Session Information
26 SES 06 B, Teacher Leadership Development in the Educational Context (Part 1)
Paper Session to be continued in 26 SES 13 B
Contribution
Teachers have a pivotal role in all educational systems. What’s more, teachers and school administrators are the actual implementers of governmental laws and public policies as street-level bureaucrats (Aypay & Özdemir, 2022). Change projects ignoring this personal influence may harm most of the intended goals (Goodson, 2001). Fullan (1993) emphasizes that teachers who will be the change agents should have the capacity to create a personal vision, question, expertise and cooperate whether for a curriculum change or any kind of reform implementation. Patterson & Rolheiser (2004) also indicate that learning change and creating a culture of change may contribute to student achievement. Therefore, ministries of education should not exclude teachers from reform initiatives but consider them active stakeholders to embrace change (Philpott & Oates 2017). Previous research implies that teachers are not technicians who implement policy changes, but rather they respond diversely in different circumstances (Lasky, 2005; Tao & Gao, 2017). Therefore, it should be focused on how teachers can act within the framework of existing resources and conditions. Admittedly, it is not only a matter of structures but also the culture that will encourage the development of a shared knowledge base. Louis (2010) noted that effective knowledge utilization depends on sustained interaction and collaborative cultures where teachers could learn about and make sense of changes together.
It has been concluded that the active participation of teachers in change is the strongest variable that encourages a desirable organizational climate for teachers, as well as enables them to be open to change and develop positive feelings (Poppleton & Williamson, 2004). It is because the teacher is the only person who can implement any innovation that is the result of the change in the school and classroom environment (Fullan, 1991). Teachers take an active part in curriculum development studies in countries such as Scotland and the Republic of Cyprus (Erdem, 2020). Moreover, in countries such as Canada, teacher candidates are supported to become actors of change through teacher training programs by trying to improve their inner world with strategies such as thoughtfulness, reflective practices, questioning, and self-study (Fu & Clarke, 2017). However, it does not seem possible to state that teacher education programs in Türkiye inspire teacher candidates for such an ideal (Erdem, 2020). In addition, research findings imply that adaptation efforts remain insufficient since teachers working in public schools are not included in the change processes in Türkiye (Balyer & Kural, 2018). Therefore, teachers resist change due to their lack of knowledge about the change process, their unwillingness to take on new tasks, roles, and responsibilities, the fear of being harmed by change, the lack of school capacity, and the inability of school administrators to manage change (Helvacı, Çankaya & Bostancı, 2013). It could be asserted that Menlo & Collet’s (2015) assertion of “somehow, schools do not appear to be viewed as legitimate rich settings for teacher professional learning and development in school leadership” seems to be true for Türkiye as well.
Method
The main purpose of this study is to examine the expectations of teachers and school principals in Türkiye for teachers’ participation in change. By the way, it is hoped to reveal how the expectations of both groups affect the degree of teachers’ taking responsibility in their schools. The questionnaires developed for Menlo & Collet’s (2015) international project were chosen as the instrument of this survey study. After employing a back translation procedure, the questionnaires were administered to 272 teachers and 146 school administrators working at public schools in central Anatolia. It could be alleged that the demographics of the sample are consistent with the overall trends in Türkiye. To illustrate, 46% of teachers and 18% of administrators were females. Moreover, 45% of teachers and 29% of administrators were under 40. Two-thirds of teachers had up to ten years of professional seniority while more than 80% of administrators worked over ten years. All these indicate the young population of teachers and the male veteran dominance of school administrators in Türkiye. Additionally, one-third of teachers were primary school teachers while only one-fourth of administrators were assistant principals. And, half of both groups were working at schools with less than 200 students.
Expected Outcomes
We estimated two primary indices namely administration and coordination (ACI), and classroom learning (CLI) based on the results of exploratory factor analysis. As the research data were normally distributed, parametric tests were conducted. According to independent samples t-test results, there are significant differences between teachers’ and school administrators’ opinions regarding teachers’ attitudes toward change (p<.01). Teachers’ CLI [X ̅=3.76, SD=.88], and ACI [X ̅=3.49, SD=.97] are higher than school administrators’ scores (CLI X ̅=3.31, SD=.78, and ACI X ̅=3.18, SD=.79). Both groups’ opinions on school administrators’ change leadership competencies also significantly differ, but in the opposite direction (p<.01). Teachers’ CLI [X ̅=3.72, SD=.97], and ACI [X ̅=3.72, SD=1.00] are lower than school administrators’ scores (CLI X ̅=4.15, SD=.66, and ACI X ̅=4.16, SD=.66). Multiple Linear Regression Analysis results yield that teachers’ ACI attitudes together with school administrators’ CLI and ACI competencies explain 72% of teachers’ CLI while teachers’ CLI attitudes together with school administrators’ CLI and ACI competencies are responsible for 74% of teachers’ ACI. Moreover, teachers’ CLI and ACI attitudes together with school administrators’ ACI competencies explain 85% of school administrators’ CLI while teachers’ CLI and ACI attitudes together with school administrators’ CLI competencies are responsible for 84% of school administrators’ ACI. Structural Equation Modelling results with an acceptable model fit reveal the mutual relationships between the components of teachers’ attitudes towards change and school administrators’ change leadership competencies. The research results yielded that teachers and school administrators in Türkiye have different perspectives concerning the teachers’ desire to be agents of change. Although our data is consistent with the literature, the participating groups of educators seem to overestimate their share while underestimating the other’s role. The elucidation of contextual conditions seems to be a must to understand Turkish teachers’ desire to be agents of change.
References
Aypay, A. & Özdemir, M. (Eds.) (2022). Türk eğitim sistemi ve okul yönetimi / Turkish education system and school administration. Ankara: Nobel. Balyer, A., & Kural, S. (2018). Teachers’ views on their roles in educational change process and their adaptation to these changes. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Education Faculty, 37(1), 63-80. Erdem, C. (2020). A new concept in teacher identity research: Teacher agency. Adiyaman Univesity Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(1), 32-55. Fu, G. & Clarke, A. (2017). Teacher agency in the Canadian context: Linking the how and the what. Journal of Education for Teaching, 43(5), 581-593. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2017.1355046 Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. G. (1993). Why teachers must become change agents. Educational leadership, 50, 12-12. Goodson, I. F. (2001). Social histories of educational change. Journal of Educational Change. 2(1), 45-63. Helvacı, M. A., Çankaya, İ., & Bostancı, A. B. (2013). Reasons and levels of teachers’ resistance to change at schools according to inspectors’ perspectives. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 6(1), 120-135. Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency and professional vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 899-916. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.003 Louis, K. S. (2010). Better schools through better knowledge? New understandings, new uncertainties, in A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds), Second international handbook of educational change (pp. 3-27). Dordrecht: Springer. Menlo, A., & Collet, L. (Eds.). (2015). Do teachers wish to be agents of change?: Will principals support them? Rotterdam: Sense Publishers Patterson, D. & Rolheiser C. (2004). Creating a culture of change. Journal of Staff Development. 25(2), 1-4. Philpott, C. & Oates, C. (2017) Teacher agency and professional learning communities; what can Learning Rounds in Scotland teach us?, Professional Development in Education, 43(3), 318-333, DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2016.1180316 Poppleton, P., & Williamson, J. (Eds.). (2004). New realities of teachers’ work lives: An international comparative study of the impact of education change. Oxford, England: Symposium Books. Tao, J. & Gao, X. (2017). Teacher agency and identity commitment in curricular reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 346-355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.010
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.