Transcript
+
Theories and MODELS of Educational Change 1
+OutlineOutline
Theory and practice
Western theories in non-Western cultures
Why these theories?
Theory X and Theory Y
Two approaches to change
Top-down and bottom-up theories
Integrated theories
2
+ Theory and Practice Theory and Practice (Fullan, 2010; Lovat & Smith, 2003; Richardson & Placier, 2001)(Fullan, 2010; Lovat & Smith, 2003; Richardson & Placier, 2001)
3
Educational Disciplines
Educational Change Theory
Practice/Experience
PsychologySocial
Psychology Sociology Anthropology
Political Science
Organization Theory
+Western Theories in Non-Western CulturesWestern Theories in Non-Western Cultures
Keita Takayama
Need for a postcolonial theoretical framework
Theories developed in Western nations cannot be assumed to apply: in non-Western nations universally
Role of international students in globalizing educational research
4
+Why these theories?Why these theories?
Field of educational change is vast and complex – have to be selective
Helpful
Seem to work
Include the role of teachers
5
+Theory X and Theory YTheory X and Theory Y
About human nature
Fullan (2010) p. 65 cites McGregor (1960)– Theory X: people are inherently lazy, dislike work, and have to
be supervised closely– Theory Y: people will put in extra effort if the work is meaningful
and they are supported by leaders and peers Make Theory Y your first point of entry (Fullan)
6
+Two Approaches to Change Two Approaches to Change Richardson & Placier, (2001) Richardson & Placier, (2001)
Empirical-rationalChange is determined
by administrators or policy-makers
Teachers are told about change and expected to implement it
Change is difficult and painful – teachers blamed
Normative-reeducative
Change originates with individuals involved in the process i.e. teachers
Change enhanced by deep reflection on beliefs and practices
Dialogue is critical – other teachers or critical friend
7
+Top Down and Bottom Up Theories Top Down and Bottom Up Theories (Fullan, 1994)(Fullan, 1994)
Top down – implicit theory Change can come about by proclaiming new policies, or by legislation, or
by new performance standards, or by creating shape-up-ship-out ambience, or all of the preceding. (Sarason, 1990, p. 123).
8
9
Government policy
School
Teachers
Classroom
Teacher implements (or not)
Adopted by school
Top-Down Theory: Mandated Change
+Mandated Change (Clement, 2013)
Sense of compulsion We’re only doing it because they said we had to. (p. 7)
Lack of time for meaning-making People are frightened that they’re going to get found out
because they don’t understand this stuff. And they don't understand it because they haven't had a chance to. (p. 7)
Transitory nature of the reform But you get to the age where you just get things thrown at
you, the latest thrown at you and then it disappears. You do all this work and it disappears and then you get the next thing. (p. 8)
10
11
Government policy
School
Teachers
Classroom
Changes made at the school level influence
Teachers make changes to learning
Changes are made to school structures
Bottom-Up Theory: Teacher-Initiated Change
+Top Down and Bottom Up Theories (Fullan, 1994) (Continued)
Strategies that combine top down and bottom up are more likely to succeed:– the center's strengths (“to provide perspective
direction, incentives, networking, and retrospective monitoring”)
– local capacity (“to learn, create, respond to, and feed into overall directions”) (p. 5)
“Systems don't change by themselves. Individuals change systems, acting individually and together regardless of how ineffective they perceive others around them.” (p. 5)
12
+ReflectionReflection
Can top down change be effective? Why or why not?
What are the problems with bottom up change?
What are the strengths of a combined approach? Do you think it is more likely to be effective?
13
+Integrated Theory Integrated Theory (Goodson, 2001)(Goodson, 2001)
14
1960s and 1970s Teachers initiated
and promoted educational change
1980s and 1990s Teachers responded to change instead of initiating change
New Millenium
Balance between the internal, the external
and the personal perspectives of
change
Integrating these 3 segments will provide new momentum for educational change.
