Practitioner research as a pathway to educational leadership

ABSTRACT

‘Educational Leadership’ is embedded in [country] early childhood policy. What the role is, who should do it and why educators are hesitant about becoming leaders however, remains ambiguous. According to the national curriculum framework and teacher standards, more research about the work of educators is needed. The reported research aimed to investigate whether long-term, enquiry-based professional learning, utilizing practitioner research, could lead to quality improvement. Practitioner Research engaged educators in investigating and improving practice in a continuous process of quality improvement. Research topics were pedagogical in nature, designed to be enabling of ‘educational leadership’ for quality improvement. Action Research was used by practitioner researchers to investigate ways to improve pedagogical quality. University researchers also used meta-research to investigate the action research processes. Focus groups and mentor statements revealed unexpectedly that the Educational Leader role was pivotal in the relationship between professional learning, practitioner research and quality. Strengthened Educational Leader identities emerged as participants gained research skills and evidence for designing and implementing pedagogical change. Knowledge building facilitated strengthened engagement of educator teams. This was transformational, informing the case for change and further exploration of practitioner research as a workforce strategy for quality improvement and staff retention.

Introduction

This paper reports a study conducted by two university academics alongside educators from four early childhood centers and their managers, clustered within one not-for-profit organization. This opportunity arose when the organization’s Board was looking for practice innovation to address workforce issues and quality improvement. They approved funding for research about professional learning embedded in a collaboratively planned professional learning project undertaken by the academic collaborators, mentors and practitioner researchers. The organization manages four centers and five other programs in a region in Australia comprised of a mainly Anglo-Caucasian middle-income population, renowned for its natural beauty and conservation values.

The research aim was to examine whether a longer-term (seven months), enquiry-based professional learning program, utilizing practitioner research as its approach, could lead to quality improvement. This was operationalized through a series of workshops in which educators (henceforth called practitioner researchers) learned how to research, question (inquire), change and report their own practice.

The research question underpinning the study was ‘What concepts, structures and processes supported critical enquiry, curriculum innovation, quality improvement and leadership identities in a Practitioner Inquiry based professional learning program?’

Practitioner research aims to investigate phenomena with practitioners rather than about them in an inclusive inquiry-oriented collaborative approach. It is based on adult learning approaches and employs reflective cycles that lead to action and change. It becomes part of, not on top of daily work (De Gioia et al., 2023). Consequently, academic/university research partners do not enter the research with pre-set notions of what to study and traditional measurement-based research methods based on hypotheses and clearly identified problems. These emerge over time in consultation with the practitioner researchers. In this study the professional learning component required each center to identify a topic for investigation in their center and a research question of interest. Action research processes were used by centers to collect data, analyze data, plan for change and then collect new data as evidence of change. Each center was allocated a mentor. While more commonly mentors are external to organizations, in this case the small size of the organization and close collaborative working relationships led to the choice of managers as mentors.

Reflecting the democratic underpinnings of action research, people with three different roles within collaborative practitioner research as professional learning are the contributing voices of this article. We have called them academic collaborators (authors one and two); mentors (authors three and four); and practitioner researchers/educators (represented through their voices in the research findings). The research took place within a not-for-profit organization that manages four centers and five other programs in a region comprised of a mainly Anglo-Caucasian middle-income population, renowned for its natural beauty and conservation values.

The focus for the university researchers reported here, was meta-research – to investigate the research processes of the practitioner researchers, in other words, research about research. It quickly became evident during this process that the binding thread between topic foci of the four different centers was leadership.

The context

Understandings of early childhood (EC) sector leadership remains emergent. For the study participants the role of Educational Leader gained prominence as part of an extended process of policy reform during national curriculum framework development in Australia commencing from 2009. Although mandated in 2012, ambiguity about how the role might achieve the intended purpose of driving quality improvements persists (Nuttall et al., 2022). During changes to the [country] Educational Services Teachers Award 2010, for the first time in 2022 Educational Leaders were paid an annual allowance of $4022.05, coinciding with the Fair Work Commission ruling (Fair Work Commission, 2022; The Sector, 2022). This development coincided with the reported study and provided a rationale for paying research attention to how this leadership role might be explained, supported and enhanced. Surprisingly, educational leadership is not defined in the latest Early Years Learning Framework (Australian Government Department of Education [AGDE], 2022). For this paper we have defined it as

Educational leaders work to provide the best possible educational program through pedagogical leadership that reflects and guides collaborative continuous improvement within a shared vision. They facilitate the time and space for their teams to reflect and research towards sustainable change processes within a professional learning environment that values inquiry and individual contributions. They mentor and drive change. (Papic, 2023)

Notably, contemporary early childhood research trajectories demonstrate a shift away from business model constructions of leadership identifying characteristics and traits, positionality and hierarchies, toward understanding leadership as collective sociocultural activity and responsibility (Cooper, 2023).

