CHAPTER 4: DATA PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
4.2 The description of three lecturer leaders
4.2.3 Lecturer leader C: A rebellious lecturer leader
4.2.2.4 Lecturer leadership beyond the classroom
Although Lecturer Leader B took on leadership roles and led strongly in the zone of the classroom, to a much lesser extent, she provided curriculum development and worked with other lecturers on the campus to improve teaching and learning (Zone 2). This she did through the subject committee meetings. However, she did not recognize this activity as leading outside the classroom when she responded during the focus group interview: “In terms of lecturer leadership outside the classroom, I have not done anything for the past 6 months …. There is always additional marking because of re-testing; I haven‟t been the lecturer leader in the community”
(FGI, p.5). In the study, lecturer leadership was often defined and discussed within a delegated leadership discourse as will emerge as this chapter unfolds. In the case of Lecturer Leader B, leadership was delegated, not to empower her, but instead tasks were given to her to ensure continuity in her teaching and learning. For example, she explained that she was “the chairperson of the management subjects committee” (J, p.6). She was also a “chief invigilator for many sessions in the main hall” (J, p.10). Being a chief invigilator or a chairperson of a committee are the traditional practices expected from all lecturers at the FET College, but nevertheless reflect leadership beyond the classroom i.e. in Zone 2. In Grant‟s terms, this kind of leadership is not an emergent activity. In most cases, lecturers were appointed by campus managers to fulfill these roles. This form of distributed leadership is characterized by Gunter (2005) as authorised distributed leadership, where a campus manager delegates tasks because they have power, due to their official management positions. In the practice of leadership, this type of authorised distributed leadership follows a top down manner from the head to the subordinates.
4.2.3 Lecturer Leader C: A rebellious lecturer leader
teacher leaders must possess the technical skills required for programme improvement and use them together with a broad knowledge base about education policy and subject matter” (p.34).
These skills and knowledge, as highlighted above, are more important, I argue, for the lecturer leaders in the context of a FET College. During my observation I found that Lecturer Leader C had pedagogical knowledge to teach as she used a variety of methodologies when teaching students. Harris and Muijs (2005) point out that, in the school context, teachers emerge as leaders if they develop high levels of skills within their areas of expertise which are associated with strong pedagogical knowledge and subject knowledge. The same can be said of lecturers in an FET College and lecturer leader C in particular.
Across the data sets it emerged that Lecturer Leader C also possessed procedural knowledge which is the knowledge of how best the task can be accomplished. She displayed this knowledge when counseling and communication with the students during their interactions. The above mentioned skills were not classroom related but can influence classroom performance.
Counseling skills were reflected when Lecturer Leader C worked with other stakeholders and the college community (Zone 4): “I gathered learners together. I invited social workers, nurses and the community to participate in AIDS awareness day held at the college” (J, p.4). In addition, this lecturer leader demonstrated counseling skills when she helped a student at the college who was abused by her brother: “I took both of the learners to the department of social welfare for counseling. I lead this up until the solution of this problem” (J, p.5). This leader played a pastoral care role when she ensured that her students were not only taught the curriculum, but they were also developed holistically. I can conclude by saying lecturer leaders C possessed both declarative, and procedural knowledge, which means knowing the right way of doing things and also doing those things right. (Leithwood et al, 1999).
When Lecturer Leader C was asked what skills and knowledge she had, she answered, “Creative thinking, teambuilding, communication and listening skills” (J, p.21). As a researcher as well as a lecturer at this FET College, I am confident that these are amongst the skills and values that can enhance lecturer leadership which, in turn, can lead to learner improvement. These same skills and knowledge are recognized by Leithwood et al (1999) as crucial for every teacher leader to have. In my study, communication and problem solving skills were mentioned
numerous times by my three lecturer leaders, which indicate that most teachers believe that communication and problem solving are skills that every leader should have.
