Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

School middle leaders (MLs) play a pivotal role in improving student outcomes through leading teaching and learning. However, MLs face considerable challenges in driving school improvement, including comparatively few opportunities for targeted professional development (PD). In this paper, we explore the impact of a pedagogy-focused, collaborative approach to PD, known as Quality Teaching Rounds (QTR), for middle leading practice. Twenty-two post-QTR interviews with MLs, principals and classroom teachers at nine primary schools in NSW, Australia, were thematically analysed using Kemmis's theory of practice architectures. We found that QTR positively impacted middle leading by: (1) building agreement about good pedagogical practice; (2) enhancing pedagogy through a process of reciprocal lesson observation; and (3) building collegial culture by flattening power hierarchies. We argue that it is critical to offer MLs powerful forms of collaborative PD if they are to enact the transformative potential of their role in driving pedagogical improvement.

Keywords

Middle leading Quality Teaching Rounds Australian pedagogy professional development

Middle leadership in schools – A crucial and complex role

The importance of middle leaders (MLs) in driving school improvement has been increasingly recognised in educational leadership research and practice (Lipscombe et al., 2023). Senior leaders, although crucial for the effective functioning of schools, are typically removed from the ‘critical site’ of the classroom (Rönnerman et al., 2017). By contrast, MLs who we are defining as those working in formal leadership positions while also occupying a classroom role (Harris et al., 2019) are uniquely positioned to influence both school strategic direction and the day-to-day teaching practice of their colleagues (Edwards-Groves et al., 2019; Grootenboer and Edwards-Groves, 2020). Despite the expectation that MLs can effectively influence improvements in classroom practice and, by extension, student outcomes, MLs frequently struggle to fulfil the transformative aspects of their role due to unclear expectations and a lack of targeted professional development (PD) support (De Nobile, 2018; Gurr and Drysdale, 2013).

The definition of middle leadership in schools is imprecise and highly contested within the research literature (Gurr and Drysdale, 2013; Lipscombe et al., 2023). The field of middle leadership research has emerged relatively recently and initially drew heavily on studies of educational leadership, which have primarily focused on the role of school principals and teacher leadership (Lipscombe et al., 2023). Numerous scholars have argued, however, that the positionality and practices of MLs are distinctive from both senior leadership and teacher leadership, which requires specific research attention and targeted forms of PD (De Nobile, 2018; Gurr and Drysdale, 2013; Lipscombe et al., 2020a, 2020b, 2020c). Middle leaders in schools do not hold the positional power of executive leaders and frequently balance responsibilities for both leadership and teaching (Edwards-Groves et al., 2016; Grootenboer et al., 2015; Lipscombe et al., 2023). While the distinctions between MLs and teacher leaders is ‘blurred’ (Lipscombe et al., 2023, p. 276), one defining feature of MLs is that they generally hold a formalised leadership position with accountability for leading initiatives to improve teaching and learning (Gurr, 2019). A recent systematic review of middle leadership studies has indicated that Australian researchers broadly define MLs as those who have significant responsibility for leading an area within a school and significant teaching responsibilities (Lipscombe et al., 2023). A report on middle leadership in NSW also notes the diversity of ML roles, recommending that system authorities provide a clear role definition to enable a deeper understanding of middle leadership positions and practices within schools and the professional learning needs of those within these roles (Lipscombe et al., 2020a).

Recently, the Department of Education in New South Wales, Australia, has sought to clarify middle leadership by developing a role definition statement for MLs who are either Assistant Principals at the primary (elementary) school level or Head Teachers at the secondary level and occupy positions within the school executive structure (NSW Department of Education, 2022). Middle leader expectations include both high levels of expertise in effective teaching practice and leadership in implementing school change processes and developing the capacities of colleagues (NSW Department of Education, 2022). Middle leaders are differentiated from teacher leaders – who lead within and beyond their own classrooms – by virtue of holding a formal leadership position (Nguyen et al., 2020). While there is conceptual overlap between such roles, MLs face greater accountability as part of their position within executive structures.

The complexity and diversity of middle leading roles results in multiple challenges that can mitigate success in the role (Grootenboer et al., 2019), including inadequate role clarity, unclear policy guidelines, limited authority to influence others and difficult power dynamics (Bassett, 2016; Fluckiger et al., 2015; Grootenboer et al., 2017; Jarvis, 2008; Struyve et al., 2014). Lipscombe et al.'s (2023) review of middle leading policies in Australia, where our study was conducted, found disparate descriptions of responsibilities and little clarity on what is expected. In this context, it is no surprise that MLs frequently report feeling overwhelmed, uncertain and unprepared as they attempt to cope with the complex demands of their role (Bassett, 2016; Harris et al., 2019).

Despite holding a position of authority, MLs frequently struggle to influence the practice of their classroom-based peers (Edwards-Groves et al., 2019; Hammersley-Fletcher and Strain, 2011; Lipscombe et al., 2020c) as they face competing demands from ‘above’ and ‘below’ (Fluckiger et al., 2015) to both respond to executive decisions and support their teaching colleagues to drive pedagogical improvement (De Nobile, 2018; Hammersley-Fletcher and Strain, 2011; Lipscombe et al., 2023).

