inquiry and what can we do that will result in sustained
improvement? And then what is my role as the lead professional in this
process? I usually consider myself to be the leader that leads from the side. I
do as my staff do. We learn together and develop together and for all intent
and purpose this has worked well in our school. But for some reason when it
comes to teaching as inquiry we start off working well alongside each other
and then at some point the weight of the investment shifts and I become the
chief motivator, the micro manager and the key worker. For some reason
leading from the side hasn’t been the correct or an effective leadership style
when it comes to teaching as inquiry. This acknowledgment of something not
working resulted in an ongoing reflection and dialogue about my perceptions
of the role I play in TAI and how my emotions or investment in the relationship
gets in the way of our professional development (Day and Leicth, 2001). Which
has lead me to the supposition that due to the complexity of developing or
delivering effective teaching and inquiry systems and approaches within a
school there is a need for a high level of professional expertise and knowledge
around the subject. As the leader I knew I needed to access this level of
professional understanding either by bringing in additional support or
upskilling myself. So after much deliberation taking into consideration cost,
teachers stress levels and workloads, my access to paid full time study and the
fact that this is an area of deepening interest for me I decided to remove myself
from the dynamic that is our school so that I could deepen my understanding,
funds of knowledge and pedagogical know how around teaching as inquiry.
Without this strong, deepened base to draw from I was of little use to the
development of effective teaching as inquiry within my setting and any
momentum towards the success of effective teaching as inquiry was really
based in my ability to drive the practice. What I really needed was to establish
an outside motivator and look to the intrinsic reasons of why teaching as
inquiry works. For a leader like myself this ment stepping away from the day
to day micromanagement that had become our go to. What I discovered is
that my support and my ability to be the crutch actually enabled the teachers
3
in my care to opt out of self improvement opportunities and see teaching as
inquiry as a compliance task rather than an effective teaching tool. What I
discovered about my leadership by deliberately choosing to remove myself is
that I can and I am prepared to learn new ways of being a leader.
So what happened throughout this project to my leadership?
Along the way I have figured out that I do not have to be as hands on and so
fully involved for success to happen. In fact the more I have moved away the
stronger my staff had to become. I have come to the realisation that I not only
lead from the side but I also was very much a servant leader. And while it is
important to have a people first mindset that does not mean that team
members personal fulfillment should be prioritized over their professional
fulfillment. I now know I need to balance this up and be much more effective
around how employee satisfaction is addressed and how collaboration is
utilized. By doing this I know we will achieve not only higher levels of respect
but a much more productive work environment (Collins, 2001). I have seen this
happen within my peer group where, as a team, we have expressed our
concerns, questions and thoughts and then as a follow up one or more of our
team has gone out of their way to help those who are needing support.
I have become a virtual leader. Meaning that I have become a leader in a virtual
world and my everyday practices have had to change. I have had to ensure
frequent contact via platforms such as slack, facebook and zoom meetings as
physical face to face is not possible. For example by setting set objectives for
communication and set patterns our peer collaborative group has utilized our
virtual world to make sure the team is focused on the end game. And that's
another thing I now focus more on the end and not the means used to get
there. As a school leader I often focused too much on the fine detail but now
my leadership extends beyond that.
Throughout the process I have seen myself step into a coaching style of
leadership. I have been able to identify team members strengths, weaknesses
and identify what motivates them and I have been on a journey discovering
how to ‘develop independent learners by causing them to reflect and do their
own learning’ (Robinson, 2016) as a coach.
I have also at times seen elements of transformational leadership within myself
when I have focused on communication, goal setting and motivation but have
kept that focus on the bigger picture of organisational change within my
4
school and as I progress I can see snippets of transformational leadership in
myself as I have spent time getting to know my topic more deeply and then as
I start to understand current trends in the implementation of teaching as
inquiry across schools and as a concept in general. And then as I identify
strengths, effective practices and links to the disposition of self improvement I
am beginning to see how I can set clear targets for realising self improvement
through teaching as inquiry and then how I can create a tool that helps others
align their practices for positive impact too.