Whilst initially the study aimed to investigate how practitioner research could support professional learning for quality improvement, it soon became evident that educational leadership was of most interest to the practitioner researchers. The commencement of mandated remuneration for early childhood Educational Leaders brought government expectations the role would change and grow and coincided with project commencement. A construction of leadership reflecting the distinctiveness of the context as a small, closely connected and well-supported group of centers became unexpectedly evident as participants developed their sense of capacity as Educational Leaders. Findings revealed a productive nexus between educational leadership, practitioner research and professional learning as a vehicle for quality improvement. This paper focuses on EC educational leadership as the concept and role unexpectedly featured strongly in findings as a key element in quality improvement.

We describe how practitioner research and action research intersected within professional learning and how educational leadership emerged as a key issue. We show how these have been successfully employed. Following a brief review of relevant literature, we share findings of practitioner researchers across four centers supported by manager (mentor) perspectives. The work has allowed the sponsoring organization’s managers to look more closely at that role and reexamine the potential of practitioner research processes to foster role transformation, within the frame of quality improvement.

The aim of the study, to investigate professional learning through practitioner research as a way to provide innovative ways to improve quality, was achieved. New ways to view and achieve educational leadership emerged. It became apparent that educational leadership can be discovered or enhanced when practitioners are given an opportunity to deeply explore a self-chosen area of pedagogical or curriculum interest and that the newly emergent identity as a leader can lead to quality improvement. This study is important as it suggests motivational improvement strategies within a national context of workforce crisis, staff shortages and burnout.

Literature review

In line with the initial research aim to investigate the relationship between inquiry based professional learning and quality improvement, research foci related to leading quality improvement; leadership; intentional professional learning; professional learning; and researcher dispositions. Leadership research in the early childhood context brings to attention both its problematic nature and the consequent impact on practitioner inadequacies and reluctance to identify with the role. New conceptualizations that emphasize collectivism and collegiality, and marry teacher and leader identity whilst promising, lack field-based research evidence.

Our theoretical lens is the sociocultural, inter-relational, entangled and participatory nature of change and knowledge building (Walton, 2021). This participatory consciousness leads us to read the literature through a lens of Hood and Littlejohn’s (2017) typology for professional learning, contemporary early childhood leadership and our ongoing commitment to collaborative practitioner research. We outline below some key ideas relevant to this framing, beginning with key propositions about the nexus between program quality and leadership.

Leading quality improvement and sustaining change

Strong associations between quality and effectiveness in early childhood programs and leadership in early childhood settings are claimed (Siraj- Blatchford & Manni, 2007), driving perceptions of an enhanced importance for educational leadership. In their analysis of policy framing the emergence of the Educational Leader role in the Australian context, Nuttall and colleagues note that its formalization in the National Quality Standards, (Quality Area 7) in 2012 can be traced to advice contained in the Early Childhood Development Workforce research report (Productivity Commission, 2011) to make a distinction between ‘pedagogical leadership’ and ‘service leadership’ (Nuttall et al., 2022). The focus of pedagogical leadership is characterized as ‘leading continuous improvement in implementing [country]’s mandatory curriculum frameworks in early years settings’ (Nuttall et al., 2022, p. 20). They claim consensus that ‘educational leadership … is dependent on context, shared meanings and relationships and teachers’ skills and positions in enacting team-based initiatives’ (2022, p. 20) highlighting the collective inter-relations within early childhood centers. They also note an increased emphasis on professional dispositions (e.g. approachability, willingness and care for others) and an intensification of expected roles and tasks. These are additional to those knowledges and skills codified for Educational Leaders in material produced by (Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority [ACECQA], 2019) which conceptualizes the Educational Leader role around leading educational programs and quality improvement, augmented with mentoring, inspiring, motivating, challenging and extending pedagogy and supporting broadened expectations of key professional dispositions (Nuttall et al., 2022). Arguably, these broadly expressed expectations that advocate pedagogical leadership without concrete description of the role, or acknowledgment of the complex sociocultural contexts have contributed to the ongoing confusion and ambiguity about the role (Gibbs, 2020; Loo & Abgenyega, 2015), alerting researchers to a gap in the knowledge base.

Leadership researcher identities

As indicated above, leadership as identified in policy requires further examination and elaboration for successful enaction in the complex world of early learning centers. This highlights the gap in the knowledge about educational leadership in particular (Gibbs, 2020), exacerbated by educators’ reluctance to undertake positional leadership roles and lack of confidence when they do (Coleman et al., 2016).

Cooper (2023) offers a way to strengthen leadership identity, essential for strong leadership, through the conceptualization of a dual co-existing teacher-leader identity which is more apposite to team-based settings and collegial work than traditional business-based models. This requires a reconstruction of leadership as dynamic inter-relational, participatory and collective practice, necessitating a shift from seeing leadership only as an individual practice, identity and position to one where the focus is first on processes, practices, interactions and relationships. This dual teacher-leader identity is supported by leadership ‘being located within the dynamic, collaborative processes of professionals with diverse knowledge and skills as they interact in joint activity’ (Cooper, 2023, p. 2).

