The Power of Teacher Voice: Developing Agency, Advocacy, and Efficacy amid COVID-19

Abstract

This qualitative study investigated how critical reflection can be incorporated into collaborative professional communities to enact a process of generative transformative praxis that leads to meaningful action on the part of its community members. Across the arc of a series of six collaborative reflection groups that took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, we found that when teachers critically reflected on the work they were doing and wanted to do (agency), reflected on how this had been and would be enacted in their work with students (advocacy), and then reflected on their beliefs about the impact that they could have through this work (efficacy), they felt a deep responsibility to generate solutions to the problems faced by teachers, students, families, and communities during this time. From these findings we propose that as teacher voice is strengthened through critical reflection in collaborative professional communities, teachers come to see themselves as key stakeholders in continual educational improvement whose actions are necessary to impact positive change, even in the most challenging situations.

The first years of the pandemic placed great disruption and strain on schools and teachers (Marshall, 2022). After effects of this strain have included things like teacher burnout (Pressley, 2021), shortages of qualified teachers (Nguyen et al., 2022), declines in student performance (NAEP, 2022), growing mental health concerns for students and teachers (Cohen-Fraade & Donahue, 2022; Robinson et al., 2023), increased inequity in school systems (Cipriano et al., 2020) and more. There have also been positive responses such as an increased focus on trauma-informed instruction and social-emotional learning (Cipriano et al., 2020; Taylor, 2021), greater attention to teacher self-care and well-being (Steiner et al., 2022), a renewed interest in teacher agency (Narayanan & Ordynans, 2022), and urgent calls for innovation in the field (Doucet et al., 2020; UNESCO, 2022).

As a result, a need has been realized for more supportive and effective teacher development approaches that promote teacher voice in the conversation around how to move forward (UNICEF, 2021). Collaborative teacher communities, such as those provided in professional learning communities (PLCs) and communities of practice (CoP), have been offered as a humanizing way to support teachers in improving the work of education. Collaborative professional communities encourage teachers to work critically to address the problems at hand as they develop the agency needed to solve them (Dufour & Eaker, 1998; Ferlazzo, 2021). They provide a place for teachers to work collectively to increase their knowledge, expand their experience, identify gaps in competence, problem solve and more (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner, 2015). With an intentional structure, collaborative professional communities provide a place for teachers to engage in critical reflection, asking ongoing cycles of questions that dig deeper into the roots of issues, in order to work together toward meaningful change (Rodgers, 2002; Schön, 1987). In fact, research has shown that having teachers work collaboratively and critically in this way is vital for school improvement efforts to be successful (Datnow, 2020; Wilcox & Lawson, 2018).

Taking the stance that teachers are key stakeholders in the larger process of continual educational improvement, this study sought to learn more about what teachers had to say about their experiences through COVID-19 and how they were persevering through them. We sought to learn more about how teachers can work collaboratively and critically in professional communities to develop unique insights that allow them to turn challenges into change. It is our hope that through lifting the voices of teachers, their position as authorities on what can and should be done to keep systems of education moving forward will be more fully recognized.

Theoretical framework

A call for generative transformative praxis

Working collaboratively and intentionally in professional communities, teachers have the potential to be key stakeholders in educational improvement. Ball (2009) provides a compelling model for developing teacher voice in these efforts. Moving along four stages, Ball’s model of generative change begins with critical reflection as an awakening that welcomes agency and the will to act. With a perceived need for change, teachers advocate for reform, acting and reflecting upon the actions that they take toward it. Throughout this process, efficacy develops as teachers believe that students are capable of great things and that they are capable of empowering students to get there. Ultimately, as teachers move toward a sense of efficacy, they develop generativity, which Ball defines as:

The teachers’ ability to continually add to their knowledge and understanding by reflecting on and connecting their personal and professional knowledge with the knowledge that they gain from their students and the students’ community, which results in actions that include the production of knowledge and classroom practices that are creative and useful in meeting the needs of their students (Liu & Ball, 2019, p. 95).

In 2020, Brito and Ball proposed an evolved generative transformative praxis framework that positions the model of generative change (Ball, 2009) within a liberatory pedagogical framework (Freire, 1970, 1973). Generative transformative praxis is described by Brito and Ball as an approach that views teachers as learners who are creative agents of change, as opposed to objects of change, who work in tandem with students to improve education and serve the public good. In an ever evolving world, generativity is necessary to work toward new and innovative solutions to the novel problems continuously introduced.

To better highlight how generative transformative praxis evolved through the critical reflections of the teachers in this study, a description is first provided of how each of the four stages of the model of generative change operate within a liberatory pedagogical framework through a dynamic and ongoing process of reflection, introspection, critique and voice.

Pedagogy of reflection (awakening)

Reflection has a long and well-respected history in the education literature often attributed to the work of John Dewey. In his writings, Dewey (1933) went as far as to say that the act of reflecting on one’s experiences is more important to learning than the experiences themselves. Through synthesizing Dewey’s work on reflection, Rodgers (2002, 2020) delineated four criteria for what reflective thinking can be: A meaning-making process in which learning is continuous leading to the progress of the individual and of society; a systematic, rigorous, and disciplined way of thinking rooted in scientific inquiry; a collaborative process that happens in community; and an attitude that values personal and intellectual growth of oneself and of others. Dewey argued against a universal truth, rather maintaining that people create perceptions of truths together through collective reflection on the world around them.

Seeing the emancipatory potential of education, the call for critical reflection has been well made by scholars such as Mezirow (1990), Brookfield (1995), and Cranton (1996), and more recently Liu (2015). Critical reflection requires people to examine the assumptions that underlie their thoughts and actions within their relationships, their work, and their participation in society. It goes beyond theoretical situations and considerations to those directly in the center of experiences. In essence, critical reflection requires people to question assumptions and actions, what they’ve been told or been led to believe, in order to more clearly see what is going on around them and how they should act in response.

A pedagogy of reflection requires multiple layers of reflection as teachers spend time reflecting on, questioning, and challenging their practices and their interactions with their students and their school communities. Students are viewed as resources, with the process of reflecting being centered on humanization of the teacher’s themselves and of their students. The reflection must go deep as teachers critically examine their own assumptions about knowledge and how learners come to understand and acquire it. These critical aspects of reflecting must lead to action in teachers’ ever changing and expanding work (Liu & Ball, 2019). According to Ball, the awakening process, in which one moves from consciousness to conscientization, or a critical awareness that comes with understanding on a deeper level the consequences of one’s actions on a personal and broader societal scale (Freire, 1993), must occur in order to go through the other parts of the model.

