Second Principle: An Environment for Learning

Andrews (2006, cited in Vivienne, 2008) argues that learning what is necessary to live, cannot be untangled from living in a manner that allows one to learn. Learning and living, according to him, are inextricably connected. The idea that every school should have an environment for learning is a simple but fundamental concept that needs to be the prime focus of all schools. Hargreaves and Woods (1984) suggest three aspects that can establish a learning environment in schools. They consider that schools should inculcate three types of skills among learners; personal and social skills, practical and professional skills and examination skills. They consider that a school culture must support learning through appreciating and motivating all those involved in learning. As the LfL fosters upon distributional perspective of leadership, it is seen as a means to capacity building of all the stakeholders and the school (Hargreaves and Fink, 2004; Leithwood et al., 2006; MacBeath, 2005; MacBeath and Dempster, 2009; Swaffield and MacBeath, 2009a and b). The scheme of works in distributed leadership may be linked with the organizational theory developed in McGregor‟s (1960) theory: X and Y related to human motivation. McGregor suggests that theory X leaders view people as passive, work avoidant, and smartly opportunists. They are to „be led‟ with tight controls, close supervision, and heavily centralized authority with very limited opportunity to participate in decision- making. Theory Y leaders, by contrast, believe that people are responsible and willing to take initiative. The co-constructivist approach prevalent in the LfL is strongly influenced by the interconnected factors related to human motivation. Hence, Copland (2003) suggests that for building and sustaining capacity for leadership with a distributed perspective, one needs to be more towards theory Y. The concept is considered fundamental to a whole generation of

52

scholarship in educational leadership on establishing a highly interactive motivated, working environment within an organization (Sarason, 1993; Berkowitz, 1996; Bronfenbrenner, 1986; Fyson, 1999; De Leon, 2000; Moos, 2002 and 2008; Martin and Dowson, 2009). Do organizations have only one type of people in them or is there a mix? Can organizations divide their people straight forwardly into these two categories? Can leaders motivate their team members effectively in schools in Pakistan? Literature does not provide any clarification on these emerging thoughts.

It is felt that schools need to prioritize learning for all members that fosters inquiry, facilitates dissemination of learning through practicing democratic principles and providing for members‟ self-fulfilment (Collinson and Cook, 2007). Although many schools, according to them, are implementing fragments of these conditions. For example, some of them establish or join professional learning communities; others focus more on teamwork, without linking them to organizational learning. The absence of a linkage to an overarching theory may turn these fragments of a deficient focus on learning into simply unrelated fads that impinge on their already limited time. Their findings strongly advocate that efforts to create a learning environment in schools must be co-ordinated and integrated with the organizational learning. It is argued that leadership should take time and give time to reflect on the practices of teaching and learning in schools. Dempster and Bagakis (2009) outline the value of engaging students in reflective practices that “contribute to their development of understanding learning” (Dempster and Bagakis, 2009: p.95). MacBeath et al. (2009) argue that:

53

“…mutual observation of classroom life and shared discussion of pupils‟ work is an important part of refining professional practice for teachers…” (MacBeath et al., 2009: p.76).

Davies et al. (2005) highlight the importance of educational leaders dedicating time for themselves and others for reflection. They suggest that reflection develops strategic thinking and new mental models for understanding the educational environment in a better way. Among different factors that establish such an environment in schools, culture has been considered a key factor. It is argued that learning environment in any organization is influenced by many factors which can be classified into three main categories, of which two are classroom based including pedagogical approaches and skills as well as learning behaviour, and the third based outside the classroom being socioeconomic status of the society, teachers, students and organizations. Collinson and Cook (2007) also conclude their study on similar findings and report that both individual learning and purposeful organizational learning are necessary. Literature highlights other factors of the learning environment including innovation and inquiry, creation and dissemination of knowledge among „knowledge workers‟ (Drucker, 1994), and a responsibility to support new thinking and behaviours in the interest of promoting learning, respectful human relationships and development of members (Golman, 2006). Similar to these are the five prompts of learning environment as presented by Dempster and Bagakis (2009) in the second principle of LfL. They consider classroom activities, opportunities of development for all at school, safe physical environment, parental involvement and school culture as important prompts for learning environment in schools. Leaders in schools take the responsibility for creating the

54

learning environment by extending support for organizational capacity by creating an environment that promotes innovation, inquiry and shared understandings. The leaders play an important role in establishing an environment conducive to organizational learning.