Educational leadership

The perceived reluctance of educators to undertake educational leadership has been attributed to a lack of opportunity, resources and support to develop critical reflection skills contributing to educators’ inadequate and insufficiently robust conceptualizations of the role (Coleman et al, 2016); and prioritizing compliance concerns over innovation (Sims et al., 2018). Additionally, Gibbs (2020) noted the lack of systemic support for leadership development citing an absence of mandated preparation for positional leadership. This leaves leadership development contingent on priorities at individual sites amid organizations with no sector-wide co-ordination. Gibbs suggested that the knowledge and skills educators draw on include professional knowledge about children’s development, and mandated policy such as learning frameworks, regulations and standards. What is missing is knowledge of leadership, let-alone collegial, inter-relational leadership. She noticed that emerging leaders who took risks in their pedagogical decision-making consistently updated their knowledge. Her research showed emergent leaders’ decision-making was underpinned by strong values and innovation and disruption was initiated within an activist social justice frame. Arguably these characteristics and the organizational arrangements supporting them strengthen knowledge, leadership identities and build confidence. This new and more nuanced leadership perspective is more in line with the inter-relational, democratic and agentic framings of practitioner research (a joint activity) and arguably has potential to resonate in the early childhood context.

Professional learning

Though literature provides extensive offerings about professional/teacher knowledge building, it is harder to ascertain what professional knowledge is in an easily definable sense. Whose knowledge is a critical question to examine, what knowledge is a subjective topic and how to build knowledge varies according to experience and opinion. There is little literature about what makes professional learning successful in a long-term sustainable way. There is increasing interest in the education sector though about inquiry-based approaches through practitioner research and/or action research (Mockler & Groundwater-Smith, 2009) and reflective practice (Hood & Littlejohn, 2017) as effective for educators.

Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL, 2017), in its Professional Standards for Teachers defines professional knowledge primarily in relation to students’ abilities. This doesn’t cast light on professional learning or teacher knowledges though Loughran (2016, p. 263) posits:

The influence of teaching on learning is critical and is dependent on moving beyond notions of transmission and reception … [and] is fundamental to deeper understandings of teaching and learning …

Professional learning can be experienced in many ways but a dichotomy exists between a neoliberal approach where ‘professional development’ mandates top-down planned and managed sessions to cover mandatory policies, safety and compliance, and an enquiry-based approach facilitating educator choices in designing their own professional learning, selecting topics of interest and ‘on the ground’ usefulness. The latter provides opportunities for self-generated and deeper learning. Hood and Littlejohn (2017, p.1591–1599) demonstrate these deeper understandings in their range of teacher knowledges: General conceptual/theoretical knowledge – e.g. regulations, assessment and rating, pedagogy etc.; Specific conceptual/theoretical knowledge – areas of specialization and the workplace context; Practical/experiential knowledge – skills and expertise for learning; Self regulative knowledge – reflective skills to monitor and evaluate own actions; Socio-cultural knowledge (community-based); and Socio-cultural knowledge (workplace-based).

While the Australian national curriculum framework (Australian Government Department of Education [AGDE], 2022) advocates professional learning it does not explicitly define it. Hood and Littlejohn’s (2017) typology aligns with the principles for practice of: ‘critical reflection and ongoing professional learning’ (p. 10). In summary, the available literature and research of relevance to this study and way of working is not abundant or always specific to our area of interest.

In the next two sections we outline how practitioner research and action research as employed in our research and professional learning program allowed educators to increase awareness of their knowledge growth, leading to stronger identities as researchers and leaders.

Practitioner research and action research

Practitioner research is a democratic, inter-relational, socioculturally informed approach to research for knowledge production in work-life settings where it becomes part of, rather than on top of regular work (Patterson, 2023). In early childhood settings, this means pedagogical judgment and planning for change comes from educators. Taking teaching beyond curriculum implementation, considerations of working life and society are integral. Inquiry focussed, it sits in opposition to mandated ‘top down’ approaches that measure outcomes and ‘is a powerful model for professional learning’ (Patterson, 2023, p. 18). In practitioner research, critical reflection is the starting point whereby questioning common practices and normative assumptions is paramount. Collaborative group meetings allow practitioner researchers to discuss and reflect, re-looking at issues or concerns and planning change. In Scandinavian countries these are prioritized as processes for enabling democratic systematic organization of practices that aim to develop the autonomy and wellbeing of workers (Husted & Tofteng, 2021). This enables:

conducting purposeful, systematic, ethical and critical enquiries into their own practices, in their own contexts, with the aim of extending understanding(s) of educational process and human behaviours. (Miller et al., 2021, p. 449)

Action research can be used within practitioner research, but practitioner research does not necessarily employ action research. In our case it did. Action Research integrates action and reflection, involves research with rather than about people, and incorporates theory and practice. It can achieve transformational change (Walton, 2021). It involves the use of cycles of observing, reflecting, planning and acting. Commonly, cycles are repeated to continue the process of knowledge production. It is evidence-based with strong conceptual and theoretical foundations. The practical nature of the research often appeals to educators as it is collaborative and collegial, aligning with the values of educational institutions (Harvey & Jones, 2021).

Methodology

We are drawn by Walton’s (2021) view that the universe is inter-relational, entangled and participatory. This provides us with an ontology of participatory consciousness with related assumptions for democratic practice, ethics and social justice, leading to research design and methods framed by collaboration. The underpinning sociocultural, collaborative base aligns with Hood and Littlejohn’s (2017) typology for professional learning.