Pedagogy of introspection (agency)

Bandura (2001) offers an agentic perspective in his social cognitive theory that outlines four core features of human agency – intentionality, forethought, self-reactiveness, and self-reflectiveness. Intentionality involves what one intends to accomplish, what they are committed to bringing about. Forethought builds upon intentionality as people select and create courses of action that will drive toward what they intend to accomplish while avoiding pitfalls that may arise. With forethought, one can look toward the future and chart a path to get there. Self-reactiveness motivates and regulates the course of action throughout its execution. With self-monitoring, self-guidance through personal standards, and corrective self-reactions, one works toward meeting their goals. Lastly, through self-reflectiveness people examine this process reflecting on the adequacy of their thoughts and actions; they “evaluate their motivation, values, and the meaning of their life pursuits” (p. 10).

A pedagogy of introspection adds a critical self-evaluation of one’s own practices. From there, a teacher realizes essentially that they are writing their own story and that change is possible within their practice that can influence the future. Here teachers develop the desire and the willingness – the agency – to continually transform their practice.

Pedagogy of critique (advocacy)

In the model of generative change, the stages of reflection and agency bring teachers to advocacy and ultimately efficacy. As one revises their previously held assumptions, they prepare to take action that will address the new contexts and demands. A pedagogy of critique is about taking those actions – asking the hard questions needed to transform classrooms, schools, and communities, acting collectively toward novel solutions, and advocating for change through what is learned in the process. Rather than consume knowledge to adapt to current circumstances, teachers and students create new sources of knowledge that allow them to advocate for societal change.

Pedagogy of voice (efficacy)

People’s beliefs about their abilities to exercise control over their lives, their efficacy beliefs, “are the foundation of human agency…Whatever other factors may operate as guides and motivators, they are rooted in the core belief that one has the power to produce effects by one’s actions” (Bandura, 2001, p. 10). Brito and Ball (2020) consider this fourth stage to be the ultimate form of agency. In this stage, a pedagogy of voice calls teachers to engage in learning in the direction of the needs and interests of the community, to demonstrate that it is possible to solve new and previously unidentified problems, and to believe that they can enact “education as the practice of freedom” (hooks, 1994, p. 207). In effect, teachers develop the efficacy to become lifelong learners and the voice to “demand of ourselves and our comrades, an openness of mind and heart that allows us to face reality even as we collectively imagine ways to move beyond boundaries, to transgress” (p. 207).

The present study

This qualitative study investigated how critical reflection can be incorporated into collaborative professional spaces to enact a process of generative transformative praxis that leads to meaningful action on the part of its community members. The pandemic and the challenges that teachers were going through as a result were the primary impetus for this study. Through our work with teachers during this time, we soon realized that many were seeking connection and collaboration with people going through similar experiences as themselves. We wanted to provide a space that would push this collaboration to be purposeful and intentional in bringing about positive change. Indeed during this time, there was hope that the pandemic might even transform education as we had previously known it. If this were to happen, we felt it critical for teachers and their voices to be central to any movement toward that end (Giroux, 1985). While we had been familiar with Ball’s (2009) model of generative change for some time, we discovered Brito and Ball (2020) generative transformative praxis framework just as we were thinking through how to design our study. Hence, the idea for holding bi-weekly collaborative reflection groups that would encourage teachers along the framework was refined with colleagues and carried out with a group of willing teachers. Similar to the research of Ball (2000, 2006, 2009), we followed up with our participants two years after the original collaborative reflection groups to see if and how they were continuing to progress along the generative transformative praxis framework.

Reflection journals, collaborative reflection groups, and open-ended surveys were used to learn more about teacher voice and the development of agency, advocacy, and efficacy in their work during this time. We investigated how engagement with critical reflection impacts teacher beliefs about their abilities and capabilities within the field, as well as their willingness to take action as key stakeholders in continual educational improvement. Our research questions asked:

• When faced with novel challenges such as those presented to schools during COVID-19, how might critical reflection within collaborative professional communities support the development of teacher agency, advocacy, and efficacy in their work?

• To address the novel challenges presented to schools during COVID-19, how might critical reflection within collaborative professional communities help teachers connect their work with larger systemic issues impacting education? How might it lead to action to address the issues?

• Through the process of overcoming the challenges presented to schools during COVID-19, how might teachers come to see that they have an essential voice in continual educational improvement?

Method

Participants

In April through June of 2020, seven teachers of grades PK-12 in public, charter, and private schools across several districts in the City of New York volunteered to participate in this study on the use of critical reflection in collaborative professional communities. In February of 2022, three of the teachers volunteered to participate in a follow-up to the study to see if and how the critical reflection process was continuing to inform their work.

During April through June of 2020, all of the teachers in the study were working in schools that were fully remote for five days a week. Across the schools, classes were primarily offered synchronously during regularly scheduled class times with some asynchronous work incorporated, especially for the younger grades. As Table 1 shows, at the start of the study the teachers ranged in experience from two years of teaching (n = 4) to three years of teaching (n = 1) and four years of teaching (n = 2). Four teachers taught in public schools, two taught in charter schools, and one taught in a private school. There were four early childhood and elementary teachers in grades Pre-K through 2, one middle school teacher, and two high school teachers. As all teachers were in a master’s program leading to dual certification in education and special education, all teachers were gaining experience in both general and special education settings. Demographically, the teachers primarily identified as female with one teacher identifying as male. Three teachers identified as Black, two identified as Mixed or Hispanic/Mixed, and two identified as White.

Table 1. Participant demographics with teaching experience, context, and focus groups completed.

Name	Race/ Ethnicity	Gender	Years Teaching	Grade/ Subject	School Context	Groups Completed
Alexandra*	Mixed	Female	4	First	Charter	5
Amalia	Hispanic/ Mixed	Female	2	Kindergarten	Public	5
Devin*	Black	Male	2	Second	Charter	6
Kristen	White	Female	2	High School	Private	3
Sky	Black	Female	4	High School	Public	4
Susan*	White	Female	3	PreK	Public	4
Tashay	Black	Female	2	Middle School	Public	4

Note. N = 7. This demographic data is from the first year of the study during the 2020-2021 school year.

* Participants who completed the follow-up collaborative reflection group two years later.

The teachers were recruited from the graduate school courses that they were taking with the researchers via email and verbal announcements before and after class detailing the purpose of the study and the responsibilities of participation. The teachers were informed that participation was strictly voluntary, in no way impacted their grades in the courses, and they were free to discontinue participation at any point. The institution where the graduate courses took place was an alternative teacher preparation program in which the teachers were working full-time in high needs schools while completing their master’s degree in either early childhood (birth to grade 2), childhood (grades 1–6), or adolescence (grades 7–12) education and special education. Upon completion of the program, teachers were recommended for Initial and professional certification in both general and special education in their respective grade band area.