15
School reform agenda
Mandated reforms
Teachers’ goals and purposes
Changes in classroom practice
Integrated Theory
+Three Perspectives Three Perspectives (House & McQuillan, 2005)(House & McQuillan, 2005)
Technological perspective: production, economics, efficiency
Political perspective: negotiation, political science, authority
Cultural perspective: community, anthropology, cultural integrity
Adequate understanding of school reform necessarily involves all 3 perspectives, (p. 186)
16
17
Goodson (2001) House & McQuillan (2005)
External TechnologicalPolitical
InternalCultural
Personal
Comparing Goodson and House & McQuillan
+Focus QuestionFocus Question
Why do you think it is important to relate theory to practice?
18
+ReferencesReferences
Albright, J., Clement, J., & Holmes, K. (2012). School change and the challenge of presentism. Leading & Managing, 18(1), 78-90.
Clement, J. Managing mandated educational change. School Leadership & Management.
Fullan, M. (1994). Coordinating top-down and bottom-up strategies for educational reform. In R. J. Anson (Ed.), Systemic reform: Perspectives on personalizing education: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Fullan, M. (2010). Motion leadership: The skinny on becoming change savvy. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin.
Goodson, I. (2001). Social histories of educational change. Journal of Educational Change, 2(1), 45-63.
House, E. R., & McQuillan, P. J. (2005). Three perspectives on school reform. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), The roots of educational change: International handbook of educational change. (pp. 186-201). Dordrecht; New York: Springer.
Lovat, T., & Smith, D. L. (2003). Curriculum: Action on reflection (4th ed.). Tuggerah, N.S.W.: Social Science Press.
Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (Fourth ed., pp. 905-947). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.
19
+Features of Sustainable Change
Focus on improving teaching and learning
Reform agenda appropriate to the school
Teachers direct the change process in a community of trust and collaboration
Data are used to guide changes in pedagogy
A long term perspective is taken (5-7 years)
School leaders guide the innovation
(Fullan, 2011; Goodson, 2001; Hargreaves, 2010; Louis, 2007; Meiers & Ingvarson, 2005; Smith, 2008)
20
+Schooling by Design (Wiggins and McTighe, 2007)
Backward design: Strategy – how to organize staff and resources Tactics – a game plan Actions (p. 201)
Strategic principles for accomplishing mission: Plan backward from “mission accomplished” Work to close the gap between vision and reality Plan to get and use feedback to make “timely and effective
adjustments, early and often” (pp. 202-3)
21
+Schooling by Design (Wiggins and McTighe, 2007, pp. 205-206)
Stage 1 – Identify desired results a long term goal a shared vision
Stage 2 – Determine acceptable evidence present (where we are now) future (evidence of results)
Stage 3 – Plan actions to achieve goals short term goals cycles of action research
22
23
Reframe goals
Schooling by Design
(Wiggins and McTighe, 2007)Modified from Figure 11.1 Sequence for Organizing the Work of Reform (p. 251)
3 stages of SbD
+Schooling by Design (Wiggins and McTighe, 2007)
The template on page 206 is also a useful summary of the Schooling by Design model.
Leadership The leader’s reason for being is to guide the educational institution to
achieve specific goals related to its mission (p. 172). Academic leaders must assume a critical role of helping craft a clear,
inspiring, and actionable mission to guide the educational institution. They must also engage board members, staff, and community in helping shape, and come to “own,” the mission (p. 173).