The absence of targeted PD

While MLs are expected to facilitate the professional learning of their colleagues (Edwards-Groves et al., 2016), it has been widely reported that they have limited access to PD that is designed specifically to support them in this complex role (Bassett and Shaw, 2018; Gurr and Drysdale, 2013; Lipscombe et al., 2020b, 2023). Within Australian and New Zealand schooling, no additional qualifications are required for teachers to take on ML positions (Gurr and Drysdale, 2013). Appointments to ML roles tend to be made on the basis of teachers’ classroom expertise (Bassett and Shaw, 2018; Lipscombe et al., 2023). In a large-scale survey of MLs in NSW, 33% of respondents indicated that they had had limited to no formal PD on leadership, citing a dearth of targeted opportunities for MLs (Lipscombe et al., 2020a). The lack of role-specific PD has left many MLs to learn about leading while in the role, relying on others within their schools to support them through an apprenticeship or mentoring model (Bassett and Shaw, 2018; Gurr and Drysdale, 2013).

Middle leaders frequently supplement this learning ‘on the job’ by engaging in a patchwork of PD, each of which addresses specific aspects of their complex roles. Most commonly, MLs choose to participate in PD that focuses on building leadership skills, developing content knowledge, understanding of specific interventions and improving teaching and learning (Lipscombe et al., 2020a). In their survey of more than 2000 MLs in NSW schools, Lipscombe et al. (2020a) identified that 43% of respondents had engaged in formal PD with a broad focus on leadership skills or educational leadership. The majority of these professional learning opportunities, however, were focused on developing the requisite skills for senior leadership roles, such as the principalship. As such, these approaches to PD have been critiqued as ‘not yet sufficient to equip school MLs for the complexity of their roles’ (Lipscombe et al., 2023: 283).

The complexity of these roles is further evidenced in MLs’ engagement in PD with a focus on specific programs or content areas (Lipscombe et al., 2020a). These programs provide MLs with deeper understanding of the subject areas and interventions that they are tasked with leading in their schools. Such forms of PD are crucial for building content knowledge but do not adequately prepare MLs to facilitate the professional learning of their teaching colleagues (Edwards-Groves et al., 2016; Grootenboer et al., 2015; Lipscombe et al., 2020b). Furthermore, it has been argued that pedagogy-focused PD that is relevant across grade levels and subject areas plays an important role in improving teaching and learning within schools (Gore and Rosser, 2022). This suggestion aligns with findings from a systematic review of research on middle leadership which concluded that effective PD for MLs needs to address:

[1] leading teaching, learning and curriculum;

[2] management (e.g., crisis management, legalities, resource management); and

[3] capacity building in the individual, professional, organisational and community domains (Lipscombe et al., 2023).

In this paper, we investigate how one form of PD, although not specifically designed for MLs, addressed the PD needs identified by Lipscombe et al. (2023). Research into the approach, known as Quality Teaching Rounds (QTR), includes three mixed-method randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These trials have demonstrated positive effects on the quality of teaching, teacher morale (Gore et al., 2017), teacher efficacy and student achievement (Gore et al., 2021; Povey et al., 2023). Qualitative studies have also shown increased collegiality and enhanced school culture (Gore and Rickards, 2021; Gore and Rosser, 2022). These effects align closely to the professional learning needs of MLs, who require an understanding of the complex interplay of factors for leading improvement in teaching and learning (Gurr and Drysdale, 2013). In what follows, we draw on the theory of practice architectures (Kemmis and Grootenboer, 2008) to investigate the mechanisms through which this approach supported a small cohort of MLs, with the aim of identifying fresh insights into building effective PD for MLs more broadly.

Driving pedagogical improvement through QTR

Quality Teaching Round is a collaborative PD program designed to combine the benefits of participating in professional learning communities (PLCs) and engaging in a form of teaching ‘rounds,’ with a pedagogical framework known as the Quality Teaching (QT) Model (Gore et al., 2017; NSW Department of Education, 2020). Quality Teaching Round enables teachers to work with colleagues in their school to collectively analyse and refine their pedagogical practice, using the QT Model as a lens.

The QT Model is derived from research on Authentic Pedagogy (Newmann, 1991, 1996) and incorporates an extensive synthesis of research on pedagogy that improves student achievement (Ladwig and King, 2003). (For more details on the 18 elements of the Model, see: NSW Department of Education, 2020). Fundamentally, the QT Model provides a pedagogical framework for analysing teaching. The associated 1-to-5 coding scale and descriptors (see Appendix 1 for an example) provide a shared language with which to talk about teaching at a high level of specificity. The aim is to focus on teaching, rather than the teacher, in a non-threatening, professional space. As teachers analyse the quality of teaching that occurred during a lesson, they also share insights about refinements to teaching in general.

The PD involves a two-day (10-h) in-service workshop that introduces the QT Model and simulates the QTR process. Ideally, at least two staff members, including one with leadership responsibilities, attend the workshop before implementing the process in their own school. Following the workshop, they join with other staff members to form a PLC of four educators who undertake a set of Rounds. Each Round is conducted over a single day and involves the following:

Reading discussion (approximately 1 h): Professional reading chosen by one PLC member.