Collaboration
The concept of professional collaboration has become common pedagogy
within educational settings (Fullan and Hargreaves 1991, Telford 1996, Koehler
Baxter 1997, and Friend and Cook 2000) and is perceived as an effective
learning practice (Little, 1982). While it may not always be well established it is
still considered an effective pedagogical approach. Within the scope of the
MCE collaboration has been essential. In fact, for me, I would state that the
infusion of our peer collaborative practices has had an unprecedented impact
on my thoughts, beliefs, attitudes and practices around collaboration. I no
longer consider it a compliance task to meet certain criteria but as a vital
component to the development of mastery level in our chosen topics.
Although there are many ways in which people can collaborate during the
MCE course our main collaborative platform has been through web-based
tools. There is a beauty in the fact that our collaborative learning experiences
have been realised in a number of ways. Some have been unexpected while
others have been predictable. Communication technology (ICT) tools have
enabled us the rethink pedagogy, and engage in differing ways. Although the
debate about the effectiveness or impact of digital tools on learning
experiences rages on it is with confidence that I can say in my experience it
opened a door into more theoretical and pedagogical development than any
other medium to date. We all know from our own schooling and teaching
experiences, actually having a group collaborate to create a document is hard
work and at times it seems almost impossible but when collaborative practice
is taken into the virtual world a whole new level is added to the complexity of
the task.
5
Throughout my journey into collaborative practice in a virtual world I have
discovered what theory looks like as practical activities, I have utilized webbased applications I had previously not heard of such a Zoom and Slack Zoom
is a web based meeting tool which allows participants to meet face to face in
a virtual world. There is also the ability to record meetings. Slack is a messaging
type tool which allows for emerging issue to be shared quickly. Slack in this
instance has acted not unlike facebook messenger.
For me there has been an unexpected urgency felt when contributing due to
the lack of normal incidental face to face reminders of commitment often
found in traditional collaborative settings. I have not been constantly reminded
when bumping into someone in the staffroom that I have a task to complete
for a collaborative project. Or if I am completely honest a task to control. Sure I
have had continuous pings on every digital device I own but those incidental
bumps I realise worked on the guilt factor rather that intrinsic motivation to
work collaboratively. I have noted several things have changed in my attitude
towards collaborative practice. Firstly I do not define the practice to a set time,
date or meeting. Tuesday is no longer collaborative planning day therefore I
don’t think in collaborative ways on other days. I am now actively involved in
collaborative practice at all times. I am reaching out to contribute to others
projects while at the same time asking for help. I have become less passive in
response times not waiting for the next meeting to talk or to request support
or clarification. As a whole in this digital space I have witnessed our
collaborative team rely on this powerful learning tool to promote interaction,
develop relational trust and professional capacity between all group members.
This supports the theorization of learning as a socio-cultural practice, framed
by Vygotsky (1930/1978) and developed by researchers such as Lave (1998) and
Wenger (1998, 2007). The idea that learning involves a deepening process of
participation in a community of practice or learners can be seen to be evident
throughout our course. Learning within our group has largely been a social
process where understanding has been developed through interactions with
others and then over time integrated into our personal mental structures.
I no longer see collaborative practice as I once did where I micro managed the
content, pushed the agenda and supported everyone by doing it all. My default
setting of supporting an already busy team no longer stands true. Rather, I see
myself as being able to step aside, give constructive feedback, share ideas that
then belong to the group and that nurturing talents and strengths can be
done in a very different way.
6
I learnt through our MCE collaborative group where we have worked hard to
promote dialogue, support, challenge and push each other so much so that
there is a sense that we would be able to present each others journey to an
outside audience that collaboration is as much about sharing ideas, working
towards a common goal and all having a part to play as it is about an
investment in each other. You see over the course of our collaboration our
practices have moved away from the traditional realm of knowledge receivers
from authority figures to actively creating and extending our knowledge,
capabilities and skills along with peers who hold differing underlying
perspectives and assumptions and even at times flipping our perspectives
completely. The process has been constructivist in nature due to fluid way
knowledge has been constructed based on the interactions between ideas
and experiences (Piaget, 1970) and yet it has been inclusive of social-cultural
practices. My purpose here is to emphasize that the diversity of perspectives
and theories has been extended throughout the process which truly is an
investment in each others success.