A note about the participants

This study was unique in that the teachers who participated wanted their real names to be used in the paper to show their thoughts, ideas, and collaboration throughout the project. Since the teachers’ voices were central to the creation of this paper, from the data collection to the data analysis, writing, and revision, they are listed as coauthors of this paper as well. Permission was obtained both orally and in writing for their real names to be used in the paper, as well as to be listed as coauthors.

Data collection and analysis

Participation in the study centered around six collaborative reflection groups that were conducted on zoom in which the teachers critically reflected on their practice through the pandemic. The first five collaborative reflection groups began in early May and continued on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, depending on the teachers’ schedules, through the end of June. The sixth and final follow-up reflection group took place two years later in late February. As Table 1 shows, all but one of the teachers participated in four out of five of the initial reflection groups. Two teachers, Devin and Amalia, participated in all five of the groups. Three of the teachers, Devin, Alexandra, and Susan, participated in the sixth follow-up reflection group.

In between the first five reflection group meetings, individual teachers were asked to keep reflection journals that asked questions such as, “What did you learn about your students this week? What changed from last week to this one? How will you use this information in your interactions with students to support and empower them next week?” and “What did you learn about your teaching this week? What changed from last week to this one? How will you use this information in your pedagogical problem-solving next week?” The teachers were asked to write in the journals at least once in between each meeting and then to bring their journal writings to the reflection groups as a way to springboard the conversations.

To facilitate the reflection groups in a way that would encourage the teachers’ progression along the four steps of the generative transformative praxis framework, the researchers began each with a framing that shared the four criteria for reflective thinking distilled by Rodgers (2002, 2020) from the collective work of Dewey (see the theoretical framework for a discussion of these four criteria), as well a brief overview of the model of generative change. The framing set a purpose for the collaborative reflection groups as the researchers encouraged the teachers to go beyond initial noticings of what was going on in their contexts and the changes that were occurring due to the pandemic to a deeper understanding of the issues and their role within them. After the initial framing, the role of the researchers was primarily that of active listeners. The teachers themselves were encouraged to ask probing questions during the reflection groups to learn more about each other’s work in order to press into the issues that they were facing. They were encouraged to demonstrate understanding of another’s viewpoint as they challenged or built upon what another shared. In the rare moments that the teachers seemed to get stuck on a topic, the researchers joined in to ask probing questions to deepen the critical reflection process. These questions would ask things like why a teacher felt a problem was or was not happening, how they were addressing it, what they were seeing as a result in comparison to what they would like to see.

Each reflection group ended with thanking the teachers for their participation and asking each to share a final word or thought that was on their minds. At the end of the series of reflection groups, an online open-ended survey was administered to gather participants’ feedback on the impact of the collaborative reflection groups and the critical reflection process. The open-ended survey asked, “Did your reflections change from one week to the next? For example, did you notice any changes in your thinking, your practice, your priorities, and/or goals, or other over time? If so, in what ways?”, “Were there any benefits to reflecting that you think you might not have reached without it?”, and “If you continue doing research on reflecting, what might you want to find out?”

Two years later, the teachers were contacted again and asked to participate in another collaborative reflection group to see if and how they were continuing to engage in a process of critical reflection in their work. This reflection group followed the same protocol as the initial five reflection groups and was treated as a sixth and final group for data collection and analysis purposes. While there was a smaller group of teachers in this reflection group, the data provided unique insights into how the impact of the reflective process might continue over time, so it was included.

As before, the teachers were asked to complete an online open-ended survey following up on their teaching and how it had continued (or not) to be impacted by the critical reflection process through the first and following years of the pandemic. Five teachers completed the online open-ended survey. We asked again about the benefits of the critical reflection process and adjusted the last question to ask, “For the implications section of the paper that will come out of the work we’ve done together, what would you say we have learned from this process that would be helpful for teachers and educational leaders, as well as educator prep programs?” The answers to this last question were incorporated into the implications section of this paper.

As a data collection method, the collaborative reflection groups were treated as focus groups that were recorded and transcribed through the zoom platform. Utilizing the phases of thematic analysis proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006), the transcripts were checked against the recordings for accuracy and word level clarifications or revisions made as needed. The researchers engaged in multiple re-readings of the transcripts making memos of noticings and initial ideas. We then generated initial codes aligned to the core features of human agency and efficacy, as described in social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001), and began systematically coding each of the reflection groups from the first group to the last. The researchers coded together until interrater reliability was achieved (97.6%) and then coded separately with periodic checks of one another’s codes to ensure interrater reliability remained consistent. Discrepancies in coding were around whether a statement referred to school logistics or the home/school connection and the type of teaching task being discussed, e.g., engagement or management.

Data relevant to each code was collated and the frequency of codes was calculated from one reflection group to the next to demonstrate how the codes were evolving over time. This allowed us to identify potential themes and gather data relevant to each. A thematic map was created consisting of the themes with coded quotes that supported each (Table 2). The thematic map was organized by sections with the first reflection group at the top and the last reflection group at the bottom. Again, this allowed us to see how the themes were unfolding from one reflection group to the next. In our ongoing analysis, we aligned our themes with the generative transformative praxis fram ework to develop the overall story that the analysis was telling, generating clear definitions and names for each theme.

Table 2. Thematic map with participant quotes across collaborative reflection groups.

Theme 1: Awakening through Critical Reflection: Teachers identified issues that they were facing. Remote learning, engagement, family involvement, and assessment were frequently discussed.
Reflection Group 1	There’s going to be a huge challenge if remote learning remains a thing into next year because I don’t know if there is…a model for what that should look like. I'm sure it varies by grade. And then there’s really no way to enforce it either. There’s just not enough chance for them to socialize and be themselves and say what’s on their mind and do fun things…I want to think about what other opportunities that we have during a day to allow them to socialize and to get to know us better.
Reflection Group 2	A lot of the work that they’re submitting seems heavily influenced by their parents. I mean we’ve had the conversation, but it’s very hard to say let your son do the work. It’s my time to teach. It’s their time to learn. I get that the families want them to do well, but if they’re not making mistakes and making those errors, how do we even know what to teach? How do we know how to drive instruction?
Theme 2: Call to Action (Agency and Advocacy): Teachers shared action plans of what they were doing to address the issues that they identified.
Reflection Group 3	I have to be even more strategic in my planning and really have to make sure that right after my lesson I immediately start typing what went well, what didn’t go well. And then changes for next week…I really have to plan accordingly. One thing that’s worked with some families is explicitly telling them…what the expectation is for the grade…giving them suggestions on how they can work with their child to do that…It’s just three bullet points of this is the grade expectation and what they should do on their own.
Reflection Group 4	Instead of starting with the standard and going from that, I'm starting with my kids. And we’re going to figure out how we get the standards in there based off of where you are, what you need, and what you enjoy… you really do have to put your students at the center of your work, where your students are first, before implementing anything else…[working on] prerequisites before you can move to new things. I think we, as teachers, are gonna have to do a lot of our own self PD, in a way, to think about how we can implement things like trauma centered teaching.
Theme 3: The Power of Teacher Voice (Efficacy): Teachers believed that their actions made a difference and that they had an obligation to act to impact positive change.
Reflection Group 5	I think we have to use what we learned during this time. And like all the things that we reflect on. You have to because when…the school year is going to start virtually and then there’s going to be a period of time…going back into the building and how new that’s going to be in, I think, reflecting on how we dealt with all the new things we had during this time will help us readjust to going back to what we’re used to. It’s like the adjustment readjustment period. It’s a responsibility to take everything that we’ve done here and use it for those times. Yes, we get to be more creative. And we have the opportunity to push our unions and push our administrators, and I think it’s also an opportunity to push our parents to be more involved. . . It pushes me to be more intentional.
Reflection Group 6	This is a position I'm going to have to make up on my own, but I really would love to be a support system for parents of students with disabilities entering into the school system from early intervention or from no school at all. I am learning as much as possible about how the system works and all the different families and kids that are in this situation right now, collecting my data, to create this new position. I’m looking at coaching veteran teachers, maybe people who have more experience than I do and how do I build trust in those relationships…I’m thinking about as I lead a team, how can we retain good talent and how can people be satisfied with their job and see our school as a place that they can stay. I feel like where I am right now I can make decisions for my classroom and for my group of kids. I want to be in a position where I can make decisions, or at least have a louder voice in like what decisions get made. I feel really strongly about the things that can and should be done or what I think should be done. I want to be in the room as those decisions get made.