Observation (approximately 30–80 min): One PLC member teaches a lesson, which is observed in its entirety by the remaining PLC members.

Coding and discussion: All PLC members, including the observed teacher, individually code the lesson using the QT Model. Each element is coded on a scale from 1 to 5 using detailed descriptors. An extended discussion follows in which the lesson, and pedagogy more broadly, is analysed as the group seeks to reach consensus about the coding as a means to specific insights on improving teaching.

A set of Rounds is complete when every PLC member has taught a lesson observed by their peers. The PLC stays together for the entire set of Rounds (usually four days spread over multiple weeks), but the process can then be repeated as the initial PLC members work with other teachers in newly formed PLCs. Middle leaders are well positioned to both participate in and drive this activity within their schools.

Practice architectures as an analytic lens

In this paper, we use the theory of practice architectures (Kemmis and Grootenboer, 2008) to examine how participation in QTR can support middle leading (Lipscombe et al., 2020c).

The theoretical frame views middle leading as a social practice, comprised of characteristic sayings (the cognitive dimension), doings (the psychomotor dimension) and relatings (the affective dimension) (Kemmis et al., 2014). These saying, doings and relatings are enabled and constrained by the ‘practice architectures’ of a particular school site or intervention, such as QTR. Practice architectures consist of three types of arrangements, namely:

cultural-discursive arrangements, in the medium of language, that makes the sayings of the practice possible;

material-economic arrangements, in the medium of physical space-time, that makes the doings of the practice possible; and,

socio-political arrangements, in the medium of power, solidarity and agency, that makes relationships between people possible (Kemmis et al., 2014).

These three arrangements work together to establish a specific type of practice, also referred to as a project, for those involved. In other words, teachers and school leaders engage in specific practices, involving specialised language, actions and relationships, to accomplish the project of school education. Similarly, the project of QTR involves new specialist language, actions and relationships that can shape and be shaped by the practice architectures of the school.

The theory of practice architectures has been used as a theoretical and analytical resource to examine how middle leading practice is shaped and mediated by cultural, political and material conditions in situ (Edwards-Groves and Grootenboer, 2021; Grootenboer and Edwards-Groves, 2020; Lipscombe et al., 2020c; Mahon et al., 2017). This paper, however, examines its potential as a transformational resource, used to identify how the practice architectures of PD like QTR can be used to enhance the sayings, doings and relatings of MLs in schools. Our particular interest here is how QTR can work to enhance the collective social-relational project of improving pedagogy. That is, how does its practice architectures enable or constrain new kinds of sayings, doings and relatings, and what are the residual effects for MLs, their colleagues and school culture more broadly? In using this lens, our aim is to make explicit how participating in QTR can create new arrangements that support the work of MLs. Kemmis et al. (2014) succinctly summarise how engaging with new practice architectures such as QTR can support change:

A practice takes up sayings, doings and relatings already to be found in the site, orchestrates and engages with them, and leaves behind in the setting particular kinds of discursive, physical and social residues of what happened through the unfolding of the practice… Some of the residues become part of the practice architectures of the setting and are newly encountered by those who subsequently inhabit it. (p. 34)

We use the theory of practice architectures to examine the extent to which MLs’ participation in PD can shape and reshape their practices and, thus, the contexts in which the practices are produced. While critics suggest that practice-focused approaches are unsuitable for examining macro-social structures, such as social order, power and identity (Nicolini, 2016), we argue that the micro-analysis of practice can provide a window into how these structures produce and reproduce culture-in-action (Harris, 2018). The examination of MLs’ sayings, doings and relatings offers a useful analytical lens that leaves space for understanding the fluid and evolving nature of arrangements that constitute existing practice architectures (Gibbs et al., 2022). Our analysis further uncovers the potential of the theory of practice architectures as a transformational resource. We demonstrate how a PD approach designed to drive improvement in pedagogical quality influences participants’ sayings, doings and relatings, leaving residues that support middle leading practice. In so doing, we gain important insights into our research question: ‘In what ways can participation in QTR support middle leading practice?’

Methods

Background

This study draws on interview data collected during 2019 as part of a larger mixed-method RCT designed to investigate the impact of QTR on primary school student outcomes (see published RCT protocol paper; Miller et al., 2019). The research design and instruments were approved by the University Human Research Ethics Committee prior to participant recruitment. Educators (n = 497) from 125 primary schools were recruited to be part of the RCT. Of the 63 schools (50%) assigned to the QTR intervention, nine schools were selected at random for participation in pre- and post-intervention interviews about their experience. Our current analysis draws on data from the 22 participants in these schools who were interviewed at the post-QTR timepoint. The semi-structured interviews lasted approximately 30 min, during which participants were asked about their experiences with PD in general, and QTR in particular. The interview schedule is attached to provide detail on the types of questions asked (see Appendix 2).

