Search results

Purpose – This study explored agentive and sustainable teacher development as part of literacy coaching that employed a reflective framework and video with an apprenticeship stance. This chapter examines principles of apprenticeship and the Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR) model to analyze the transition of responsibility for reflection from coach to teacher.

Design/methodology/approach – An earlier seven-month multiple case study of literacy coaching with four secondary level teachers revealed seven joint actions (i.e., revoice, build, ask questions to develop understanding, ask dissonant questions, suggest, disagree, reconceptualize) and four categories of joint action (i.e., directive/consonant, directive/dissonant, responsive/consonant, and responsive/dissonant) within a model of joint action for literacy coaching (Reichenberg, 2018). This analysis mapped those joint actions onto the GRR model (McVee, Shanahan, Hayden, Boyd, & Pearson, 2018; Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). This chapter explicates reasoning for variability in responsibility and the potential relationship between variability and the development of teachers’ thinking and action through in-depth analysis of a single coaching session. Examples from other teachers’ coaching sessions are included.

Findings – Synthesis of the two models shows that joint actions initiated by the coach that were directive/dissonant fell on the left side of the GRR model with primary coach responsibility. Actions initiated by the coach that were classified as directive/consonant came next on the journey toward the middle, followed by responsive/dissonant actions. Responsive/consonant actions encompassed the middle region of shared responsibility. The same actions initiated by the teacher mirrored this progression. Principles of apprenticeship in this gradual release of responsibility highlight the bi-directionality of expertise in situated action informed by historical and dynamic context (Mercer, 2008). Evidence of teachers’ growing agency and sustainability were present in joint actions they initiated within the context of literacy coaching.

Research limitations/implications – Analysis of the actions of a literacy coach and teacher as directive, responsive, consonant, and dissonant add complexity to the discussion about how to transfer responsibility for reflection from coaches to teachers. Awareness of how joint actions map onto the GRR model can inform coaches’ and teachers’ decisions as they thoughtfully move toward greater teacher agency within coaching interaction.

Practical implications – The reflective framework employed in this study is applicable to a variety of settings such as instructional coaching across the disciplines, coaching by in-service literacy specialists, and the preparation of pre-service literacy coaches. The model of joint action for analyzing coaching interaction could be used by in-service literacy coaches, pre-service literacy coaches, and teachers who are being coached.

Originality/value – This chapter analyzes the transition of responsibility for reflection from coach to teacher. Principles of both the GRR model and apprenticeship theory provide a theoretical explanation for how these teachers achieved greater agency and sustainable development of a reflective stance.

In a context where standardized testing and achievement scores have become the hallmark of accountability frameworks, the issue of social responsibility is not given much attention in schools in Jamaica. This has led to a continuous decline of the moral and spiritual dimension of schooling in the country. This is evidenced through an increase in school violence and other disparities among students. This paper aims to explore teachers’ perception of how they are prepared for their role as agents of social responsibility.

Through interviews of 16 in-service teachers, this research sought to explore teachers’ perception of how they are prepared for their role as agents of social responsibility. Each participant in the study was interviewed using a structured interview schedule comprising six questions. Data collected were transcribed and analyzed by sorting and identifying codes. Pattern codes were established which were then interpreted to form themes. Three themes emerged which are used to present findings.

Findings revealed that teachers had a shared understanding of social responsibility; they felt that they were prepared for this role through ad hoc curriculum encounters, were not adequately prepared for their role and social responsibility required a belief in the idea first before it can be taught.

The findings from the research are used to present arguments in the paper for emphasis on preparing student teachers to be agents of social responsibility and for a rethinking of teacher preparation curriculum in Jamaica. The paper also presents strategies that can be used to guide the re-thinking of teacher preparation programmes.

Teacher preparation programmes represent the avenue through which teachers can be prepared to develop their social consciousness, so that they can in turn help students. The results of this paper are means of helping teacher educators understand this.

This paper is one of the first since the early 1990s to discuss social responsibility as a key component of teacher preparation in Jamaica. It also fills the void of scarcity of research in Jamaica on teacher education on a whole and social responsibility in teacher education in particular.

The purpose of this research is to use a collective responsibility theoretical lens to examine the work of three school principals as they focussed on school-wide goal-setting processes to achieve valued student achievement goals. The tensions principals face in creating collective responsibility are examined so that these might be intentionally navigated.

Qualitative case studies of three New Zealand schools include data from interviews with principals, middle leaders and teachers. An inductive and deductive thematic analysis approach was employed.

Principals face four key tensions: (1) whether to promote self or centrally directed and voluntary or mandatory professional learning; (2) how to balance a top-down versus a middle-up process for accountability; (3) ways to integrate both educator and student voice and (4) the complexity of both challenging teachers' beliefs and providing support. These challenges seemed inherent in the work of developing collective responsibility and leaders tended to move along response continuum.

This research highlights the importance of being intentional and transparent with staff members about both the nature of these tensions and their navigation, and opens up further questions in relation to leader, and teacher perceptions of tensions in creating collective responsibility for achieving school-improvement goals.