Inspired by Miles et al. (2016) proposal to reframe the roles of teacher and researcher within a “thirdspace” (Soja, 1996) where teaching, learning, and research occur together and recursively inform each other, participant involvement was as critical to us during the analysis stage of the study as it was in the data collection stage to check the validity of our findings. In the theme identification and refinement stages, one of the participants, Devin, agreed to be part of the analysis, checking our themes against his own interpretation of the experience, as well as through re-reads of the transcripts. He provided feedback on the paper during the drafting and revising stages and initiated the writing of the implications section. The paper was then provided to all participants in the study for verification and feedback. Revisions were incorporated until all were in agreement on the final version.

Findings

Our analysis of the reflection journals, the collaborative reflection groups, and the open ended surveys showed teachers engaging in a process of generative transformative praxis that unfolded from the first reflection group to the last and continuing on two years later. In the first reflection groups, the teachers engaged in a pedagogy of reflection, or awakening, that evolved to a pedagogy of introspection as their agency emerged. As the teachers questioned and challenged the new world in which they were teaching due to the pandemic, as well as their own practice within it, they began to realize that their own actions mattered and played a role in what could happen in this new world. By the third and fourth reflection groups, we saw teachers engaging in a pedagogy of critique in which they advocated for their role as key stakeholders who could and should carry out ideas and innovations to address the pandemic within their classrooms, their school structures, and greater communities. They began designing, implementing, and improving upon tangible action plans that addressed the complex issues that they faced during this time. Ultimately, in the fifth reflection group, and continuing to the follow-up reflection group two years later, the teachers’ efforts led to a renewed and strengthened belief in their capabilities to do meaningful work, even during the tremendous challenges that COVID-19 brought to the field of education, and to teachers especially. Through the ongoing critical reflection and collaboration, teachers found their voice as they generated new possibilities for continual educational improvement.

Awakening through critical reflection: “the way I went into the reflection conversation was not how I left it”

Whether in the collaborative groups or in their written reflections, the teachers in this study devoted much time in the first two reflection groups to identifying problems in their daily work, seeking to frame those issues within their teaching contexts, and to better understand their roles in them. In a pedagogy of reflection that leads to awakening, teachers spend time reflecting on, questioning, and challenging their practices and their interactions with their students and their school communities.

Beginning with reflecting on their practice, teachers talked about the act of teaching and the issues that were arising due to the pandemic. Devin, a second year second grade teacher in an urban charter school, challenged assumptions he had previously held about what remote learning might be like for students as he shared at the start of the second reflection group, “I thought that they’re home, they can take all the breaks that they need there on their couch. They’re good. When really in that block of learning time they still need the same things that we were giving them in school.” Alexandra, a fourth year first grade teacher also in an urban charter school, said “there’s just not enough chance for them to socialize and be themselves and say what’s on their mind and do fun things.” A recurring discussion in these first two reflection groups was around the challenges of getting students to attend zoom sessions, to stay engaged, to complete coursework, and find meaning in school.

Moving to questioning and challenging their practices and interactions with the students and their school communities in their reflections, an awakening began to occur that created tensions. This occurred as the group talked about pandemic-related student and family concerns, how they were addressing them, and how they were adjusting in the remote world. One tension was between how much teachers wanted caregivers to be involved and how much they wanted caregivers to support student independence. Susan, a third year special education pre-kindergarten teacher in an urban public school, shared an example of sending work home for students only to find it completed by adults:

Parents will send me pictures of an activity that I sent home or even like I've sent some stuff in the mail and it’s like the parent totally took away the kids opportunity to cut or like, do any of the actual skills. I don’t care if they put the things in order in the right way or whatever, it was the process that I cared about. And it’s so clear that they weren’t given the opportunity. How do you express that to a family that’s trying to do the work and wanting to engage and like wanting to give you things, but you’re just like…it’s great that you’re engaging, but I can’t use this.

This tension was particularly strong when teachers grappled with how to assess student learning. Devin remarked, “I’m finding it hard to teach with fidelity because I know that a lot of the stuff coming back isn’t truly their work. So it’s really hard to assess how they’re doing or give feedback because chances are, you know, most of the work isn’t actually their doing.” These concerns were so strong that the group began to challenge the need for traditional assessments. Tashay, a second year high school teacher in an urban public school, framed it this way: “I kind of feel like I understand the need to assess, but it’s like why are we so pressed to assess at the end of the year? We’re in a pandemic! America is in a shadow,” with Devin responding, “I think we talked about this last time…what are we really evaluating? If we end up assessing to see if they’re ready for the next grade, and everybody’s going to the next grade, what is this data really doing for us? It does feel like it doesn’t matter.”

Another tension emerged between the realities of their work demands and the need for self-care and work-life balance to combat the emotional challenges that they were facing during the pandemic. Teachers often felt like they were constantly in front of a screen trying to teach, to connect, but were uncertain about how much their efforts were getting through. On top of the challenges of remote learning, the social unrest heightened by the pandemic was taking a toll. Sky, a fourth year special education high school teacher in an urban public school, vividly saw this in her students:

My students are really being affected by what’s going on in the world. Because they’re kids I was like, they’re probably going to see it on social media, but I don’t think they’re really going to absorb it. But they really have. They’ve been soaking it in, and I feel like it’s really taking a toll on them.