Research design

Mediation between people, and people and tools underpinned the interpretive research design which employed qualitative data generation and socioculturally informed methods and allowed built-in flexibility to account for ‘unexpected empirical materials and growing sophistication’ (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011, p. 244). The design synthesized two levels of research – a) meta-research whereby academic collaborators investigated participants’ research and professional learning and the processes of the action research. Meta-research ‘is the study of research itself: its methods, reporting, reproducibility, evaluation, and incentives’ (Ioannidis, 2018); and b) practitioner research as professional learning where practitioner research- center teams used action research to investigate issues within their respective centers.

Three groups of participants were involved in ongoing discussion about the iterative design and implementation of the program:

1. University Academics (Academic Collaborators); 2. Educators (Practitioner Researchers); and 3. Managers (Mentors).

The professional learning

The practitioner research experience was designed to equip participants with a sustainable process through which they could continue deep reflection and investigation of their processes and practices with a view to long-term strengthening of pedagogical practices. A seven-month professional learning program included six Leadership Roundtables bookended by a conference day and presentation/celebration day. Content knowledge included action research; research processes such as data collection and analysis; intentional teaching; dialogic reading and introduction to several tools to mediate professional learning. Literacy was a focus. Tools included: The Early Childhood Environment Language Literacy and Numeracy Scale (ECELLNS) (Western Sydney University [WSU], 2013); The Five Literacy Keys (Woodrow et al., 2014) the Australian Professional Teaching Standards (AITSL, 2017); the Australian National Quality Framework (Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority [ACECQA], 2012); The Critical Thinking and Reflection Framework (Newman et al., 2018) and Dialogic Reading (Zevenbergen & Whitehurst, 2003). Over six Leadership Roundtables academic collaborators presented new information and extended previous learning to scaffold the practitioner researchers as they designed and eventually implemented their action research. The mentors met separately with small groups and individual centers to extend and support learning.

Data generation

The meta-research investigated the practitioner researchers’ research experiences and involved questionnaires at the beginning and end of the project; two focus groups close to the beginning and end of the program; and formal evaluations, designed by the academic collaborators, for each session. Focus groups at the beginning and end of the project were facilitated by the university researchers using trigger prompts designed to elicit the practitioner researchers’ thoughts about the processes, achievements and challenges of the project.

Within the practitioner research, data were collected by each center in a variety of forms pre and post research. These included observation schedules, tally charts, and photographs.

The mentors generated data in the form of their own reflective statements. They volunteered to record their reflections about the process and findings from the project as a part of the co-authorship process. Due to length constraints and the focus of this paper data reported in this paper are from Focus Group 2 and the final mentor statements only.

The participants

The participants were: two academics from different universities; two mentors; and eight EC educators. Demographic details are below in Table 1. Invited participants had expressed an interest in the project following receipt of information. Four pairs of practitioner researchers started and about half-way through the project one pair dropped out without giving a reason, with one subsequently leaving for another profession.

Table 1. Participant demographics.

Centre	Participant	Qualifications	Years in Organisation
1. Preschool	Director, Educational Leader	B.Ed (0–5)	<1
	ECT, Educational Leader	B.Ed (0–5)	>15
Long Day Care	Educational Leader, ECT	B.Ed (EC)	1.5
	Director	Diploma	2
Long Day Care	Educator	Diploma	7
	Nominated Supervisor	Diploma	13
Preschool	Director	B.Ed (EC)	2
	Educational Leader	B.Ed (EC)	3 months
Organisation	General Manager	Masters (EC)	2
	Operations Manager	B.Ed (EC)	3

Data analysis

The educator focus group transcript was initially coded by author one with reference to literature in areas such as leading, professional learning and researcher dispositions. It was then corroborated with author two over several Zoom meetings lasting several hours using an iterative process of re-reading the data, reflecting on similarities and differences of opinion, and deciding on agreed codes and themes. Coding decisions were directly recorded onto coding sheets. Abductive reasoning was used to revisit the data back and forth while considering the knowledge of relevant literature, research processes, the overall data set and experience in the project (Charmaz, 2011).

The two-page mentor transcript was coded for keywords and these were then aligned to practitioner researchers’ codes. An abstract, collaboratively written for the Australasian Journal of Early Childhood Research conference by the four authors was also marked up for keywords and then aligned to codes. The educator, mentor and abstract codes were compared and contrasted to derive themes.

Funding the project

The hosting organization funded the costs of academic expertise; staff replacement for educators to attend sessions and work on their projects; mentors’ time supporting each team, consultation with the academic collaborators and with each other; and catering.

Ethics

The research was approved by the Western Sydney University Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) (H13580). Procedural ethics matters including confidentiality were discussed as part of the approved research ethics protocol. All participants were provided with contact details of academic collaborators and the HREC and invited to raise any concerns with the Academic Collaborators.