An understanding of the tensions that need to be navigated can help leaders and other educators to take effective action, scrutinize the reasoning behind decisions, and understand the inherent challenges faced.

Leadership tensions in creating collective responsibility are explored and implications for leadership practice and learning considered.

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the conceptual and historical genesis of the gradual release of responsibility (GRR) model (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983) which has become one of the most commonly used instructional frameworks for research and professional development in the field of reading and literacy.

Design/Methodology/Approach – This chapter uses a narrative, historical approach to describe the emergence of the model in the work taking place in the late 1970s and early 1980s in reading research and educational theory, particularly at the Center for the Study of Reading at the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana as carried out by David Pearson, Meg Gallagher, and their colleagues.

Findings – The GRR Model began, in part, in response to the startling findings of Dolores Durkin’s (1978/1979) study of reading comprehension instruction in classrooms which found that little instruction was occurring even while students were completing numerous assignments and question-response activities. Pearson and Gallagher were among those researchers who took seriously the task of developing an instructional model and approach for comprehension strategy instruction that included explicit instruction. They recognized a need for teachers to be responsible for leading and scaffolding instruction, even as they supported learners in moving toward independent application of strategies and independence in reading. Based in the current research in the reading field and the rediscovery of the work of Vygotsky (1978) and the descriptions of scaffolding as coined by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976), Pearson and Gallagher developed the model of gradual release. Over time, the model has been adapted by many literacy scholars, applied to curriculum planning, used with teachers for professional development, reprinted numerous times, and with the advent of the Internet, proliferated even further as teachers and educators share their own versions of the model. This chapter introduces readers to the original model and multiple additional representations/iterations of the model that emerged over the past few decades. This chapter also attends to important nuances in the model and to some misconceptions of the instructional model.

Research Limitations/Implications – Despite the popularity of the original GRR model developed by Pearson and Gallagher and the many adaptations of the model by many collaborators and colleagues in literacy – and even beyond – there have been very few publications that have explored the historical and conceptual origins of the model and its staying power.

Practical Implications – This chapter will speak to researchers, teachers, and other educators who use the GRR model to help guide thinking about instruction in reading, writing, and other content areas with children, youth, pre-service teachers, and in-service teachers. This chapter provides a thoughtful discussion of multiple representations of the gradual release process and the nuances of the model in ways that will help to dispel misuse of the model while recognizing its long-standing and sound foundation on established socio-cognitive principles and instructional theories such as those espoused by Jerome Bruner, Lev Vygotsky, Anne Brown, and others.

Originality/Value of Paper – This chapter makes an original contribution to the field in explaining the historical development and theoretical origins of the GRR model by Pearson and Gallagher (1983) and in presenting multiple iterations of the model developed by Pearson and his colleagues in the field.

This study attempts to assess the readiness of Saudi students for independent/autonomous learning, with a focus on learning of English as a Foreign Language (EFL). The study used a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews to gain insights from a population of 319 students (aged 15-24) about their perceptions of responsibilities, decision-making abilities, motivation, involvement in autonomy-related activities, and capacity to take charge of their own learning. The findings of the study confirmed the relatively low readiness of Saudi EFL learners for independent learning (M = 3.06 on a scale of 1 to 5, SD =.31). Learners demonstrated low responsibility levels, since only 17.27% of them perceived that they accept sole responsibility for their EFL learning. Respondents reported a moderate level of ability (M = 3.63) and motivation (M = 3.70) to learn English. A considerable percentage of participants (27.29%) reported that they are rarely involved in self-directed activities; they demonstrated high levels of teacher dependency and low levels of learner independence. Despite the participants’ reasonable level of awareness of the nature of learner autonomy and its demands, their responses identified them as EFL learners with low autonomy. This study informs EFL learning stakeholders in Saudi Arabia that learners’ readiness for such conditions must be developed before interventions aimed at promoting autonomy are implemented in this context.