As the teachers identified shared problems in their daily work, they felt a great comfort in knowing that they were not alone. The group appreciated having a space to express their challenges in a healthy and productive way in order to gain some clarity. Alexandra’s final reflections in the open-ended survey showed this as she shared:

The way I went into the reflection conversation was not how I left it, and the act of being able to get something off of your chest with other people who get it (the education world), was really helpful in processing emotions and thoughts that arose from remote learning…Without this reflection experience, I would not have benefitted from sitting down and pouring out the many thoughts I was holding onto.

As greater agency was developing by the end of the second reflection group and into the third one, the group began to identify successes and spaces of possibility. From Kristen, a second year high school teacher in an urban private school, expressing, “I'm making a difference because my students know that I'm there,” to Devin responding, “I still have impact because I teach all boys and being a male in the classroom, I still have that role model image for them. I take that very seriously,” and Amalia, a second year kindergarten teacher in an urban public school, adding, “I also feel like I’m still making an impact on them…we have that close knit community aspect still…even online,” teachers felt good about being there for their students and for remaining committed to students’ growth and development.

Call to action: “I feel like we’re in the driver’s seat as to what education could and should look like”

By the third reflection group and continuing into the fourth, the teachers began to evaluate their own practice in light of the changes that the pandemic was bringing as they critically considered plans of action to address the issues that they were identifying. Devin, for example, said, “My word…is action because now I'm motivated to do something about what I feel like may be a challenge moving forward.” In a pedagogy of introspection that leads to the agency to continually transform one’s practice, teachers go beyond reflecting to critically self-evaluate their beliefs and actions. In this process, a realization occurs that teachers are writing their own story and that change is possible within their practice that can influence the future.

In the third reflection group we observed how the teachers moved from a realization that their actions were critically important during this time of great uncertainty to an urgent call to carefully plan and implement productive action that would have a long lasting effect beyond the pandemic. Teachers shared different ideas and plans for how to encourage more joy along with more academic learning. Susan began this discussion in the third reflection group, which continued into the next reflection group, as well as in the follow-up group two years later, prioritizing fun and joy by sharing, “In the end, they’re going to get way more out of that experience, way more joy than from whatever mini lesson I was going to do with them for 5 to 10 min. So I'm just like, how can I make this a happy time for you to see another person and feel joy?” Agreeing, yet beginning to incorporate academics, Amalia replied, “I love that because that is so important. They are going to get way more out of that interaction…You can still make things purposeful and related in some way to academics as well.” Alexandra diverged from this perspective even further to bring the focus back primarily to academics: “I see what you guys are saying, and there can be a time for that during the day, but like, they still have to learn how to read, they still have to learn how to write. They are gonna have to learn how to do this math thing, so I kind of disagree with some of what you’re saying.”

In these pushes and divergences that continued in the reflection groups, the teachers began to come together finding a time and place to prioritize each in turn to meet the students where they were. Susan returned to addressing academics stating, “We’re going to figure out how we get the standards in here based off of where you are, what you need, and what you enjoy.” Alexandra addressed joy calling for wider scale improvement in schools:

There are still times where the kids go a long time without talking, in a way that’s not cool. So as a staff, we’ve talked about can we give them more breaks, like, can there be more movement? And because we talked about being a fun school…like how much fun? They actually have where I can still teach…but can we make it more fun. I think now that there’s a lot of talk about the trauma that students are going to have going back to school…we have no choice but to make it better than it was before.

It was interesting to see how their pushes to each other brought each teacher closer to the others’ point of view over time helping them to develop and grow their own understandings of balance and the multifaceted ways in which teachers must do their work.

Holding on to the realization that change is not only possible but necessary to push through the circumstances of the pandemic, and moreover to push for the influence that the change could have for the future – “to make it better than it was before” – led to heated discussion in the third and fourth reflection groups around how to assess what students were actually learning and where they most needed support. A continued call to action was around how to make assessment meaningful for both teachers and students when it had to be conducted remotely. For Tashay, the grading system itself needed to be reevaluated:

I think we need to reconsider the grades, right, like the grading system or should it be tracking in a different way…for a couple of years to assist these students from K to 12 who have now had some other type of traumatic thing… You have to be open to continuing to re-evaluate, right, because we just have to keep evaluating the students and seeing where they are…They don’t know how to spell yet. You know what I mean, like, they can say it to you. They can’t write it yet, and so finding those ways to fill in those gaps. This is exactly what we learned in our [teacher preparation] program.

While there was much agreement with this line of thinking, Devin countered with the challenges to actualizing it, “A challenge that I see, say after this is done and we do assessments, that there’s tons of gaps, tons of skills…How do you go back in the teaching order you’re teaching? How do you even reach that far back if that is the case, to kind of bring them up to speed? What is speed when we go back to school, what is the benchmark?” The group rallied to these questions proposing more ideas with Sky sharing to “blend the students together” with students with stronger skills working as “teacher’s assistants” for those who need more support. Tashay continued, “I think it’s about thinking about how you’re going to challenge them and providing different entry points for that challenge that will allow you to feel more comfortable teaching them to grow with you.” Collecting data from families, being clearer with families on grade level expectations, and working more closely as partners in assessing and improving student learning were also solutions proposed by the group to face the challenges of assessing remotely. Through posing questions and concerns around assessment, sharing ideas and solutions, pushing on the realities of enacting those ideas and solutions, and then revising them accordingly, the teachers were able to develop tangible action plans to improve the ways that they could go about making remote assessment meaningful in the teaching and learning of their students.

As the teachers moved to a pedagogy of critique that leads to advocacy, they began to ask the hard questions that are needed to transform classrooms, schools, and communities, acting collectively toward novel solutions, and advocating for change through what is learned in the process. They tackled tough discussions around administrative handling of remote learning, their autonomy to teach students in a way that lived up to their professional values in this new world, and societal responses to the inequality being experienced across the country that was exposed during the pandemic. They pushed each other to see through the murkiness and to consider ways to act that affirmed their commitment. As occurs in a pedagogy of critique, rather than consume knowledge to adapt to current circumstances, the teachers began to create new sources of knowledge that would allow them to advocate for societal change.

Tashay shared how she was planning for this in the coming year, “What I've been like stewing on and thinking about is how I can just embed social justice into my teaching. As an ELA teacher, what types of things and what types of books am I gonna push? What types of themes can still be in line with what we’re teaching?” Kristen shared how as “the white old lady out there” she was planning to connect with her high school history students by bringing the current events happening around them into their lessons on historical events. She emphasized the importance of trying to find the truth in history and contrasted this with her experiences as a student:

It was interesting because right after we learned about the Mulford Act, we saw all of the people in certain states, California, Michigan, storming the state buildings with rifles, and we had just learned about how the NRA had never gone against any kind of gun control, except for when it was the Black Panthers that were walking around with rifles on the capitol steps…It’s an opportunity to have those conversations…sometimes uncomfortable conversations…what they should know in history that maybe they don’t and were never taught in school. I try to say to them sometimes, ‘look at what you’re taught.’ I was taught George Washington chopped down a cherry tree. I mean, come on, that never happened.

