First Principle: A Focus on Learning

Schools have always been entrusted with the task of education. However, different studies in the literature question the effectiveness of the process through which children learn at school. Rhodes and Brundrett (2009 and 2010) argue that for a long time „learning‟ and the whole phenomenon associated with learning at schools has been interpreted in the literature with different theories in terms of classroom practices being student-centered or teacher-centered or examination results being the main performance indicator. Many researchers indicate a paradigm shift away from teaching to an emphasis on learning that has encouraged the focus of education to be moved from „teaching‟ to „learning‟ with student led classroom practices (Brooks, 1995; Knowles, 1975; Taylor, 2000; Hayward and Dewey cited in O‟Sullivan; 2003). Rhodes and Brundrett (2010) maintain that a student-centered approach offers a „bottom up‟ experience to the learners whereas a teacher-centered methodology holds a „top down‟ strategy.

It is claimed that the schools that make a difference have leaders who are passionate about the development, implementation and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the entire school (Murphy, 2002; Murphy et al., 2009). What is learning for different stakeholders? What does it mean to have a focus on learning? Is this about learning of students only or does it involve professional learning as well? Research shows that school

45

heads in effective schools spend more time in the direct classroom supervision and support of teachers, solving instructional problems collaboratively and providing staff development activities (Heck et al., 1990; Southworth, 2002; Stein and Spillane, 2005). Although some promulgate that instructional leadership and the movement of school improvement have inherent limitations as they focus more on principal leadership instead of the contemporary notion of a widespread flow of leadership among teachers and students, it is also argued that the concept of instruction has a focus on teaching instead of learning in schools. It is argued that leadership should exist at different levels as an activity in the school and its focus should not be on teaching but on learning at all levels (MacBeath et al., 2009; Murphy et al., 2009; Spillane et al., 2001).

The focus on learning in LfL is wider and multi-level. The wedding cake format of the LfL model (Figure 2, p. 43) suggests that learning focus is interactive at all levels of the concept. It starts with the focus on students‟ learning and moves to professional learning of the staff. This learning leads to the next two levels called organizational learning. Teaching is the most common routine in every school but questions arise whether teaching has a focus on learning. Do teachers really follow and implement the vision of their leaders to improve their pedagogy in response to students‟ learning? Black and William (1998) found that:

“Teachers will not take up attractive sounding ideas, albeit based on extensive research, if these are presented as general principles which leave entirely to them the task of translating them into everyday practice”(Black and William, 1998: p.15).

46

Teachers who modify their pedagogy in response to students‟ learning as an indicator of their performance and are keen to explore students‟ potentials and expositions, have a focus on learning (Leithwood and Jantzi, 1997 and 2005; Stephen et al., 2007; MacBeath et al., 2009). Teaching and learning are two interdependent factors which are often unpredictable, non- prescriptive and require skilled supervision as well:

“The observation of such an aesthetic performance, one that is subtle and complex, would require an equally subtle and complex theory of supervision” (Kelehear, 2008: p.240).

It is acknowledged that teachers, who have a focus on learning, appreciate the importance of dialogue such as between students and teachers or teachers and leaders. Biggs and Moore (1993) assert that teachers who have the focus on learning invite dialogue and critical reflection for conceptual exploration. This thinking from inside as suggested by MacBeath et al. (2009) enables teachers and students to create resonance. Non-existence of such an activity may create dissonance with the classroom activities, curriculum content and discussion. The more they could relate to it, the more effective would be the learning process. Whether it is a student, teacher or organizational leader, effectiveness is linked partially with reflective practice which is an important R out of four as highlighted by Claxton (2002). Furthering the concept it is argued that:

“exploring children‟s misconceptions provides a fund of examples and anecdotes and every teacher can tell their own stories of how children get it wrong and then build subsequent

47

knowledge on misconceived premises ... exploring those mutual misconceptions can take pupils and teachers a long way in their learning journey” (MacBeath et al., 2009,p.75).

Galton (2007) recommends that teachers and learners should be given, what he calls, wait time to reflect on their understanding or misconceptions. The more the students understand about their own learning and the more teachers do about their own teaching, lesser becomes the gap between what is taught and what is learnt. He builds on Drummond (1993) and suggests that teachers can assess their teaching through assessing students‟ responses in homework, assignments and daily classroom activities. The more they find students involved with a positive approach, the more successful will be the process of learning. Starratt (2004) suggests that in order to establish such links, the learning agenda must coincide with the moral agenda of the children and teachers in schools. This concept is in line with the viewpoint of Waters et al. (2003) who suggest that if the pedagogy strategically inhibits a participative and exploratory style where intentional efforts are made to know the learners, their socioeconomic exposures, their personal traits, teachers, students, parents and leaders become partners with each other. When this „knowing‟ culture is established, individuals willingly proceed to make meaning of the different events and their relationships with real life experiences (Smith, 2007). As teachers have a focus on students‟ learning, it seems obvious that they have a focus on their own learning as well. The first principle of LfL applies to teachers as well in the same manner as it applies to students (MacBeath et al., 2009).