.هيتاذ ةروصب ةيزيلجنلإا ةغللا ملعتل نييدوعسلا بلاطلا ةيزهاج ىدم ميقت نأ ةساردلا هذه لواحت تفظونايبتسا ةساردلا ا تلاباقمو رظن ةهجو ىلع لوصحلل319 لوح ابلاط يتاذ لكشب ملعتلل ةيلوئسملا مهلمحت ىدمةيعفادلا ،رارقلا ذاختا ىلع مهتردق ، ةغللا ملعتلةيبنجلاا ةغللا ملعتل نييدوعسلا بلاطلا ةيزهاج فعض ةساردلا جئاتن تتبثا .يتاذ لكشب ملعتلا ىلع ةردقلاو ،ةيتاذلا ةطشنلأا يف ةكراشملا ،يلجنلإا = طسوتم( يتاذ لكشب ةيز3.06 = يرايعم فارحنا ،31. ثيح يتاذ لكشب ملعتلل ةيلوئسملل مهلمحت فعض نوكراشملا تبثا .)تبسن ام ىعداه طقف(17.27 ملعتلا ىلع ةردقلل ةطسوتم تايوتسم نوكراشملا سكع نيح يف كلذل مهلمحت نيكراشملا يلامجا نم )%3.63ةيعفادلاو ) لجنلإا ةغللا ملعتل( ةيزي3.70( نيكراشملا نم ةريبك ةبسن سكعت .)27.83يف مهتكراشم مدع )% يتاذلا ملعتلا ةطشنأ ريبك لكشب دامتعلااولوح نوكراشملا اهادبا يتلا ةطسوتملا تايوتسملا نم مغرلا ىلع .سفنلا ىلع دامتعلاا فعضو ملعملا ىلع فارتعلاا بمهتاباجا نا لاا هتابلطتمو يتاذلا ملعتلا ةيمهأ هذه يصوت .يتاذلا ملعتلل مهتيزهاج مدع تتبثا ةلباقملا ةلئساو نايبتسلاا ىلعلا جمد ةلواحم لبق يتاذلا ملعتلل ةبسانملا ةئيبلا ريفوتب ةيدوعسلا ةيبرعلا ةكلمملا يف ةيزيلجنلإا ةغللا ملعت نع نيلوئسملا ةساردلا يف بلاط .ملعتلا نم عونلا اذه

Purpose – To provide a model for mentoring teachers through the process of improving instruction and intervention.

Design/methodology/approach – The chapter describes the Gradual Increase of Responsibility model for coaching, an adaptation of Pearson and Gallagher's (1983) Gradual Release of Responsibility model that can be used by coaches as they support teachers in a clinic or school setting.

Findings – Content describes stages of the coaching model that provide less scaffolding as teachers gain confidence and competence. These stages include modeling, recommending, questioning, affirming, and praising.

Research limitations/implications – The Gradual Increase of Responsibility (GIR) model provides a process that coaches can follow to support instructional improvement. GIR requires that coaches have instructional expertise; it provides them with a guide for their work with teachers to incorporate effective practices.

Practical implications – The GIR model can be applied by coaches in both clinical and school settings, with teachers who instruct students at both elementary and secondary levels.

Originality/value of paper – This chapter provides examples for each stage of the GIR process, clearing indicating how coaches can guide teachers to take on increased responsibility for strong, intentional instruction and intervention.

Advancing social responsibility through higher education (HE) is a crucial goal given today’s fragmented and polarized society. Based on a qualitative survey among lecturers at a British university long committed to HE access, this chapter explores the values that underpin their approach to HE and how these inform how they conceptualize “social responsibility” and embed it in the curriculum. Respondents revealed how core values – inclusivity, social justice, empathy, respect, fostering student engagement, empowerment and critical thinking – aligned to shared notions of social responsibility – enabling equal access, developing informed, aware and active citizens who can contribute for the benefit of society – are infused into choice of content, teaching, learning and assessment activities, and management of the learning environment. Perceived outcomes for students included becoming more motivated, independent and empowered learners ready to face the world, more aware of self and the world around them, feeling valued and respected, and growing in confidence, self-esteem and capacity for critical thinking. It was in the curriculum space of interaction among teachers and students that lectures could, in the face of work constraints, still exercise relative academic freedom and find inspiration and opportunities to advance educational practices connected to their values and HE social responsibility.

The purpose of this research is twofold: to test a theory of academic optimism in Taiwan elementary schools and to expand the theory by adding new variables, collective responsibility and enabling school structure, to the model.

Structural equation modeling was used to test, refine, and expand an organizational path model of student achievement first developed in the USA.

The proposed organizational model was supported in Taiwan and was consistent with the initial studies done in the USA. Further, two concepts were added to the model, enabling structure and collective responsibility, both of which had significant indirect effects on student achievement through academic optimism. Moreover, the theoretical foundations (efficacy, trust, and academic emphasis) of the latent construct of academic optimism were confirmed again in this sample of schools in Taiwan.

The findings support an organizational model of student achievement, which has application in both the USA and Taiwan. The original model was supported, refined, and extended. Academic optimism is at the center of the model and explains student achievement for all students. Collective responsibility and enabling school structure both predict academic optimism directly and student achievement indirectly.

Existing research suggests that preservice elementary teachers tend to believe “good” citizens are people who follow laws and help others rather than people who embrace a more active model of citizenship that includes working to improve society. The purpose of this paper is to propose that this trend results from a self-perpetuating cycle of passive citizenship that develops in part due to state curriculum standards and school experiences which focus on transmitting knowledge rather than preparing students to be active agents of change.

The paper presents the results of action research conducted in a teacher preparation course; the research was designed to investigate the impact of a systematic effort to see if preservice teachers’ perspectives could be broadened to include a social justice perspective.

As a result of the findings, the authors argue that to counteract the cycle of passive citizenship, education to create a more socially just world must be a collective responsibility shared by teachers at all levels, K-16.

This is original research that examines an approach to end a cycle of passive citizenship by promoting social justice.