Ethical issues involving equity and social justice in curriculum and pedagogy were introduced by the Academic Collaborators who mediated ongoing collaborative discussions throughout Leadership Roundtables. Academic Collaborators also discussed with mentors potential issues arising from embedded power differentials as the mentors were also managers, and how these might be managed. An online evaluation survey formatted in Survey Monkey and designed by the academic collaborators was emailed to participants by a research officer following each Leadership Roundtable. He anonymized and collated survey results. Individuals and centers are anonymized in this paper.

Findings

Findings revealed that practitioner research as a collaborative form of professional learning did indeed lead to quality improvements in the form of strengthened leadership for quality improvement and sustaining change; enhanced leader researcher identities; and increased intentionality in professional learning.

Findings are reported in three ways: the voices of the academic collaborators, evident as lead writers of the paper and in presentation of focus group themes and data excerpts; the voices of the practitioner researchers evident through focus group excerpts (quotes); and the direct voices of the mentors as presented in their reflective text.

Although rigorous and research-informed, crafting themes and codes is always subject to coders’ perspectives. Fourteen codes were initially identified and later reduced to four themes that were reflected across all data sets: Leading Quality Improvement and Sustaining Change; Leader Researcher Identities; and Intentional Professional Learners.

Voices of practitioner researchers

There was discernible alignment between focus group transcript codes and the mentors’ reflections with each revealing the transformational potential of practitioner research for educators as critically reflective change agents. The presented practitioner researcher data excerpts are reflective of similar examples. In line with unsolicited reflections of the mentors about the emergence of Educational Leader capacity, we note that three of the four emergent themes related to leadership, leading to a focus on this in our reporting. Data reported under the three headings have been subjectively placed as there is noticeable inter-twining of reported thoughts and ideas.

Leading quality improvement and sustaining change

Participants demonstrated new, or rediscovered passions to make change. There were unexpected realizations that they were the people who could, and should, make change. Repeated assertions that learning to research led to quality improvement, having significant impact on their work, accompanied participant statements about the practitioner research experience exceeding expectations:

We’ve been able to come up with different ways that we can change that … from the [Environmental Rating] scale. But it’s also just been from different readings and things that we’ve come across and brought up different practices and ways [to] do things better.

The practitioner researchers confirmed the value of mediating ‘tools’, such as the environmental rating scale and critical reflection framework, claiming ongoing usefulness:

… more than I had anticipated … .lots of useful games and methods to use, like how I used the reflection tools. And that’s one of the most valuable things I’ve gotten from our experience.

This demonstrates the sociocultural nature of an inter-relational mediation process wherein a participant mediates change for quality improvement through tool use (Walton, 2021):

It all just interweaves and strengthens through our IPs and self-assessments.

This confidence, strongly articulated, indicates a shift from ‘as usual’ practice and contrasts with earlier themes in early childhood leadership research describing resistance to expressing leadership identity (Cooper, 2023).

This documented leadership confidence included recognition that for practitioner research to be sustained, others would need to be engaged (Walton, 2021):

We’re talking about, like, how you get people to be committed to that sort of research?

Authentic team relationships and collaboration were also seen as important for growing understandings about respecting difference in perspectives:

I think we’ve learned how each other works. Which is good, because we don’t work the same, we don’t have the same philosophy … bouncing off each other, and supporting each other’s style of learning. It’s beautiful, you know, those relationships within the team form. And they all involve doing a project.

Leader researcher identities

Many discussions reflected new perspectives of leadership including: leadership in a general sense, educational leadership, vulnerability and ambiguity, advocacy and professional identity, and acknowledging themselves as leaders in new ways reflecting a shift in professional identity. The investment by the sponsoring organization was perceived as a valuing of practitioners.

… what it’s done to strengthen or reflect on leadership. It is well worth the investment. And I think that prevents burnout because educators then know how to step up.

Projects like this build your knowledge and confidence in your skills for reflection, deeper reflection, so you can be vulnerable. And, I think that is, you know, that’s powerful, being able to be vulnerable and doing that leadership, in a safe space.

Educational leadership was evident. Comments echoed the revelation to the mentors that practitioner research and educational leadership are closely aligned:

… It’s beautiful, the way she’s [practitioner researcher] mentoring and takes the time to mentor educators sometimes, … , because sometimes I [Director] get overwhelmed with all the day-to-day stuff … it’s actually okay to be passionate, enthusiastic about what you want to do.

Vulnerability and ambiguity were evident. The open-ended nature of the project and the iterative approach was a surprise to those expecting quick answers and solutions. One participant came expecting solutions to behavioral issues and was surprised that self-design of a research project around book reading, gave her the answers she was looking for, albeit in a round-about and self-managed way:

… .that adaptability. … So we’ve had something in mind. And then all of a sudden, you guys blindsided us, asking for a literacy focus. So there’s a bit of like, a moment, but then it was like, alright … . Now, stepping back from that journey, it’s affected so many other things. … we have learned so much more in all different areas.

Changes in professional identity were an evident issue for discussion:

It’s built a level of confidence in me and inspired me to have that real enthusiasm to understand critical reflection, and to just … have a renewed vision of what I, what the prospects are, what we can do, we can do so much more.

Shifts in professional identity were supported by the organization’s commitment to the program, not in the least by the provision of mentor time.