Sample

Each of the nine schools was asked to identify two educators who had participated in QTR and a school leader willing to participate in follow-up interviews. As anticipated, MLs filled both sampling categories – school leaders and teachers – highlighting the dual responsibilities of their role. In total, 22 interviews were conducted; five with MLs – those whose formal role included a combination of classroom teaching and a leadership position – and 17 with classroom teachers and senior leaders. The latter group provided views on how QTR impacted MLs and ML practice, based on the participation of MLs in QTR PLCs in all but one school. The MLs who engaged in Rounds were assistant principals or acting/relieving assistant principals; the exception was a teaching deputy principal.

We are aware limitations of this study include that it was not designed to investigate middle leading and that no questions focused specifically on middle leadership (see Appendix 2 for the teacher interview schedule). However, MLs and middle leading practices were frequently discussed, without prompting, as playing an important role in the PLCs. Preliminary thematic coding impelled our deeper interrogation of ML practice and the impact of engaging in QTR on middle leading and MLs.

The participating schools in which interviewees worked (Table 1) show considerable diversity in socio-educational advantage (ICSEA¹), location and student profile. The number of interviews conducted in each school is also provided.

Table 1.

Sample of schools in which interviews were conducted.

School	Interviews (n)	Location	ICSEA	LBOTE (%)	ATSI (%)	2019 Students
1	3	Major cities	High	20–30	<10	550–600
2	1	Major cities	High	30–40	<10	300–350
3	2	Major cities	Medium	30–40	<10	400–450
4	2	Major cities	Low	70–80	<10	250–300
5	3	Major cities	Low	20–30	20–30	400–450
6	3	Inner regional	Medium	<10	<10	300–350
7	2	Inner regional	Medium	<10	10–20	250–300
8	3	Inner regional	Low	<10	40–50	200–250
9	3	Outer regional	Low	<10	30–40	250–300

Note. To protect the anonymity of schools, ICSEA is reported as low (<950), mid (ICSEA 9501-1050) and high (ICSEA >1050), and student variables for language backgrounds other than English, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status and school enrolment numbers are reported as a range.

Analysis

All interviews were audio-recorded, professionally transcribed and read by at least two members of the research team. During this initial phase, interview transcripts were de-identified with names of participants and schools replaced with pseudonyms. Coding of interview data was undertaken using the NVivo™ software program. First-level inductive coding was conducted to identify emerging ideas and preliminary themes in the data (Creswell, 2013). These initial explorations identified middle leading as an important theme and, thus, a focus for subsequent analysis (Creswell, 2013).

For the deductive analysis, the theory of practice architectures (Kemmis et al., 2014) was used to explore how the practice of QTR influenced the work of MLs. Interview data were coded into themes of sayings, doings and relatings to examine how QTR unfolded for MLs and the residues ‘left behind’ in relation to middle leading (Kemmis et al., 2014). One critique of the theory of practice architectures is that the approach does not provide adequate definitions for identifying and analysing these structural arrangements (Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016; Gibbs et al., 2022). To address this potential limitation, data were coded independently by two researchers to provide investigator triangulation (Archibald, 2016). Following the independent coding, a process of reflection and discussion between coders was used to ensure consistent definitions of themes and their application throughout the analysis (Harry et al., 2005).

Results

Our deductive analysis of interviews identified how the arrangements of QTR influenced the practices of participating MLs. We examined the interviews with the goal of identifying and examining changes in MLs’ sayings, doings and relatings that were attributed to this PD in the interviews. In the following sections, we examine these practices and the ‘residues’ of participation in QTR that reshaped the ways in which MLs used pedagogical language, engaged in classroom observations and collaborated with their colleagues.

Sayings: establishing a shared language

Interviews with MLs suggested that the pedagogical model underpinning QTR provided them with new shared understandings of good pedagogical practice and engaged them in a new cultural-discursive arrangement:

This is my 29th year of teaching… but [doing QTR] there were things that I went, ‘Oh, I don’t think about that.’… I thought the Model worked really well. The discussion after [the lesson observation] was very helpful. That was probably where the greatest amount of discussion and suggestion and growth came…. It really made us think about… what makes up a good lesson. (Nicole, School 3, Assistant Principal, Female)

As an experienced educator, Nicole expressed some surprise that the QT Model expanded her understanding of quality pedagogy and provided her with new language with which to discuss practice. Her use of the collective term us suggests that the QTR process generated collective growth for her colleagues as well. The new sayings provided by the model enhanced their discussions and supported all participants in building a shared understanding of what makes up a good lesson.

The cultural-discursive and socio-political arrangements of QTR require participants to reach a consensus about the codes assigned to each element of the pedagogical model. The process of working towards agreement on the codes enabled MLs to practise important and often underdeveloped leadership skills (Fluckiger et al., 2015) in the PLCs:

We had a wide range of personalities [among the] people who undertook [QTR] … and that's why [my] stepping in [was important], sort of helping to moderate a bit so that people didn’t talk over the top of each other, but also just to make sure that we were doing it correctly. So, you know, we were able to go back and watch a video about specific areas like ‘Significance’ [one of the three dimensions in QT] and go, ‘Oh yeah, so that's actually what we need to look for,’ and then look at the code and see, ‘Oh, does that match?’ And then, making sure that it does and then agreeing on it. (Mary, School 5, Acting Assistant Principal, Female)

As an Acting Assistant Principal, Mary adopted the role of moderator to guide her colleagues through the process of reflection and discussion by drawing their attention back to the practice architectures of QTR when needed. Given that it can be difficult for MLs to assert authority (De Nobile, 2018; Hammersley-Fletcher and Strain, 2011), it seems the QTR architectures supported Mary's leadership through the authority of formal documents and processes.