Later in the conversation, Devin brought up some of the challenges that he was facing in teaching diversity in his classroom, “It’s very hard to teach diversity when your classroom technically is non diverse. We’re all kind of experiencing the same thing. So I think we can teach them that the experience that we see on TV and music videos, that’s not our reality. It doesn’t have to be our reality.” To which Amalia agreed, “Yeah, that’s hard when you’re in a neighborhood where everyone is of the same demographic for the most part.” However, Tashay did not let is rest there offering ideas that she had learned from Toni Morrison:

Something that Toni Morrison said was that when she was a teacher, she would…if she’s given a scenario…where everyone was of the same race…she would ask the students to write about, um, a Mexican girl who doesn’t go to school who works a job to help support her family. What is her day like? So pretty much, giving them like sentence starters or story starters and then letting them go free…She said, I know you’re taught to write what you know, but I don’t want you to do that. Let’s forget that and let’s write what you imagine. And so I think that’s a starting point. I took that for myself as a starting point. You’re welcome to take it, too.

Through the process of asking tough questions, sharing ideas for answers, and continually pushing on those ideas, by the third and fourth reflection groups the teachers were advocating for their role in finding new and innovative ways to carry out their work during the pandemic. Developing action plans, carrying them out, and considering their impact, the teachers became more determined to be the drivers of positive change in their classrooms, school structures, and greater communities, in that moment and for the future.

The power of teacher voice: “if we had a platform to increase the conversation across the country, then we could have a chance of generating the meaningful and necessary change we all were expressing”

Building off the momentum of being “in the driver’s seat,” by the fifth reflection group the teachers began to express the need to use their voice to lead the change efforts required by the pandemic within their classrooms, their communities, and larger systemic school structures. As the teachers moved to a pedagogy of voice, they were called to engage in learning in the direction of the needs and interests of the community, to demonstrate that it is possible to solve new and previously unidentified problems, and to believe that they can enact continual educational improvement.

Amalia demonstrated the efficacy that comes with a pedagogy of voice by highlighting the importance of teacher perspective in big educational decisions:

Teacher leadership is important now more than it’s ever been before. I mean, obviously, ideally, always…teachers should be the leaders of their school…Teachers should really just be taking the reins now more than ever. I mean it’s absurd that people who are not in the classroom are making these very big and crucial decisions. I fundamentally disagree with that.

Devin similarly shared his stark concerns about teachers not being included in decision making:

Something I didn’t think about until right now…do we feel like we have decision making power and what does that actually look like…I feel like we’re living in a moment where how students learn is going to be molded and it’s going to look different than before. The thing that concerns me is how much input we will have as in-the-field teachers doing the actual work.

These feelings of efficacy were really powerful as teachers began advocating for change on a larger societal scale. As the teachers discussed the wide scale inequities that were exposed during the pandemic, they also expressed belief in their capabilities to make the changes that they hoped to see in their classrooms, as well as in educational systems. This is evidenced in Tashay expressing the critical importance of her vote, the necessity of her “push” on the issues that mattered most.

You know, all of these things were made available and we were able to switch so quickly when pushed…it just never dawned on me. Like you think your vote matters, your vote counts. So you as an individual person you’re voting for your president and you get your local elections, but how much does your vote matter as a UFC union member, right? Are you pushing your UFC or local UFC chapters to say, okay, we’re not coming back until you figure out an alternative to state testing…like Bettina Love said, wow, you just throw out state testing. We’ve been battling that for years and so I feel like on a lot of these issues we need to push back…do I make sure my vote matters in my workplace? Am I voting in my teachers union? Am I pushing my administration, even though it is a black school with air quotes, right? Am I pushing them? Are we still actually being helpful or are we allowing the system to be tools that are hurtful and harmful to all of our children?

After hearing an example of a former teacher becoming a principal and advocating for antiracist teaching practices, a teacher that the students knew and identified with from their graduate school coursework, Tashay remarked, “Wow. So pushing it makes a big difference,” giving Devin the space to continue:

Say there’s a lot of people who push that Internet access is a human right…that could be something that people advocate for, like companies like Microsoft donate a bunch of money to a bunch of things…It was shown and proven that these are things that we need and not everybody has. So we’re talking about Equitable Education.

This power of voice that was developing over the first five collaborative reflection groups continued to strengthen beyond them for the three teachers who participated in the sixth reflection group two years later. In talking with Devin in the final reflection group, it was evident that his voice had continued to strengthen as he moved up to grade level chair at his school and then assistant principal. When asked in the final open-ended survey what he had learned that would be helpful for teachers and educational leaders he responded:

As educators we may feel like we are the gatekeepers of information and we have all the answers, but this process has highlighted that we don’t! And that’s okay – as long as we admit that and are proactive about getting as close to “right” as possible. I would encourage school leaders to abandon the “if it isn’t broken don’t fix it” mindset and start to be creative and radical and do what feels right. If everyone in a school building can recognize and acknowledge the clear gaps, it should be all hands on deck figuring out how to fill that gap. Too often schools fall back on (unfortunately) what keeps them open – and that’s having kids in seats and having data that reflects what investors or stakeholders want to see. Be RADICAL and think outside the box.

Alexandra was beginning her work as an instructional dean coaching and mentoring new teachers. She shared how she was evolving to think more critically about the work of teachers: “I'm thinking about right now, compared to when we first met…I was just really worried about how students were doing academically and what learning was going to look like…but now…[I’ve been] thinking a lot about how sustainable this work is for everyone…the staff and what’s on their minds.”

Susan, who was also advancing her career by earning her national board certification, completing the breathe for change program, and leading wellness workshops at her school, similarly reflected on the power of teacher voice and collective efforts in her final open-ended survey, “I feel like I have learned more about the power that educators can generate when honest and deep conversation occurs across borders…It made me feel like if we had a platform to increase the conversation across the country, then we could have a chance of generating the meaningful and necessary change we all were expressing.”

Across the arc of the collaborative reflection groups, when teachers critically reflected on the work they were doing and wanted to do to continue to find teaching success during the pandemic and beyond (agency), reflected on how this had been and would be enacted in their work with students (advocacy), and then reflected on their beliefs about the impact they could have through this work (efficacy), they moved toward believing that they have a voice in larger structural factors and decisions that impact their students. They both desired and felt a deep responsibility to be key stakeholders in the educational improvements needed to make it through the pandemic, as well as beyond, generating new solutions to the novel challenges faced by teachers, students, families, and communities.