And you’ll want to be able to keep that momentum going. But [it] is commitment from the organization. … because it does take time. And it does take people, like the fact that you’re not just on the floor permanently. … the children are our priority. But if we’re just on the floor continuously doing that, then when are we having that time to learn? And really engage then? … .

Emerging confidence was evident as the practitioner researchers noted their progress in bringing together research planning, implementation processes, data gathering and analysis. There was a new clarity that through research, differing regulatory requirements can be integrated and achieved, saving time:

And also the way we’ve seen it while working in the EYLF and NQF. We’re [usually] looking at [them] all as separate entities, … [now] we’re doing one piece of work, that translates through almost everything.

Practitioner researchers demonstrated initial excitement and subsequent mature understandings of the contribution of their enhanced research knowledge and skills, acknowledging their new ability to use evidence to inform change and sustain their professionalism:

I think that prevents burnout, because educators then know how to step back and look at situations or practices and use their research and the knowledge to get through their situations.

I really was excited by the [research] concept … to delve into what being a researcher really is … how to actually use that research to form and build our practice.

There was a realization that work, personal confidence and approaches can be different in line with growth:

From that I’ve gained the confidence … Because previously, that hasn’t been like the confidence to be inspiring or inspired, but because now with [Organisation], that has been allowed that to happen… So you can see that when you actually are inspired, and you’re confident it’s okay. It’s actually a good thing.

There was a clear and newly emerged sense that practitioner researchers had gained the disposition to lead, and/or collaborate in the design of their own professional learning.

Typically we all go to the three-hour or eight-hour [PD]. And that’s where it stops. And then you’re on your own, and you’ve got to implement it … or not. [With these] we came back and checked in … were able to present our challenges or reflect on what you put in place or discuss anything that’s come up and then go back fresher again and build upon the last ideas. … there’s more of an opportunity to constantly build on that knowledge that you started with. … we’ve learned how to create … our own professional development … for what’s happening in our centres.

Intentional professional learners

Practitioner researchers discussed and reflected Hood and Littlejohn’s (2017) knowledge categories – the content, their pedagogical learning, and their appreciation of workplace sociocultural collaborative team learning, and the possibilities of ongoing learning, with one participant describing it as ‘uni without the HECS’ [fees], demonstrating self-regulative knowledge.

And I would say I definitely have learned a lot. It’s also helped me to remember the importance of taking some time to do some extra reading or to keep learning. …

Practitioner researchers noted specific conceptual pedagogical learnings:

… even though there was a focus on literacy, I think that it’s made me reflect on so much more … we can … be more critical of things and think of better ways to do things. I mean, we’re planning a big classroom change that’s been based on doing the [Environmental Rating] scale.

In terms of workplace sociocultural collaboration:

It’s like, it’s not that tall poppy thing. We’re not trying to shut each other down … Like, you have that trust.

An aspect of this is that we’re able to have multiple people from different teams [to] share not only how we’re progressing, but just ideas.

Challenges and limitations

As much as the practitioner researchers enjoyed and valued the research program, there were definitely challenges, particularly in matters related to a COVID-19 necessity to quickly shift from face-to-face sessions to online learning:

COVID, how to begin? When I did my degree, I didn’t do it online. … And I really enjoyed our first few sessions that were in person. I’ve just felt so engaged, and I was taking it all in, really enjoying it. And I have to say that when it all went on to Zoom, which was unavoidable, I felt like I lost engagement … because it’s just really hard for me to sit on a computer for that length of time and just listen. … It wasn’t only Zooms for the project, it was Zooms for our directors, meetings with families, and it was the constant Zoom, really intense. … oh my gosh, yeah, too much.

Practitioner research does not aim for, or claim, generalizability. Rather, the value of such small-scale research is to honor the voices, thoughts and experiences of one group of people, with a view to offering insight from which others can draw what is useful and meaningful to them.

Voices of mentors

The final voices in this paper are of the mentors. It was their insights that first illuminated the strong nexus between practitioner research and the Educational Leader role. Analysis revealed alignment with the themes evident in educator responses and resonated with Nuttall et al. (2022) conception of Educational Leadership as leading educational change and quality improvement.

Leading quality improvement and sustaining change

The mentors had no expectation that the project would lead to big-picture changes in their conceptualization of Educational Leader role:

We had not expected that the framework of engaging in practitioner research would guide how we structure the role of educational leadership.

Their own leadership was reflected upon and questioned. It became evident to the mentors that their mentees were using leadership initiative to improve the quality of preexisting practices:

The original plan for our mentoring role was structured, with group and one to one sessions at regular intervals. It became clear that much of the mentoring role would take place in incidental conversations and non-research project related matters.

The mentors could see research leadership and change emerging that had the potential for ongoing awareness and change:

Educators used already existing observation skills to view children through their newly acquired research lens and discovered they had been gathering data all along!

The data gathering tools created by teams were incredible and the level they were analysing their practices and interactions were well beyond expectations. We saw ‘Ah-ha’ moments when teams analysed their data to realise their ‘hunch’ about what their change project should focus on was incorrect. From a hunch that ‘Literacy artefacts for pre-schoolers needed improvement’, to ‘Oh, it is the babies we have been overlooking’.