The formal documents associated with QTR, that describe each element of the QT model and the coding scales, provided teachers and MLs with a new shared language for discussing pedagogy. The elements and descriptors represent specific ‘sayings’ associated with QTR that were adopted by teachers and MLs alike. In this way, the language of QTR has shaped the practices of participants both in the ways they talk about pedagogy and in the ‘doings’ of classroom observations. Melissa, a classroom teacher, describes how these sayings and doings have shaped the process of observations conducted by her ML supervisor:

Observations by my supervisor [in the past have been] … short, brief; they fill out a template and you have a little quick discussion about the lesson. But this [QTR] is like, making sure you’re on the right path, you’re actually teaching, you’re doing the right thing, and this is what you could do better. (Melissa, School 3, Classroom Teacher, Female)

The specificity of the confidence-building feedback given by the ML (and other PLC members) during QTR helped Melissa know what she was doing right and how she could improve. The cultural-discursive arrangements of QTR clearly reshaped the feedback processes that were previously the norm in the school's practice architectures.

Other MLs also provided telling examples of the residues, or sayings, that came from engagement in QTR:

It just makes you stop and think about the things that you’re doing. Just teaching, standing up the front of a classroom is a major conflation of so many different elements. … And so, we’ve changed things this year. We’re doing peer observations and things like that. So, [QTR has] changed things for us. … As an exec, we’ve been working on that… we’re going to be doing it [QTR] in alignment with our strategic directions and our school goals, our goals for the year. (Courtney, School 7, Relieving Assistant Principal, Female)

The residues of QTR are highlighted in Courtney's remarks about how the school executive has changed their practices of peer observation. She was involved in her executive team's decision to continue the rich pedagogical discussions that form part of QTR. The desire to involve more teachers, who were not involved in the first set of Rounds, is a testament to both its perceived wider value and its viability as an approach that MLs could readily incorporate into their practice.

In our analysis of the interview data, we specifically sought counterarguments to demonstrate the range of opinions held about participation in QTR. Despite our search, there was an overwhelming consensus about the program, which has been reflected in previous studies. One potential reason for this consensus is that all teachers and MLs who participated in QTR volunteered to do so. It is possible that this cohort was motivated to view this PD positively after they had committed their time to participating in it. In a lone exception to the overwhelmingly positive accounts of their QTR experience, one ML expressed the view that QT is already the norm in the school. Nonetheless, even she described the language of the QT Model as valuable:

It's valuable information and something that I think we do already, but we just don’t necessarily have an awareness around that language at the time. (Courtney, School 7, Relieving Assistant Principal, Female)

The Model provided new sayings that MLs could utilise as a shared basis for ongoing collaboration on pedagogy.

Doings: the power of observing and being observed

The material-economic arrangements of QTR, particularly the four days of teaching release from the classroom to engage in the PD process, provided MLs with new opportunities to reciprocally influence classroom pedagogy. While the experience of being observed by peers can be threatening, the practice architectures of QTR enabled a clear and incisive focus on actions or the ‘doings’ of teaching, rather than the teachers themselves:

It's been really, really great just to get into other peoples’ classrooms and see how they work. And then also, you know, figure out… what good teaching looks like across different settings as well, because what works for one person doesn’t necessarily work for the next one. I’ve picked up lots of [great ideas] from my colleagues here … being able to go into their classrooms and see what they do … ‘Significance’ was a really difficult area for our kids a lot of the time, I found, and so we started making a more concerted attempt to actually deal with ‘significance.’ (Mary, School 5, Acting Assistant Principal, Female)

It is noteworthy that MLs like Mary, who are often promoted because of their effective teaching practice (Grootenboer, 2018), can still pick up lots of things from their colleagues. Building new understanding of what good teaching looks like across different [classroom] settings adds to the pedagogical insights and skills MLs can bring to their work of leading pedagogical improvement (Fluckiger et al., 2015).

The contrast between the one-way observations traditionally undertaken by MLs in their role as supervisors and the QTR version is stark and was commented on by teachers and MLs alike:

Because I’m an Assistant Principal, I do observations on my K-2 team, so I’ve been involved as an observer, and then I’ve also had my principal observe me teaching lessons. … I actually found QTR less daunting – I guess, more comfortable – because I suppose each teacher in the group knew that we’re all going to have a turn of being observed and observing each other, and we were all really respectful of each other. Not to say that my supervisors are not but, I don’t know, it was more comfortable doing it the QTR way than, ‘Okay, the boss is coming in today to look at you.’ (Kaye, School 9, Assistant Principal, Female)

It is the carefully scaffolded turn-taking in the QTR observations and discussions that are described by Kaye as more comfortable and respectful. This experience has been transformative for her middle leading practice:

In terms of how I … interact with the teachers that I supervise, it's helped me with feeling more confident about doing observations in classrooms, in a respectful way, without feeling like I’m intruding …. I guess it's changed some of the conversations I have with my teachers about planning and that sort of thing. I definitely talk more to the teachers in the group, in regards to how to go about something. (Kaye, School 9, Assistant Principal, Female)

Kaye's commentary suggests that participation in QTR has left residues in the school's practice architectures (Kemmis et al., 2014), changing ‘doings’ in her middle leading practice. Built on a shared understanding of QT, her conversations with teachers have become more collegial, building a shared vision or direction, rather than telling teachers what to do.