Discussion

Generative transformative praxis provides a framework to describe how critical reflection can inform teachers’ work, as well as how it can support teachers in finding solutions through their work to great challenges (Brito & Ball, 2020), such as those brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. Like teachers across the country, the teachers in this study were impacted by the overnight switch to remote learning, technology issues, fear of learning loss and concern over how to deliver academic content in the pandemic context, feelings of aloneness, stress, anxiety, and trauma, as well as worrying about how to best address these same feelings in their students and their families (Love & Marshall, 2022; Robinson et al., 2023). And through engaging in the collaborative reflection groups, the teachers in this study were able to recognize and discuss these challenges as they came together to work through them. Indeed, as shown in studies that have explored how teachers experienced the pandemic, teacher agency and voice were key elements that were either implemented or desired in order to find the innovative solutions demanded by the time (Ehren et al., 2021; Heikkilä & Mankki, 2021; Marshall, 2022).

In the earlier stages of this study, there was an awakening as teachers shared the issues that they were facing in their classrooms and schools due to the pandemic. As the groups progressed, teachers found points of divergence and convergence as they pushed each other to think more critically and globally about the work that they had done and would do in the year and years ahead. This foresight was particularly striking during a time when many people struggled to think through the day ahead. There were ebbs and flows in the reflections as one teacher’s hopes were challenged by another’s doubts with the group ultimately picking each other up with agency and the collective belief that they would succeed “with lots of teamwork” as “it takes a village.” Ultimately, teachers began to see themselves as “in the driver’s seat as to what education should and will look like.” They demonstrated generativity in resolutions such as, “moving forward my reflections will revolve around looking at our current system and thinking about innovative ways to make it better for all students” and “it’s a responsibility to take everything that we’ve done here and use it." For the teachers who participated in the collaborative reflection group two years later, these findings persisted and were strengthened.

To better understand how this process can inform teachers’ work, our findings revealed that through consistent critical reflection in collaborative professional communities, the teachers in this study pressed on their own and each other’s thinking through the back and forth that naturally occurred between them (Dufour & Eaker, 1998; Lave & Wenger, 1991). As one teacher would respond to another with critical questions or innovative ideas for improvement, teachers began to see possibilities for how to revise their practice and thus transform their work, even as the ways they perceived their work were questioned and challenged in the face of the pandemic. In line with findings from the longitudinal research of Ball (2000, 2006, 2009), our data demonstrated that teachers develop clearer decision making, greater commitment, and a transformation in practice through this process. Conversely, when teachers did not have the opportunity to work together during the pandemic to weigh in on responses to the challenges at hand, they felt frustration at what they were not able to accomplish. In a qualitative study conducted by Love and Marshall (2022), one teacher is quoted as saying, “All of this could’ve been much more successful if we operated in a district that reached out to us before they made any decisions” (p. 48).

Through consistent critical reflection in collaborative professional spaces, the teachers in this study began to examine the connections between the work they were doing during the pandemic and the larger systemic issues that were facing education during this time. For example, as social upheaval shook our country during the time of this study, the teachers looked for ways to address it in their classrooms to support their students, their families, and each other, as well as to take the upheaval as a call for change. Again in line with the findings of Ball (2000, 2006, 2009), our analysis showed evidence of a developing efficacy that the teachers could and should address the contextual and institutional barriers that they were identifying.

As the collaborative groups progressed, reflections oscillated between discussions of daily practice and deeper systemic issues that were revealed by the pandemic. At times teachers found ideas for how daily practice could address larger issues, and at other times they found motivation in larger challenges that strengthened their resolve in their practice. For example, Sky addressed the critical need to adapt to the kids and the modalities through which they learn best to alleviate stark gaps in achievement, and Amalia shared the importance of making parents knowledgeable of grade level expectations to increase student independence. Another instance is when Devin urged teachers and school leaders to demand that big companies provide free resources for all families to reduce technological barriers to learning, and Tashay called to “push” with one’s voice and one’s vote to ensure that the systems we have in place to support students are not in effect actually harming them. These conversations showed teachers wrestling with the pressing question of their agency at a variety of scales (Pollock et al., 2010). As demonstrated in similar studies on teacher agency during the pandemic, when given the opportunity to drive their own professional development, teachers work together to find preventative and innovative solutions to the shared problems that they face (Campbell, 2020; Ehren et al., 2021; Heikkilä & Mankki, 2021).

As this study demonstrates, the generative transformative praxis framework can be applied across teaching contexts and the policies and procedures unique to each. Even though the teachers in this study worked in different contexts – across grades in public, charter, and private schools – they were able to transcend some of the limitations of the policies and procedures in their particular contexts (or lack thereof in the face of the unchartered territory of the pandemic) to work toward meaningful solutions to the problems they were facing. As teacher voice is strengthened in collaborative professional communities, teachers come to see themselves as key stakeholders in continual educational improvement whose actions are necessary to impact positive change (Datnow, 2020; Wilcox & Lawson, 2018).

Bandura’s (2001) agentic perspective can be used to describe how both agency and efficacy evolved across the collaborative reflection groups, ultimately leading to generativity and a process of self-perpetuating change. Following the four core properties of agency, teachers moved from identifying a problem to solve (intentionality) to outlining the steps it would take to solve it (forethought), and then monitoring and regulating their progress toward solving it (self-reactiveness). Throughout the process, they were reflecting on their efforts in the endeavor, as well as their beliefs – or efficacy – that these efforts were sound and meaningful, and making adjustments as needed (self-reflectiveness). This model of agency is a critical part of the generative transformative praxis framework, and helps to describe how generativity emerged as the teachers continuously applied new knowledge to problem solving and ongoing learning.

Just as Ball (2009) found increasing levels of generativity when following up with teachers years later, when we followed up with our teachers two years later they were generating solutions that were even more targeted and far reaching. For example, Susan called for a reevaluation of school priorities after the pandemic to focus more time and energy on “realistic and socially-emotionally informed practice” than on high stakes testing and evaluation. Alexandra offered yet another powerful position as our country still grapples with the racial issues that were brought to the forefront during the pandemic: “I believe that the anti-racist work that organizations and schools are committing to needs to come to fruition. Are we evaluating the books we put in front of kids? Are we doing DEI work as staff and actually looking forward to doing it (versus feeling like it’s a requirement)? If we teach black and brown students, DEI work is mandatory.”

Implications for practice

Our findings support the need for collaborative professional communities centered on critical reflection where teachers can build agency and efficacy in pursuit of generative transformative praxis. Rather than being another activity, meeting, or training on teachers’ overpacked schedules, collaborative reflection groups can take the place of more top-down approaches to teacher development. Too often top-down approaches feel like one more thing to do rather than a resource that is helping teachers accomplish all that they must do in a more effective way. As evidenced by the support the reflection groups offered teachers through the disruption of the pandemic, when teachers have a time and place to come together consistently and intentionally to work toward positive change, great things can happen, even in the face of great challenges.