Range a Diversity of Collaborative Experiences
Some collaborative experiences have worked best when only one person is
feeding back such as when the support needed close attention to what needs
to be unpacked such as our one to one meetings with supervisors. Other
collaborative experiences have worked best when multiple points of view have
been shared such as our collaborative team Zoom meetings. Meetings such as
these have narrowed topics, extended thinking, sharpened thinking, pointed
out ideas with fresh eyes and in particular pushed the perimeter of each of our
projects. This has been a fine example of gentle pressure applied relentlessly.
One very effective outcome of these collaborative experiences is that in asking
others or being asked by others to feedback, respond or contribute to an
element of a project has insured that my contribution, comments and critical
analysis is productive and effective. My coaching skills have been fine tuned for
more thoroughly throughout this process and I have developed what O’Neil
(2000) would call backbone and heart. I now plan more, focus on the growth
mindset, give accurate and considered feedback and I hold back more than in
the past. I have become a much more facilitative collaborator by asking
questions rather than offering directions for improvement, so that the projects
main researcher can be self determining and select the strategy that best
works for them.
Evaluating Peer Work
7
Throughout my journey I have focused on the work of others by contributing
directly to the creation of frameworks, ideologies and text and in doing so I
have shared responsibility of the merging ideas of joint tasks. However often
evaluating collaborative work or the work of others can be problematic. I have
had to be very aware of when to contribute and when to hold back. Often
thinking about how I contribute to bring out the best in the main researchers
works without taking over their project. I have spent more time in considered
contemplation than in previous tasks as I am fully aware of the implication of
intellectual property, plagiarism of ideas and the perimeters of our
collaborative practices. Our work has been focused more on being
soundboards, collaborative supporters and evaluative contributors. This was
established early on in our collaborative group agreement and has developed
as the journey has progressed, The standards and process were made clear
long before the collaboration began but there has definitely been an element
of flexibility within our initial ideas so that the collaborative agreement has
grown with the group.
Throughout the process a number of people have interact directly at some
point during the production of my essays trello boards, blogs, websites, survey
development and all artifacts created during this course. Giving me a much
more well rounded finished artifact.
Critical Friend - Critical friendship
The notion of critical friendship often coincides with collaboration, peer
coaching and support within an educational context. It is a term that is often
misunderstood and loosely defined. Within education it can mean many
things so for the purpose of this piece I use the commonly cited interpretation
that describes a critical friend as someone who is prepared to raise difficult
questions, to critique others work objectively ( Costa & Kallick, 1993) and then I
would extend it to include the elements of supporting reframing of events, to
act as a sounding board, to challenge thinking, to push relentlessly yet gently,
all from the perspective of a friend. During MCE peers, lecturers, supervisors
and mentors have become trusted colleagues. While I had established
relationships with some others I did not know all at the beginning. Drawing on
the work of Day (1993), Schuck, Aubusson & Buchanan (2008) I became aware
that critical friends and trusted colleagues need more than just technical
abilities and interpersonal qualities they also need to invest time, energy, and
be highly reflective practitioners. Having developed my own technical abilities
and interpersonal skills to ensure that I was becoming an effective critical
8
friend I also noted other qualities, practices and strategies in my developing
critical friends.
When sharing my experience of acting as critical friends for others in my blog
about
‘critical
friendships’
(see
apendix
https://ii2learn.blogspot.com/2019/06/critical-friend-critical-friendship.html) I
discuss what I learnt about my practice from having and being a critical friend,
as well as what we learnt about the role of the critical friend. At times this was
challenging but at most being a critical friend and having critical friends
strengthen my practice as a collaborative team member.