Data revealed Lecturer Leader C as a „rebel‟ (my „label‟), who breaks boundaries for effective teaching and learning to take place in order that students can be developed holistically, inside and outside the classroom. As mentioned earlier, she had her own way of dealing with situations which included working individually or against the rules and regulations. Let me explain what I mean by this last comment, with an example. During the final examination in the fourth term of 2008, she identified a missing instruction in the exam question paper but she was told not to interfere with the exam process. She disregarded the campus management‟s instructions and authority, by guiding the students and clarified the examination instruction. She said: “As a leader, at that moment I had to take action. Since we could see which word was meant to be underlined due to experience teaching this subject, I got all the invigilators together and told them that I am announcing to students which word to underline and I just did that” (II, p.1.) In another incident she defied management‟s authority by photocopying sections in the textbook, of which they were told not to copy, to ease her workload and for student referencing, after waiting for about a month for books to be delivered. I quote: “students kept asking me where the books are? One day I planned to stay until after hours to make copies. I made hundreds of copies and gave them to students and that made my life easier” (J, p.25). Thus, Lecturer Leader C also displayed the role of a risk taker. Her leadership was about taking calculated risks. She pointed out: “With other invigilators we sort of form an alliance not to tell the management about the action that took place during the exam. I was also taking an initiative because if you are a leader you should take initiative as well as risks, calculated risks” (II, p.2). This idea is in alignment with the writing of Lieberman, Saxl and Miles (1988) that the characteristics of the teacher leader include taking risks. In their study of 17 former teachers who played leadership roles in the variety of schools in New York between 1983 and 1985, Lieberman et al found that
“these leaders were risktakers, willing to promote new ideas that might seem difficult or threatening to their colleagues” (1998, p.150) Similarly, Lecturer Leader C took risks as per these former teachers, in order to make her thinking visible and known to colleagues and management.
Lecturer Leader C had a great influence over other lecturers and while she did not work directly with them, she was able to influence the way they worked, as the following excerpt illustrates:
“Whenever I have problem in the computer room, I don‟t waste my time by reporting to the CMT, but I report straight to the IT department. I also told other computer lecturers to do the same. They did, now they don‟t have lots of problems like before” (J, p.22). This is in line with Katzenmeyer and Moller‟s (2001) view that teacher leaders, lecturer leaders in my context, can influence other teachers to improve their educational practices through their personal power.
Similarly, Wasley (1991) attests to the fact that teacher leaders have an ability to encourage colleagues to do things they would not ordinarily do. Lecturer Leader C had personal power to challenge the status quo and influence other lecturers to improve their practices. Furthermore, whilst observing her involvement in a committee meeting which she chaired, I found her making it clear that the committee members could do anything to help students to improve their marks and to develop. When planning for the excursion to the Tourism Indaba in Durban, one of the lecturers was concerned about where the money would come from because the campus management had told them that funds were not available. Lecturer Leader C said “students would raise their own funds and she mentioned ways that funds could be raised, including writing a letter to parents requesting them to pay for the bus fare (R. Observation, 4 March 2009). This is in line with Katzenmeyer and Moller‟s (2001) view that when teachers are offered opportunities, they can encourage other teachers, as well as influence practices and policies in their schools. This is what Lecturer Leader C did in an FET College context.
Lecturer Leader C‟s responses revealed lecturer leader breaking boundaries as she worked with her colleagues, taking calculated risks and influencing her fellow-lecturers without being mean.
When asked what the characteristics of a lecturer leader were, she pointed out the following: “I think is the communication, because this is the two way process. One has to talk and also listens. Being open minded and learn to accept little things that will help in future, be future oriented” (II, p.5). The response above is in line with Pounder‟s (2006) view that the professional characteristics of teacher leaders include supporting pupils, exhibiting self confidence, fairness, respecting others, setting targets and stretching performance, as well as holding people accountable for their own learning and actions.
From the data provided, it is clear that Lecturer Leader C viewed leadership as a distributed activity that could be executed by a lecturer in any position, leading either formally or informally. In other words she did not associate leadership with position. This is further reflected in the following response from her individual interview:
Lecturer leadership according to my opinion is not just a position any lecturer can be a lecturer leader. If you are a lecturer you are not just teaching at the college, but you teach every where in school as well as at home. It means you are a leader wherever you are (II, p.6).