24
+IDEAS Model (Andrews, 2008)
Innovative Designs for Enhancing Achievements in Schools (IDEAS)
Purpose: To inspire IDEAS schools to engage in a journey of self-discovery which will ensure that they achieve sustainable excellence in teaching and learning (Andrews & Crowther, 2011, p. 4)
5 phases: initiating, discovering, envisioning, actioning and sustaining
25
+IDEAS Model (cont’d)(Andrews, 2008)
Initiating – planning the process
Discovering – surveying school stakeholders
Envisioning – creating a vision for the school
Actioning – developing an action plan
Sustaining – monitoring progress
Includes the development of a Schoolwide Pedagogy that is unique to the particular school
26
+IDEAS Model (cont’d)(Andrews, 2008)
Concept of Parallel Leadership: Teacher leaders and administrator leaders work together. Individual capabilities, aspirations and responsibilities are fulfilled. Facilitates development of:
a professional learning community school culture school wide approaches to teaching and learning (Andrews, 2008,
p. 49)
27
+IDEAS Model (cont’d)(Andrews, 2008)
Parallel Leadership is based on: Mutual trust and respect Shared sense of purpose Allowance for individual expression (Andrews, 2008, p. 49).
Example: I had to step back and let others take the lead. (Principal – Middle School)
28
29Strategy in Education Model (Eacott, 2008)
+Strategy in Education Model (cont’d) (Eacott, 2008, p. 360-362)
Envisioning – thinking about the future Critical reflection and reflective dialogue
Engaging parents and staff in strategic conversations Establishes purpose for actions Provides data
Articulating Oral – conversations to bring the vision to life Written objectives to enable structural alignment
30
+ Strategy in Education Model (cont’d)(Eacott, 2008, p. 360-362)
Implementing Translating strategy into action Staff understanding and commitment Improvement in current operations Timely
Monitoring Where are we now? Where to next? How will we get there? How will we know when we get there? Requires a transparent system of data collection
31
+Strategy in Education Model (cont’d)
Leadership role: why not see the role of the school principal as one of educational
strategist, where leadership behaviours and management processes are targeted towards the enhancements of the school’s educational programs and most importantly student development (Eacott, 2008, p. 363).
32
+Comparing the Models
Feature Schooling by Design IDEAS Strategy in Education
Focus on improving teaching and learning
Reform agenda appropriate to the school
Teachers direct the change process in a community of trust
Data are used to guide changes in pedagogy
A long term perspective is taken
School leaders guide the innovation
33
+Reflection
What are the strengths and weaknesses of each model?
What are the similarities between these 3 models?
What are the differences?
Do they all have the features of sustainable change listed earlier?
Do they have features that are not on the list?
34
+ References Andrews, D. (2008). Working together to enhance school outcomes: An Australian case study of parallel leadership. Leading and Managing, 14(2), 45-60.
Andrews, D., & Crowther, F. (2011). Innovative designs for enhancing achievement in schools (IDEAS) Retrieved 6 August, 2012, from http://ideas.usq.edu.au/Home/IDEASbackground/tabid/138/Default.aspx
Clement, J. (2013). Managing mandated educational change. School Leadership & Management.
Eacott, S. (2008). Strategy in educational leadership: In search of unity. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(3), 353-375.
Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform. East Melbourne: Centre for Strategic Education.
Hargreaves, A. (2004). Inclusive and exclusive educational change: Emotional responses of teachers and implications for leadership. School Leadership & Management, 24(3), 287-309.
Hargreaves, A. (2010). Presentism, individualism, and conservatism: The legacy of Dan Lortie's Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Curriculum Inquiry, 40(1), 143-154.
Goodson, I. (2001). Social histories of educational change. Journal of Educational Change, 2(1), 45-63.
Leithwood, K., Steinbach, R., & Jantzi, D. (2002). School leadership and teachers' motivation to implement accountability policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 94-119.
Louis, K. S. (2007). Trust and improvement in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 8(1), 1-24.
Meiers, M., & Ingvarson, L. (2005). Investigating the links between teacher professional development and student learning outcomes. Barton, ACT: Australian Government, Quality Teacher Program.
Smith, L. (2008). Schools that change: Evidence-based improvement and effective change leadership: Corwin Press.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2007). Schooling by design: Mission, action, and achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
35
top related