Impact
The Personal Touch
Looking at the impact of this project I can say that it has been more a personal
journey than a large scale finding of teaching as inquiry. While I have been able
to establish some commonalities across schools it is clear that the small
sample size only contributes to the body of work rather than dramatically
impacting on it. I am pleased however that my findings were not similar to the
others who have much more credos in the field of teaching as inquiry such as
Cochran-Smith & Lytle (1990), ERO (2011, 2012 & 2015); Driver (2011);
Quigley,Marshall, Deaton, Cook and Padilla (2011) and Sinnema, Meyer and
Aitken (2017). For example ERO’s 2011 report on Teaching as Inquiry:
Responding to Learners supports, comments that effective practice
incorporates systems, processes and shared understandings developed over
time, as were the findings in my project. The significance of my project and the
contribution it makes to improving understanding of TAI is that it supports
what is already out there and while at the same time it gives insight to what
knowledge funds are used and needed; and how beliefs and attitudes impact
on outcomes of TAI experiences. The biggest illumination however is the
possibility of a new lens by which to view TAI; that of a self improvement lens
and the old knowledge applied to a new setting that of the Head, Hands and
Heart approach to learning. Thus a new approach and lens on learning is now
under development. For the project itself I have been able to put together a
report (Artifact ) to disseminate my discoveries of which I believe the impact of
the project is part of so I don’t wish to unpack that too much here. Rather I
want to critically reflect on the personal impact of the project in this section.
9
Initially I saw the influence of the project would be:
● About bringing change to TAI
● A tool for building knowledge and for facilitating learning
● Means to understand TAI and increase teacher awareness
● Means to find, gauge, and seize opportunities to promote TAI
And I suspected and anticipated the impact of the project would:
● Improve school culture
● Develop interdisciplinary approaches
● Promote openness
● Build stronger relationships
● Promote better teamwork within schools and across sectors
● Introduce a new TAI system focused on local contexts
● Increase support for those new to TAI
● Increase involvement of others in the education sector
Along with a myriad of other edu-speak impacts. And for the most part these
things have come to pass. However some of the biggest impacts have been
those that impacted on me personally. Impacts such as:
● An exertion in the nourishment and exercise for the mind
● Self reflection
● Experiencing different teaching methods
● Increasing my knowledge and understanding of TAI
● Creation of strong TAI approach based on knowledge I already
have
● Digital skills developed through the development of several
platforms for collaborative team spaces
● Social skills development
● Motivation to work in mulit-disciplinary team
● Motivation for professional new knowledge
● Skills development
To name but a few. So looking at these impacts and considering which will
have the bigger impact it is hard to say. Analysis of the impact is based on my
personal experience therefore I would state that my assumptions during
analysis, my contextual awareness, imagined speculation and reflective
scepticism have all impacted on the outcomes of this project. According to
Brookfield (1988) critical reflection involves all of these processes. So I’ll start
with reflection. To make judgements about my impact I have through a range
of my blog postings, sprints and assignments challenged my beliefs in order
to determine the impact of that on my findings, I have determined the social
and cultural contexts that influenced these assumptions and I have looked at
10
alternative ways to challenge my thinking around teaching as inquiry and
finally I have used questioning, discussion and peer feedback to examine my
interactions throughout the project (see artifact Thinkings, Ponderings,
Reflections, Evidence & Readings). I have examined my understanding and
previous knowledge about the topic of teaching as inquiry and by doing this I
have gone deeper and strengthened my understanding of teacher self
improvement through this. When I started this journey there was no way of
comprehending the impact this project would have on me and my
professional practice. Being an experienced educator I nievelly went in
thinking the process would be straightforward. How wrong I was.
Now that I have explored self improvement through TAI I can acknowledge the
limitations I brought to the professional development of my team when I first
started this journey. What I knew was the script of teaching as inquiry. I knew
little of the impacts, intricacies, I was able to run a cut and paste process with
little thought to the systems, processes, implementation and sustainability
measures that needed to sit behind an effective TAI approach. I now go in with
a coherent theoretical frame of reference for the changes I want to see happen
and while the approach is in its infancy I can justify its use and disseminate its
impact not only on teaching and learning but on the teachers themselves.