Dempster and Bagakis (2009) suggest that all of those involved in learning should have opportunities to reflect on their skills and process of learning in school. It highlights the need of professional learning among teachers and leaders in school besides having a focus on students‟ learning. New understanding of leadership takes the emphasis away from individual leaders toward a notion of distributed leadership that is embedded in social action through relationships among individuals who have common interests and uphold a process of inquiry, innovation and learning. Also important to the idea of shared leadership and continuous improvement is “logic of attraction that people are attracted to or inspired by changes in leaders‟ behaviours” (Weick and Quinn, 1999: p.380).

It is suggested that to engage this logic of attraction, leaders must first make deep changes in themselves. When deep personal change occurs, leaders then behave differently, and these new behaviours in the leaders attract new behaviours from followers. Thus many researchers argue, like Bush et al. (2010), Bush (2009, 2011) and Harris (2004a and b), that a focus on leadership development is integral to effectiveness of learning at school in all different levels. As these leaders develop professionally, their focus on learning gets stronger and “… serves as a catalyst for unleashing the potential capacities that already exist in the organisation” (Leithwood et al., 2006: p.5) or can be developed through consistent professional development of teachers incorporated in the school development plan, nurturing staff self-efficacy and

55

motivation and through improving the physical working conditions for staff and students. Hirst (1974) asserts that teachers should be prepared with a vision that:

“… the intention of all of teaching activities is that of bringing about learning”. Furthering his point, he says “the concept of teaching is totally unintelligible without a grasp of the concept of learning” (Hirst, 1974: p.105).

Drawing on his work, many researchers advocated the idea of learning centred classroom practices and teachers‟ professional development for that. Teachers should have knowledge of how learners learn (Bruner, 1996). He outlines four models of what teachers should learn about the way learners learn. He suggests that teachers should learn the power of imitation and didactic approach as a teaching resource. They should also have the knowledge of what Bruner calls „pedagogy of mutuality‟ and what Bolman and Deal (1997) suggest as conceptual plurism. Teachers take learners as a partner to contribute to knowledge with a co- constructivist approach. Bruner‟s fourth model is one that enables pupils to distinguish between personal and canonical knowledge, it is linked with the ontology and epistemological stance of the learner. Summing up the four approaches, he concludes that:

“nobody can sensibly propose that skills and cultivated abilities are unimportant. Nor can they argue that the accumulation of factual knowledge is trivial. No sensible critic would ever claim that children should not become aware that knowledge is dependent upon perspective and that we share and negotiate our perspectives in the knowledge seeking process. And it would take a bigot to deny that we become richer for recognizing the link between reliable

56

knowledge from the past and what we learn in the present. What is needed is that the four perspectives be focussed into some congruent unity, recognised as part of a common commitment” (Bruner, 1996: p.65).