Relatings: flattening power hierarchies through collaboration

The carefully designed socio-political practice architectures of QTR also provided many opportunities for MLs to collaborate as peers seeking a common goal of pedagogical improvement in a non-judgemental context. In fact, MLs frequently commented that there was no power stuff that negatively impacted the Rounds process because norms for the conduct of QTR provide structure for participants’ relatings:

I’m an executive and … we didn’t have … any power stuff in any way. It was like, we’re all colleagues and we’re all working together…. I did my lesson first to reassure people, and I think just the way that hopefully I conducted myself gave the example…. I purposely went first because the others were a bit nervous, but it was just to show that this is how it went.… I know I was as nervous as anyone else. (Nicole, School 3, Assistant Principal, Female)

Reciprocal opportunities to observe and discuss practice, turn-taking protocols and the explicit focus on the quality of a lesson, rather than the quality of a teacher, are significant for Nicole. Importantly, QTR encouraged colleagues all working together, regardless of their position in the school hierarchy. Nicole took the step, recommended in QTR workshop protocols, of purposely going first to set the example. In this way, she demonstrated her own vulnerability and invited others in the PLC to analyse her lesson before they took their turn. Going first breaks down existing socio-political arrangements that might act as barriers to genuine collaboration.

In our interviews with teachers, they often spoke of increased levels of admiration for and respect towards MLs, fostered by the new ways of relating promoted by QTR:

Our Assistant Principal's been teaching for 30 years. She was fantastic. She's like, ‘I could do this better, and I saw you guys do this. I might try and do that in my classroom.’ And I think we all took a little bit from each other, and I know that I’m using some things that the Assistant Principal did, and I think the Assistant Principal did some things that my colleague did, you know? And it sort of creates that collegial consistency, I suppose. (Vince, School 1, Classroom Teacher, Male)

Collegial consistency is a powerful phrase that speaks to the importance of seeing experienced MLs teach and demonstrate a willingness to learn. In Vince's account, the ML positions herself as a colleague and co-learner, seeking to improve pedagogy collaboratively and thus demonstrating how her peers might change their own classroom practice. The socio-political arrangement of co-influence is challenging to establish and maintain, yet necessary if MLs are to drive school improvement (Lipscombe et al., 2020c). Here, QTR appears to have both enhanced the credibility of MLs and smoothed the path for their instructional leadership practice.

Numerous other positive changes to the relationships between MLs and PLC members were highlighted in teacher interviews through the levelling of pre-existing power hierarchies:

So, [in my PLC] two of those teachers were APs and then another teacher was much more experienced than me. So, my relationship, I suppose, was like … very hierarchical … in a way… [although] I wasn’t scared of them or anything like that. What sort of changed [after QTR] was that it went to a more of a collegial [relationship], where I’d email [one of the Assistant Principals] and he’d send me really great maths resources; so, that kind of thing. And I think that was a result of the conversations and relationships that were built within … QTR. (David, School 2, Classroom Teacher, Male)

While recognising the hierarchical nature of his relationships with MLs, David points to more collegial and collaborative relationships with MLs, representing a change to the socio-political arrangements fostered by QTR, with clear residues evident in new ways of relating.

In turn, our interviews with principals also indicated positive changes in the relatings among MLs and teachers, even when they were not involved in the Rounds themselves:

My AP who was [involved] … got a lot more out of the younger staff than she thought she would have. They’re coming with fresh enthusiasm and fresh ideas, …and the fact that she was able to build relationships with the teachers on her stage [the grade levels she leads], in a different context, was really good. … Definitely, the teachers involved in [QTR], their collegiality improved significantly. [There's now greater] … mutual respect between the executive and her staff which has been good. (Matthew, School 1, Principal, Male)

Improved relationships, improved collegiality and greater mutual respect between MLs and teaching staff were observable following QTR.

Discussion

While it is widely acknowledged that MLs play an important role in school improvement because they work ‘alongside teachers’ in the classroom (Edwards-Groves et al., 2019; Grootenboer and Edwards-Groves, 2020), the lack of targeted PD can limit their knowledge for, and skills in, driving instructional improvement, a key component of their role (De Nobile, 2018; Hammersley-Fletcher and Strain, 2011). Addressing recent calls for empirical research on the conditions that support middle leading work (Lipscombe et al., 2020a, 2020b, 2020c), this article has demonstrated that QTR is a form of PD that supports middle leading practice, despite not being specifically designed for MLs. The approach we used in this paper also illustrates how the theory of practice architectures can provide a transformational resource in understanding how practice can be changed.