I am better able to stand up and say that TAI is not an optional choice that can
be tick boxed away in first term, it is an integral part of effective practice and
will be embedded in a sustainable way into everything we do. And with that I
can give examples that are defensible in relation to research on effective
teaching, I can in plain language ensure it makes sense to teachers, and finally
by approaching it with a different lens myself I can demonstrate how it is
inclusive of different ways of teaching. Now this may sound obvious but in all
honesty TAI was such a chore that I had to micromanage so badly that it was
in effect a time wasting exercise. There was no depth, responsibility or buy in
for teachers, there was no value or purpose other than to in a pofunctionary
manner carry out the steps. Little to no change happened. So I would say that
going forward the impact of my new professional knowledge on my changing
mindset has strengthened my knowledge fund and worked wonders for me.
Another area of great impact has been my attitudes and beliefs. I draw
comparisons between my attitudes, assumptions and beliefs and those of the
other principals in Robinson and Le Fevre (2015) study. In both cases these is a
struggle to have effective practice around staff performance. My preference
11
being to slowly work through an issue and provide too much of a safety net. In
effect I have been ineffectively addressing what needed to be done. Me in a
nutshell. I micromanaged, filled in gaps and took lessons rather than dealing
with the issue that was staring me right in the face. What was needed in my
case was a mindful nourishment of my defensible and evidence-based
understanding of how to improve teaching and learning.
As an effective principal it is my job to inquire into the relationship between
what we do in school and what happens for students and I understand this
(Robinson, 2010; Smylie & Bennett, 2005). So going forward I know that TAI
will be approached with a new lens. Because I now know that TAI is just as
much about advancing knowledge about personal practice as it is about
outcomes for tamariki (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1993). While it will be
deliberate and systematic, it will also be about teachers seeing the value that
TAI brings to their experiences. I now see how this can be achieved in a much
more authentic way.
And finally the real impact of this project. So taking advantage of what this
project has forced me to do has in itself created an unforeseen impact. Going
forward due to the changes in my approach to not only TAI but teaching in
general I have changed the most.
This project has helped me understand my cultural context in a much more
responsive way, it has deepened my desire to teach the way I not only believe
but know works best and it has given me the confidence to apply what I know,
what I am learning and what I am aware I need to develop to new situations.
As a result of this MCE course and this project I had the courage to do
something I would of only dreamed about one year ago. I have resigned from
my position in my dynamic, thriving, culturally connected school to move on
to the unknown but true to my heart position to start up a new state integrated
high school that is based in STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art &
Math) learning through the lens of our iwi. And that I am able to do this is the
biggests impact of this project. I am stronger, more convicted to do what is
right, confident in my ability to deal with the unexpected, agile in my approach
to learning and managing teachers, I have a quiet confidence in my ability to
do better than I was doing before I started because I have discovered that self
improvement really does happen in a very authentic way through TAI and in
all honesty this teaching as inquiry project just got bigger.
12
Reference
Aitken, G., Sinnema, C., & New Zealand. (2008). Effective pedagogy in social
sciences/tikanga ā iwi: Best evidence synthesis iteration (BES). Wellington,
N.Z: New Zealand Ministry of Education
13
Brookfield, S. (1988). Developing critically reflective practitioners: A rationale for
training educators of adults. Training Educators of Adults: The Theory and
Practice of Graduate Adult Education. Brookfield (Ed). New York: Routledge.
Clarke, A., & Erickson, E. (2003). Teacher inquiry: Living the research in everyday
practice. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Google Scholar
Clarke, A. and Erickson, G. 2006. Teacher inquiry: What’s old is new again! In
BC Educational Leadership Research 41–68. [Google Scholar]
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and
others don't. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational
Leadership, 51(2), 49-51. Council of Ontario Directors of Education. (2007).
Special education leadership project. Ontario, Canada.
Cochran-Smith, M., and Lytle, S. L. (1990). Teacher research and research on
teaching: The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 2-11.
doi:10.3102/0013189X019002002
Cochran-Smith, M., and Lytle, S. (Eds.) (1993). Inside/Outside: teacher research
and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research
for the next generation. New York: Teachers College Press.