During this project, teachers echoed the importance of having collaborative spaces where they could engage in critical reflection as an integral part of school culture. If schools were to create this space, teachers could meet regularly to revisit things discussed in previous reflections, to bring them to action in the classroom, and then reflect on the outcomes in the following meeting (Dufour & Eaker, 1998; Wenger, 1998). This solidifies what is internalized as one acts upon their critical reexamination of assumptions and witnesses the change brought about by their actions. In this way, the continual, reflective insights generate transformative praxis (Ball et al., 2021).

This study showed just how much teachers were able to accomplish, how much they were able to grow and develop in their thinking and doing, when given this space, and at a time when survival rather than growth and development were the norm. While the pandemic will hopefully be a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence, schools face great challenges on a daily basis. Creating ways for teachers to be a pivotal part of the solution-finding process opens up the potential for teachers to strengthen their own work, as well as that of the school as a whole.

These findings also have relevance for teacher preparation programs. Teacher educators can create consistent spaces where incoming teachers build the habits of strong critical reflection by questioning what they are learning in their program, as well as in their own classrooms, by taking action to support or counter the issues they are identifying in their learning and in their work, and then reflecting on the outcomes of their actions. Engaging in this process can take the place of the more traditional ways in which incoming teachers are often asked to express their learning. Rather than responding to a writing prompt or answering questions on a test, incoming teachers can be asked to demonstrate what they are learning through their participation in a collaborative and critical reflective process. When teachers are able to experience this process and the power of their voice and their actions to make a difference, they are much more likely to move from passive “objects of change” to active “agents of change” (Ball et al., 2021).

To increase the effectiveness of the collaborative critical reflection spaces in both schools and teacher preparation programs, four factors are recommended to support a process similar to the one used in this study. First, the majority of participants shared that consistency was a key element to its success. For the collective reflection groups, knowing that the group would be meeting each week encouraged the teachers to try out what was discussed in order to bring it back to the group in the next meeting for feedback. As shared by Devin, “Having to revisit makes it more impactful. I think the consistency is what made it meaningful…we got into some really good stuff a couple of meetings in.” For the individual reflection journals, the consistency of the prompts allowed teachers to revisit their previous reflections in order to see their own personal change and growth through the process. In her response to a final open-ended survey question, Alexandra shared, “I appreciated being asked what thoughts changed from the previous week…The more you reflect the more you see that each week is different and that’s a good thing because it gives you hope that things will eventually get better.”

The next factor included intentionally ensuring that there was diversity of voice and experience present and valued in the group. Hearing divergent points of view and talking through one’s stance as it differed from another’s, broadened teacher perspective and understanding and brought greater balance in thinking and action that lasted years later. A third factor to ensure the momentum of the generative process was for the researchers to engage in active listening while facilitating the groups. To do this, the researchers would periodically ask questions to better understand how the teachers were framing the issues and to guide them in working toward their own solutions.

The fourth and perhaps most essential factor in the teachers realizing the power of their own voices to impact change was to make sure that teacher reflections were connected to tangible actions taken in their classrooms. This was accomplished in the prompts included in the individual reflection journals that asked the teachers to consider the actions that they were taking in their classrooms, what they were noticing as a result, and what they would like to continue or adjust to better meet their own and their students’ evolving goals, as well as in the questions asked and encouraged during the collaborative reflection groups. As shared in Ball et al. (2021), “…reflection in and of itself is not enough, if change in students’ epistemologies and in their practices are desired. If such generative change is desired, then reflections must be linked to how the world can be changed. Acting upon one’s emancipatory reflective insights is necessary in order for a praxis to occur (Freire, 1970)” (p. 26).

Limitations

To further explore if these findings hold true in settings beyond this study, a larger sample size with teachers from various schools and/or educator preparation programs and with a wider range of years of experience would better represent the dynamics within any given school. In this study, teachers self-selected to participate due to their interest in the process of reflection which could have influenced the findings. Future research should include teachers with neutral or negative feelings toward reflection to investigate how they respond to a reflective process such as the one incorporated in this study. Including teachers who are more prone to conform and comply to existing systems rather than to challenge and innovate would provide a wider representation of different perspectives on the issues facing education, as well as the methods that should be employed to solve them. Working with teachers in transnational contexts would also provide valuable insights into how this process evolves for teachers in a variety of educational structures.

Another thing to consider is the timing of the collaborative reflection groups. These groups occurred primarily toward the end of the initial year of the pandemic for only a two month period which might have influenced how the participants reacted. Holding the groups at different time periods across the school year, and during more typical school years, would better demonstrate when and how they might be most effective in school settings and/or teacher preparation programs.

Conclusion

When educators are empowered to use their voice and experience in their work, more responsive practices lead to increased outcomes for students and schools (Gay, 2014; Ladson-Billings, 2009). This can occur even when educators are faced with great disruptions and challenges such as those presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. In our ongoing collaborative reflection spaces teachers began to critically reflect on challenges in and around their communities of practice, their responses to the challenges, and their hopes and plans for the future. In these critical reflections, teachers began to question the assumptions they held about themselves and their contexts prior to the pandemic. Through dialogue with their colleagues, they challenged the status quo in order to innovate and generate new solutions to the problems they faced in the moment and would continue to face for years to come. They took these solutions to their schools where they acted on them and witnessed the potential of their actions to impact positive change in the field of education.

This process of generative transformative praxis can be encouraged in schools, educator preparation programs, and larger educational institutions so that education can become the practice of freedom (Freire, 1973; hooks, 1994). Rather than translating policies or theories created from distant sources, generative practice places an emphasis on raising the voices of teachers, students, and families who are part of the school community. According to Dobbie and Richards-Schuster (2008), this partnership and solidarity between schools and communities is “perhaps the most crucial yet under-theorized process in organizing people for social change” (p. 318). The space must be provided where people have the leeway to work through problems based on their contexts and unique skill sets, interests, motivations, and goals in order for them to contribute meaningfully to educational improvement. Fostering generativity can combat top-down policy making. It can empower and liberate teachers to grapple with complex problems and devise local solutions (Datnow, 2020; Wilcox & Lawson, 2018).

When teachers are provided with the opportunity to become generative thinkers and doers, it can impact the ability of students, colleagues, and school leaders to think generatively as well. As the pandemic showed us, it may be that teachers, as the ones on the front lines combating the most pressing problems for all involved, have the greatest opportunities to enact this process and to share those learnings with their school communities and beyond. Involving all stakeholders – from students all the way to educational policy makers – is a way of thinking and doing that can perhaps most effectively drive continual educational improvement.

Disclosure statement

We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.