Within our analysis, we found that participation in QTR addressed each of the key areas of PD for MLs outlined in Lipscombe et al.'s (2023) systematic review – namely: (a) driving improvements in teaching and learning, (b) facilitating people management and (c) building staff capacity. Furthermore, bringing together the practice architectures of the schools and QTR left positive residues (Kemmis et al., 2014) across the cultural-discursive, material-economic and socio-political arrangements. Quality Teaching Round provided new ‘sayings’ in the form of shared language for describing QT, new ‘doings’ through the development of new structures for conducting observations of lesson quality and new ‘relatings’ as evident in the increased collegiality and respect between MLs and teachers.

One aspect of QTR that was highlighted as building ML practice was the opportunity to engage in observation, analysis and refinement of practice in their school site. This aligns with, and extends, prior research that has demonstrated that well-planned peer-to-peer observations can be a transformative form of PD for MLs in both their classroom and middle leading work (Lipscombe et al., 2020b; Visone, 2022). Quality Teaching Round's focus on pedagogy and its deliberate use of the QT Model were overwhelmingly seen by teachers and MLs alike as transformative. While it is acknowledged that existing school material-economic arrangements, such as time constraints, can challenge the implementation and sustainability of such PD (Admiraal et al., 2021), there is clear evidence that it leaves a positive residue for MLs.

Positioning oneself as a co-learner is a critical strategy which assists MLs to influence and lead their colleagues (Lipscombe et al., 2020a, 2020b, 2020c). Middle leaders in this study were able to deepen their leadership skills by modelling specific forms of behaviour. Volunteering to be observed first, built relational trust, calmed anxiety and modelled the non-judgemental nature of the PD. In the lesson discussions, MLs exercised leadership by drawing on the authority of the QT Model, rather than asserting personal or idiosyncratic views on good teaching. While rapport and trust between MLs and classroom teachers is fundamental to any school change, it is an aspect of leading with which MLs may struggle (Edwards-Groves et al., 2016); QTR helped create such conditions for school improvement.

The aim of this paper was to explore how QTR supported MLs, given limited PD opportunities that specifically address middle leading practices (Fluckiger et al., 2015). A key limitation of the study is that (as noted in the methodology section) ML practice was not a specific focus of the interview questions or the project design. Furthermore, our data represented reports of practice, rather than observational data that is more commonly used in studies of practice. The paper, however, confirms Mahon et al.'s (2017) description of the theory of practice architectures as being a theoretical, analytical and transformative resource. As an analytical resource, this approach enabled the examination of how QTR can shape middle leading practice and illustrated how the theory of practice architectures provide a detailed account of how participation in QTR developed new sayings, doings and relatings for MLs in their own school contexts. This analysis signals the potential of applying this approach to identify how QTR and other forms of PD can transform middle leading practice in the future.

Nevertheless, when we think of the kind of ML PD that facilitates change, five aspects of QTR stand out: (1) observing teachers, and being observed by others (particularly those who work directly with the ML); (2) focusing on development rather than evaluation; (3) carefully structuring processes for lesson observations and discussions to ensure respectful engagement; (4) building a common understanding of QT by using evidence-derived research as an external source of authority; and (5) evening out power imbalances by positioning MLs as co-learners seeking to develop pedagogy alongside teachers. In sum, altering cultural-discursive, material-economic and socio-political arrangements is significant not only to the success of QTR but also to the design any form of PD that seeks to support the critical role of MLs in schools. While there have been repeated calls for the development of PD that is specifically tailored to MLs (Lipscombe et al., 2020a), our analysis has demonstrated that existing forms of PD, such as QTR, can also offer substantial benefits for MLs in fulfilling their role.

As the field of scholarship on middle leading around the world grows, we contend that further research on PD – whether designed specifically for MLs or not – would benefit from systematic consideration of how the sayings, doings and relatings built into the PD help MLs achieve greater success in leading teaching and building capacity in others. The aspects of the QTR approach to PD highlighted in our analysis hold powerful benefits for middle leading practice, by increasing role clarity and helping to manage relationships, underpinned by resources (the QT Model) and processes (QTR) that not only leave positive traces but can readily be embedded in schools, driven by MLs.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank all teachers and schools who took part, as well as all project staff. The authors would like to give particular acknowledgement to Wendy Taggart who project managed the RCT.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Paul Ramsay Foundation, Australian Research Council, (grant number DP180100285), and the NSW Department of Education.

ORCID iD

Jess Harris

Notes

Author Biographies

Jess Harris is an associate professor in the School of Education at the University of Newcastle. Her research interests include educational leadership, school change and qualitative research methodologies. Her most recent book is “Community Matters: The Complex Links Between Community and Young People's Aspirations for Higher Education” (Routledge).

Felicia Jaremus is a postdoctoral researcher in the Teachers and Teaching Research Centre at the University of Newcastle. She has worked on multiple projects focused on equity, student aspirations, and teacher professional development.

Jennifer Gore is director of the Teachers and Teaching Research Centre in the School of Education at the University of Newcastle. Widely published, her research centers on quality and equity, teacher development, pedagogical reform, and enhancing student outcomes. Her current agenda focuses on the impact of Quality Teaching Rounds on teachers and students and the formation of educational aspirations during schooling.