Day, C. (1993). Reflection: A necessary but not sufficient condition for
professional development. British Educational Research Journal, 19(1), 83-93.
Day, C., and Leitch. R. (2001). Teachers’ and teacher educators’ lives: The role of
emotion. Teaching and Teacher Education 17: 403–15.
Education Review Office. (2011). Directions for learning: The New Zealand
Curriculum Principles, and Teaching as Inquiry. Wellington: Crown.
14
Education Review Office. (2012). Teaching as Inquiry: Responding to Learners.
Wellington: Crown.
Education Review Office. (2015). Internal evaluation: good practice. Wellington:
Crown.
Fichtman Dana, N., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2003). The reflective educator's
guide to classroom research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn
through practitioner inquiry. Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, Calif.
Friend, M. and Cook, L. (2000) Interactions: Collaboration skills for school
professionals, 3rd edn (New York: Longman).
Fullan, M. and Hargreaves, A. (1991) What’s Worth Fighting for? Working
Together for Your School. Toronto: Ontario Public School Teachers Federation.
Fullan, M. (1993). Why Teachers Must Become Change Agents. Educational
Leadership. The professional teacher: 50 (6), 12-17. Retireived from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership/mar93/vol50/num06/Why-Teachers-Must-Become-ChangeAgents.aspx
Hargreaves, A. and Braun, H (2010). Leading for all. Ontario: Council of Ontario
Directors of Education. Retrieved from
www.ontariodirectors.ca/downloads/Essential_FullReport_Final.pdf
Koehler, M. and Baxter, J. C. (1997) Leadership through collaboration:
Alternatives to the hierarchy. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Lave, J. (1982). A comparative approach to educational forms and learning
processes. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 13(2): 181-187
Le Fevre, D. M., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2015). The interpersonal challenges of
instructional leadership: Principals’ effectiveness in conversations about
performance issues. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(1), 58–95.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13518218
15
Ministry of Education. (2007).
The New Zealand Curriculum for Englishmedium teaching and learning in years 1–13 (PDF, 7 MB) . Wellington:
Learning Media.
O’Neil, M (2000). Executive coaching with backbone and heart. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass
Piaget, J. (1970) Main trends in psychology. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Quigley, C., Marshall, J. C., Deaton, C., Cook, M., and Padilla, M. (2011). Challenges
to inquiry teaching and suggestions for how to meet them. In Science
Educator, v20 ( 2011): 55-61 . Web.
Robinson, V. M. J. (2010). From instructional leadership to leadership
capabilities: Empirical findings and methodological challenges. Leadership
and Policy in Schools, 9(1), 1-26.
Robinson, J (2016). Coaching leadership: Building educational leadership
capacity through partnership (2nd ed). NZCER Press. ISBN: 978-1-927231-97-5
Sinnema, C., Meyer, F., & Aitken, G. (2017). Capturing the Complex, Situated, and
Active Nature of Teaching Through Inquiry-Oriented Standards for Teaching.
Journal
of
Teacher
Education,
68(1),
9–27.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116668017
Smylie, M. A., & Bennett, A. (2005). What do we know about developing school
leaders? A look at existing research and next steps for new study. In W. A.
Firestone & Riehl, C. (Eds.), A new agenda for research in educational
leadership (pp. 138 – 155). New York: Teachers College Press.
Schuck. S., Aubusson P.,& Buchanan, J. (2008) Enhancing teacher education
practice through professional learning conversations, European Journal of
Teacher Education, 31:2, 215-227, DOI: 10.1080/02619760802000297
Swaffield, S. (2005). No sleeping partners: Relationships between head
teachers and critical friends. School Leadership and Management, 25(1), 43-57.
Telford, H. (1996) Transforming Schools through Collaborative Leadership .
London: Falmer Press.
16
Vygotsky, L. (1930/1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Wenger, Etienne (1998). Communities of practice. Learning as a social system’,
Systems Thinker. Retrieved from http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledgegarden/cop/lss.shtml.
Wenger, Etienne (c 2007) Communities of practice. A brief introduction.
Communities of practice. Retrieved from http://www.ewenger.com/theory/.
17