Leader researcher identities

Consistent with a clearer perspective on leadership dispositions, leadership identities became less ambiguous, as the practitioner researchers gave themselves permission to be unsure:

We noticed that being able to ride the wave of ambiguity was a huge asset. This also meant that participants had to make themselves vulnerable to colleagues as they would not always have ‘the answer’ and would have to adjust and change the project as they learnt.

For some, this directly challenged their beliefs of ‘leaders’ as ‘knowers’.

One team were struggling with the anecdotal perception that families did not think there was a ‘school readiness’ program in the play-based learning they offered. This language soon shifted to a more reflective stance as the question became, ‘have WE communicated how our play-based program supports a child’s learning?’

Overall, as teacher-leadership identities strengthened we noted that the processes undertaken seemed to have given them permission to disagree, to question, to critically analyze and to move away from accepting the status quo toward a consciously leaderly and more mindful way of doing their practice.

Dispositions are now recognized as important in educational leadership (ACECQA 2019; Nuttall et al., 2022). The mentors note a shifting and strengthening in leadership dispositions, particularly a newfound willingness to question traditional practices:

We were aware that our teams felt least confident in articulating their critical reflection practices. We hoped that, through this work, our teams would develop a meaningful way to engage in critical reflection.

At the midway point, we observed a shift in the way practitioner researchers were discussing their projects, and their observations of existing practices. We heard great conversations about ‘slow pedagogy’ and ‘child-centred versus co-constructed curriculum’.

[university researchers] posed provocations in learning sessions such as – do we have to finish the story book we start in one session? Can we share the ritual of using a bookmark and returning to the story later? These provocations gave our teams ‘permission’ to question practices and be curious in their approach.

Our insights included dispositions of those suited to this project. Participants who learnt how to dovetail their research projects with other obligations were able to stay calm throughout.

Researcher dispositions had clearly emerged:

We have received consistent feedback that the Board’s investment in this project has led to educators feeling valued and supported. Elevated levels of motivation were apparent, so much so that we had to reign people in from running multiple research projects! The teams are now showing high levels of curiosity and not stopping at their first assumptions.

Intentional professional learners

Consistent with Hood and Littlejohn’s (2017) conceptualization, the mentors witnessed a willingness to embrace new ways of learning:

we asked team members to try a new way of working.

What we learnt in the project sessions became the anchor to all our quality improvement.

Two frameworks shared by the academic collaborators stood out for us – the CIGAR Framework and Critical Conversations Framework (Newman et al., 2018). We set about building the practitioner researchers’ confidence to use these tools.

Discussion

Although a small study, the intimacy of interactions between participants enabled visibility of insights and their significance could be celebrated. Interpretation of findings shows that at this moment of considerable workforce challenge in [country], one team has been motivated to re-commit to the process of raising quality and reconceptualizing quality improvement through the operations of their Educational Leaders. This, we believe, has been achieved by virtue of the inter-relational and collaborative sociocultural nature of the practitioner research design. Furthermore, new colleagues have been drawn to the organization because of its new focus on practitioner research and educational leadership. This potentially will allow some counterpoint to previous research showing early childhood educators’ reluctance to take on leadership roles. With this impact, the investment by the Board can be seen as successful by both educators who felt more valued and committed to the organization and managers who could sense a re-commitment and invigoration.

Intentional professional learning came into sharp focus in this study. Practitioner researchers learnt to look in new ways and realized that learning can be transferred from one area to another, as when a new approach to book-reading alleviated an issue with behavior. With engagement with an environmental rating scale (WSU, 2013), and the realization of ‘new ways to look’, practitioner researchers felt they had been given permission to reexamine, be curious and be collaborative (Harvey & Jones, 2021). The conversations revealed knowledge building across the elements of Hood and Littlejohn’s (2017) ways of learning and knowing. An inquiry stance (Mockler & Groundwater-Smith, 2009) in their own ongoing work was keenly evident.

It was apparent that the use of newly discovered tools was invaluable in scaffolding change. The concept of Dialogical Reading (Zevenbergen & Whitehurst, 2003) was employed in two of the three completed projects. The ‘Critical Thinking and Reflection Framework’ (Newman et al., 2018) framed and supported deeper thinking (Loughran, 2016).

Practitioner researchers have begun to show researcher dispositions with the realization that they can have agency in co-designing their own professional learning and as an added benefit have learned to research their own practice. They have opened their minds in a critically reflective way to ‘re-search’ their environments and become active leaders.

Within a context where lack of understanding and ambiguity about the mandated role of Educational Leader is well documented (Loo & Abgenyega, 2015; Sims et al., 2018), an unexpected outcome that may counter this documented phenomenon has been the insight into how practitioner research and the educational leadership role are inter-related. This has led to an organization-wide review and amendment to the position description for Educational Leaders. This is related to the close relationship that has been evident as participants were able to articulate the relationship between their sense of themselves as knowers/not knowers and leaders ‘in learning’. This can be seen as leading learning and/or learning to lead, aligning with Gibbs (2020) description of emergent leaders’ qualities (Gibbs, 2020) and Nuttall et al. (2022) characterization of the Educational Leader role as change leader and Husted and Tofteng’s (2021) contention that employees themselves are the people who can make meaningful, democratic systemic change. One participant shared a revelation that she was happy to let children know she didn’t know something, but as a leader she had previously felt unable to expose that vulnerability with her adult team.