48

As explained earlier, this type of „subtle performance‟ is only possible if the learning focus is also kept on the professional learning of all those who „supervise‟ and facilitate learning in schools (Kelehear, 2008). Different studies consistently highlight the quality of teachers as a key determinant of variation in students‟ learning outcomes. Therefore, all of these studies concede that learning focus in every school must also include professional learning of teachers (Darling-Hammond, 1988; Darling-Hammond and Richardson, 2009; Kelehear, 2008). These studies assert that teachers must have a deep understanding of their learners‟ needs, abilities and potential of the subject area. The literature also affirms that engaging teachers in high quality professional learning transforms many of them into teacher leaders within their organization. Teacher empowerment is considered by many as the most successful way to improve teacher effectiveness (Elmore and Burney, 1999; Vernon-Dotson et al., 2009; Elmore, 2002; Hollingworth, 2012).

Furthermore, these studies assert that schools must keep abreast of the pace of change in the learning process through which young learners need to be educated. This requires new knowledge about teaching and learning, new types of expertise by educators. Teachers must continually update their conceptual and pedagogical skills. The growing evidence base about student learning forms a compelling case for engaging teachers in highly effective professional learning and collaborative efforts and has profound implications for what is taught, how it is taught, and how learning is assessed (MacBeath et al., 2009). An environment of trust and collaboration is essential, as is a shared vision of where the school needs to go. This focus on learning among students and teachers takes any school to the wider

49

level of organizational learning which is the third level in the wedding cake model of LfL (MacBeath et al., 2009). Collinson and Cook (2007) assert that any move to bring improvement in schools is interlinked with its ability to bridge the gaps between teaching, learning and organizational learning needs. This collaborative focus on organizational learning can cover the journey from good to great.

Argyris and Schön (1978) link such organizational practice of an interactive process of action and reflection with the concept of single-loop learning and double-loop learning. Single loop learning refers to the managerial, quantifiable tasks that are linked with audit, calculation, evaluation, standardisations and which Cousins (1996) refers to as competency traps. These, according to him, may cause delusion in an organization about its effectiveness in real learning. A focus on real learning comes when an organization enters double loop thinking and challenges its practices. According to MacBeath et al. (2009), real learning implies risks. It is concerned with the qualitative aspects of an organization, with its values and purpose, truth and validity, summative and formative assessments, all striking to qualify within the second loop through genuine and regular reflection on their routine practices. Learning, then as Cousins (1996) argues, flows from organizational sense making of solving problems together and as a leadership approach to promote and develop collaboration. It enables an organization to appreciate the consistency of routines, but also warns of the consistency traps and status quos. Organizations look for diversity of experiences and learn from opinions emerging from inconsistencies. Argyris and Schön (1978) assert that valuing consistencies can make an organization competent but valuing inconsistencies can make an organization learn

50

more which is fundamental in an organization like school. A fourth level of this focus on learning is wider in scope as it goes beyond one school to system learning as Swaffield and MacBeath et al. (2009a)suggest. This is the level where policy matters can be decided and frame of work can be established. At this level, interschool, school-community, school- market co-operation and networking takes place. This type of focus on learning looks for the real understanding of the purpose of learning and benefits of collaboration and sharing (MacBeath et al., 2009; Muijs, 2010). In line with Hadfield (2006), studies of Muijs (2010) and Hadfield and Jopling (2011) argue that collaboration and networking are emerging as a strong school improvement strategy. A focus on system learning displays three dimensional features being of a calculative „what‟s in it for me/us‟ culture; and that of a moral culture demanding commitment for „the shared benefit‟ and of the network or an obligation to the initiative itself. Working with different agencies or on an interschool basis, teachers and students learn to work in a more diversified environment. It gives them a chance to assess their abilities beyond classroom routines and formal assessments.

The first principle explains how a focus on breadth and depth of learning is maintained in LfL and how it is conceptualized. The next principle of the concept explores how an environment can be established that ensures and enhances learning at all levels within the model of LfL.

51