This sets the direction of teachers‟ professional learning. Teachers‟ knowledge of learners‟ needs and their learning is central to the design of their own learning. The challenge, as Shulman (1986) explains, is that the effective teaching requires subject knowledge that has to be „tested‟ in examinations according to a set pattern in most countries of the world. The challenge for effective teaching is to learn how to keep the learning process inclusive enabling all students to learn and make real progress in terms of their personal, professional and social skills (Bennett et al., 2003; Galton, 1989; Glover and Coleman, 2005; Bush, 2011). Teachers should learn how to be a „developmental teacher‟, a term that reflects the essential Vygostkian theoretical proposition (Vygotsky, 1962). This concept focuses on human development through general societal goals with a concrete subject matter instructional practice. Furthering the idea, it is argued that it requires teachers to have deep knowledge of human psychology and be able to link it with students‟ learning abilities and the requirements of the outside world besides having subject knowledge. This idea of personality development focuses on the development of motives in relation to societal practice. Similarly, Shulman (1986) after his three years‟ research into the teaching and learning practices and abilities of teachers suggests that for intellectual development of students, teachers must learn four distinct components being: comprehension, reasoning, transformation and reflection.

57

MacBeath et al. (2009) maintain that education in schools should focus on promoting learning behaviours at all levels of the LfL model. Learning behaviours, as suggested by Ellis and Tod (2009) may take the form of skills and disposition. Claxton (2006) gives a good interpretation of disposition and skills. He says that:

“when you have learned a skill, you are able to do something, you could not do before. But you may not spontaneously make use of that ability when it is relevant in the future, if you do not realise its relevance; or you still need a degree of support or encouragement that is not available. In common parlance, it is not much use being able if you are not ready and willing” (Claxton, 2006: p.26).

Swaffield and MacBeath (2009b) argue that schools must have a learning environment that inculcates skills in such a manner that learners can relate to those skills with a relevance in the future or with the world outside the class. The importance of parental involvement in this regard as one of the essential components is appreciated in the literature (Epstein et al., 2002). Studies have consistently indicated that active parental involvement and home–school partnerships in school settings can lead to positive developmental outcomes for the children (Connors and Epstein, 1995; Farooqi, 2011). Different researchers and educators have considered the six categories of parental involvement and activities, introduced by Epstein (1996), useful to plan a framework of ideas and practices that connect families, schools, and communities. Previous studies have also successfully employed this typology when examining parent involvement and family–school partnerships (Epstein, 1996; Epstein et al., 2002). This research categorises the concept of parent involvement and family–school–community partnerships into six types including basic obligations of parents (for creating a safe and

58

suitable environment at home that fosters children‟s learning and development), parent involvement at school (for example volunteering different services at school), basic obligations of schools (for example communicating with parents about programme expectations, evaluations, and children‟s progress), parent involvement in governance and advocacy (for example including parents in decision-making and advisory councils) and parent involvement in learning and developmental activities at home (for example providing material and guidance to parents about how to interact with children at home to help them in academic and social learning process) and collaborating with the community (for example working together with community businesses, social service agencies, and other members of the community to provide better educational programmes and strengthen family practices). It is considered a somewhat neglected domain in the past in schools in Pakistan but which is gaining more attention by many practitioners now (Farooqi, 2011).

With regard to pupil learning, many studies like those of Elmore (2000 and 2002), Goddard et al. (2004) and Hakkarainen et al. (2004) claim high impact of networking as a new method of learning through school to school collaboration. Katz and Earl (2010) claim that this new way of learning requires new professional learning of teachers if we want to have the optimal benefit of this type of learning practice. Furthering their argument, they say that significant changes in pupil learning depend on major changes in the practices and the structures of schools, and these changes will emerge from the professional learning that occurs through interaction within and across schools in networks. This orientation to networks suggests that learning and the:

59

“… creation of new knowledge by teachers and principals/headteachers leads to deep conceptual changes and new ways of working in schools and classrooms” (Katz and Earl, 2010: p.27).

It demands a different type of leadership and will result in a widespread flow of leadership as an activity. To what extent are parents and students involved in the process of learning as partners? Is networking a routine feature in schools of Pakistan? What kind of opportunities and support is available to schools in this regard? The literature from Pakistan does not provide clear evidence for this. This type of environment may require an active dialogue among different stakeholders to promote learning with shared goals and vision. The next part of the chapter explains how a dialogue for learning may be established in LfL.