Emerging strength in leading, together with enhanced identities as both collaborative and collegial leaders and researchers and growing professional confidence were all evident. As indicated by participants, research suggests that an outcome of this professional growth will be increased commitment to the profession (Gibbs, 2020), leading to improved staff retention and quality improvement. At a time of huge workforce challenges with staff shortages and loss of educators to other workplaces this must be beneficial.

It has become evident in this study that the processes and projects of practitioner research have made a significant and potentially sustainable impact, strengthening previous research that documented evidence of impacts and sustained practices from the perspectives of practitioners, managers and academic collaborators (Woodrow & Newman, 2023). There was notable consistency across educators and between educators and managers that the longer-term nature of practitioner research as professional learning led them toward quality improvements. A newly found confidence to question current practices and ‘the norm’, will enable the practitioner researchers to continue working in this new way, and be influential in leading quality improvement, accordingly strengthening educational leadership. These findings are significant within a context of workplace shortages and well-documented hesitancy in taking on leadership roles. A widening of the vision of what leadership can be, allows further possibilities in embracing it.

Conclusion

Our research set out to investigate the use of practitioner research as a form of collaborative professional learning. We have confirmed the findings of previous researchers that Educational Leaders are unsure of their role and that EC Educators are hesitant about becoming leaders. The use of Practitioner Research has allowed and taught educators to investigate and improve their own practice and by building collaborative practice to take ownership of educational leadership for sustainable change and quality improvement. By looking deeply at a topic of choice/interest they engaged deeply and felt empowered to lead on that topic. This ‘opened a leadership window’. As their topics were pedagogical/curriculum in nature their leadership became ‘educational leadership’ as recognized by themselves and their managers.

Investing time and money in formalized professional learning is challenging for both organizations and participants. In this article we have presented the viewpoints of participants, mentors, and less directly, academics. All perceived many benefits accruing from participation. Perhaps our findings may convince others that involving practitioners in ongoing processes that enable them to focus on their practice and build on their learnings-in-context can be beneficial over the longer term and in more ways than anticipated. The implications of this evidence is available here for employers to see the potential of investing funds in professional learning for direct and indirect benefits. At a time of significant and broad-ranging workforce challenges, investing in staff development can be viewed as a cost repaid with commitment, loyalty and market appeal/competitiveness. In recognizing that through strengthened professional identities, formed from newly found researcher identities, acquired through new knowledge, skills and dispositions, leaders are being made. In the process much needed definition to the knowledge and skills that are essential to the role of the Educational Leader emerge.

We finish with the words of the mentors who sum up their perceptions:

The project has enabled us to understand that educational leadership IS being a practitioner researcher. Now, we see all our educators as practitioner researchers with an explicit expectation of our Educational Leaders to be the Lead Researcher. We have revised our Educational Leader position descriptions to include practitioner research and will support skill development in this area. Unexpectedly, we have seen an increase in interest from external candidates and in some instances practitioner research has been the reason they have wanted to join our team over another. Considering recruitment costs in using an agency to find Early Childhood Teachers, this investment is paying dividends.

Our experience of this way of working has been incredibly positive and we would encourage others to experiment with it. We are planning phase two of this project.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the Connect Child and Family Services.

Notes on contributors

Linda Newman

Linda Newman Conjoint Associate Professor Linda Newman (The University of Newcastle) currently works as a researcher and consultant in the early childhood sector. In recent years Linda’s research has focused around participatory research with early childhood educators in Chile, Western Sydney and Newcastle. In recent research Linda has investigated children’s views about their play and learning environments. Children’s voices will be used to inform planners, architects, landscape architects, therapists, and educators as they build a new and innovative inclusion centre in Sydney Australia.

Christine Woodrow

Christine Woodrow is Associate Professor in the School of Education and Deputy Director of Transforming early Education and Child Health Research Centre at Western Sydney University. Her most recent research has been focused on developing sustainable models of pedagogical and community leadership with a particular focus on early childhood literacy and numeracy pedagogies and parent engagement in vulnerable contexts. Her research also includes early childhood policy analysis and transnational investigations of professional identities.

Angela Gillespie

Angela Gillespie has been working in the profession of Early Childhood Education for 19 years. She is passionate about inclusion and building community partnerships and has solid experience in organisational strategy and development, program design, implementation and management, mentoring and leadership. She is the Senior Manager of Practice and Programs. at Connect Child and Family Services in the Blue Mountains, NSW Australia.

Ann-Marie Ellott

Ann-Marie Ellott is the Chief Executive of Connect Child and Family Services in the Blue Mountains, NSW Australia, appointed by the Board in 2022, Ann-Marie is an experienced organisational leader in services for children and families. She leads a team of three Senior Managers who oversee the implementation of service delivery quality, compliance, risk and finances as well as general business practices.