I find this response aligns well with Grant‟s (2008) idea that leadership does not mean headship, but is rather distributed where lecturers can lead in any position, whether formally appointed to an official position by the Department of Education, College Council or emergent from the individual. In addition, Goleman supports this view that every person in any level can lead when he writes that “there are many leaders, not just one. Leadership is distributed. It resides not solely in the individual at the top, but in every person at every level who in one way or another, acts as a leader” (2002, p.14). This idea was also emphasized in my study when Lecturer Leader C wrote: “The reason why I am here is to serve the interest of the students, they are here to learn, so to equip myself towards achieving this goal is to run an extra mile and beyond the call of duty” (J, p.17). Thus, it can be seen that Lecturer Leader C was not limited by the constraints of her official position as a lecturer. Instead she realized that “the job description does not matter.
What matters most is to go beyond the call of duty” (J, p.16).
Lecturer Leader C also associated leadership with overall college improvement. That is, she believed that lecturer leadership should contribute to the improvement of teaching and learning in the classroom and the college as a whole (Zone 3). “A lecturer leader set some challenging goals and expect learners to perform at the highest level possible” (J, p.2). This focus on improved teaching and learning was a common theme in the data. During the individual interview, Lecturer Leader C responded: “for me, lecturer leadership is about taking initiative so that you improve teaching and learning in the classroom and the whole school” (II, p.4). This proves to be in line with Harris and Lambert‟s (2003) view that leadership must improve teaching and learning in schools. They write:
Schools that are improving have leaders who make a significant and measurable contribution to the development of the school and teachers. The potential of leadership to influence school improvement remains uncontested but the type of leadership for sustainable school improvement remains a matter of debate. (p.2)
For this participant and as already established, lecturer leadership was not about a particular position in the hierarchy. Instead, she believed that leaders must develop the institution through their leadership practice which would improve teaching and learning and lead the college towards becoming a “learning organization” (Senge, 1990). The results of being a lecturer leader, Lecturer Leader C argued, must be reflected in the results that the students attained and the impact the lecturer leader decisions and acts as on students‟ daily lives. This idea was reflected during the first individual interview when Lecturer Leader C said: “Like I have mentioned before, I was so proud with myself and a decision I made that had a positive impact in the students‟ lives. That is why we are lecturers, to change the students‟ lives positively” (II, p.3).
However, there was no evidence of Leader lecturer C working with other lecturers, a characteristic Grant (2005) believes is integral to teacher leadership viz. that it “includes teacher working collaboratively with all stakeholders towards a shared and dynamic vision of the school within a culture of fairness, inclusion, mutual respect and trust” (p.45). Nevertheless, Lecturer Leader C thinking is in line with York-Barr and Duke (2004) who agree that leaders can work individually, as Lecturer Leader C did, or in a group, and still contribute to whole school/
institutional improvement. They write:
Teacher leadership is a process by which teachers, individually or collectively, influence their colleagues, principals and other members of the school community to improve teaching and learning practices with the aim of increasing student learning and achievement (pp. 287 – 288)
For Lecturer Leader C there was almost an equal distribution of lecturer leadership in the zones and roles she led in. In Zone one, she displayed leadership when she taught her students in the classroom using effective teaching strategies and preparing learners for exams. She said “I teach students how to write exams, how to study and how to respect each other” (FGI, p.5). In Zone
two, she worked within the tourism committee to share best practices with other lecturers from other campus. She was also the chairperson of this committee. In Zone three and four, she led outside the classroom in whole school development where she coordinated the Tourism Indaba 2008, which involved all campuses and other stakeholders outside the college e.g. Department of Economic Development (DED), college business partners and other FET Colleges. However, coordinating the Tourism Indaba 2008 was authorised by campus management because she was the committee chairperson i.e. it did not really emerge from her. I argue that as much as Lecturer Leader C‟s leadership style was sometimes “adversarial” (Wasley, 1991, p.5), it showed that she had leadership qualities and contributed to student improvement.