Appendix 1.

2.1 Explicit Quality Criteria
Description
High explicit quality criteria is identified by frequent, detailed and specific statements about the quality of work required of students. Explicit quality criteria become reference points when the teacher and/or students use the criteria to develop and check their own work or the work of others.	Low explicit quality criteria is identified by an absence of written or spoken reference to the quality of work expected of students. Reference to technical or procedural requirements only (such as the number of examples, length of an essay or the duration of a presentation) is not evidence of explicit quality criteria.
To what extent are students provided with explicit criteria for the quality of work they are to produce? To what extent are those criteria a regular reference point for the development and assessment of student work?
Coding Scale
5. Detailed criteria regarding the quality of work are made explicit or reinforced throughout the lesson and there is consistent evidence of students examining the quality of their work in relation to these criteria.4. Detailed criteria regarding the quality of work are made explicit or reinforced during the lesson and there is evidence of some students, some of the time, examining the quality of their work in relation to these criteria.3. Detailed criteria regarding the quality of work are made explicit during the lesson, but there is no evidence that students are using the criteria to examine the quality of their work.2. Only general statements are made regarding the desired quality of the work.1. No explicit statements regarding the quality of work are made. Only technical and procedural criteria are made explicit.
NOTES
1. Designating what students are required to do to complete a task does not by itself clarify what counts as high quality work. Merely outlining or providing a checklist of what students are supposed to complete is procedural. Explicit quality criteria, on the other hand, clarify what the teacher expects in terms of high quality completion of a task, or ‘what makes a good one’.2. In some lessons and activities, explicit quality criteria should not be pre- specified, but rather allowed to develop as students create their own work. When observing these lessons or activities, the question of explicit quality criteria relies on whether you can see students interacting with the quality criteria as they develop.3. While the coding scale places value on the articulation of detailed criteria, simply listing detailed criteria might not give a full picture of what constitutes high quality work. For instance, at times when the ‘whole is greater than the sum of the parts’, it might be useful to clarify the difference between a holistic impression of a piece of work in contrast to a point by point analysis, for example by discussing how the sophistication, coherence or effectiveness of a piece of work might be judged.
SUGGESTIONS
• Ask the questions: What do I expect the students to produce? How well do I expect them to do it?• Collaboratively develop criteria with students, discussing ‘what makes a good one’.• Provide students with clear criteria that explicitly describe the quality of work expected. This could be developed with the class through initial brainstorming and then discussion and refinement or through the development of an assessment rubric. Unpack key terms used in criteria to ensure shared understanding and minimise ambiguity and subjectivity.• Assist students to clarify the criteria to reach a shared understanding of what is expected, for example by having students re-state in their own words what is meant by the criteria and identify examples of the criteria in their work and the work of other students.• Assist students to use the quality criteria to reflect on and modify their work as it develops. This can assist students to develop skills in self-assessment.• Use the criteria to assess student work and to provide explicit, timely, understandable and actionable feedback during development, as well as on completion of the task. Avoid feedback on unspecified criteria because it can cause confusion, limit student achievement and reinforce inequalities.• Provide annotated exemplars, work samples or models (including work from past and current students) that illustrate high quality student performance based on the criteria.

Appendix 2.

References

Admiraal

Schenke

De Jong

, et al. (2021) Schools as professional learning communities: What can schools do to support professional development of their teachers? Professional Development in Education 47(4): 684–698.

Archibald

(2016) Investigator triangulation: A collaborative strategy with potential for mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 10(3): 228–250.

Bacchi

Goodwin

(2016) Poststructural Policy Analysis: A Guide to Practice. New York: Palgrave Pivot.

Bassett

(2016) The role of middle leaders in New Zealand secondary schools: Expectations and challenges. Waikato Journal of Education 21(1): 97–108. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1233355.pdf

Bassett

Shaw

(2018) Building the confidence of first-time middle leaders in New Zealand primary schools. International Journal of Educational Management 32(5): 749–760.

Creswell

(2013) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

De Nobile

(2018) Towards a theoretical model of middle leadership in schools. School Leadership and Management 38(4): 395–416.

Edwards-Groves

Grootenboer

(2021) Conceptualising five dimensions of relational trust: Implications for middle leadership. School Leadership and Management 41(3): 260–283.

Edwards-Groves

Grootenboer

Hardy

, et al. (2019) Driving change from ‘the middle’: Middle leading for site based educational development. School Leadership and Management 39(3–4): 315–333.

10.

Edwards-Groves

Grootenboer

Ronnerman

(2016) Facilitating a culture of relational trust in school-based action research: Recognising the role of middle leaders. Educational Action Research 24(3): 369–386.

11.

Fluckiger

Lovett

Dempster

, et al. (2015) Middle leaders: Career pathways and professional learning needs. Leading and Managing 21(2): 60–74.

12.

Gibbs

Cooke

Salamon

(2022) Unpacking the theory of practice architectures for research in early childhood education. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 47(4): 260–274.

13.

Gore

Lloyd

Smith

, et al. (2017) Effects of professional development on the quality of teaching: Results from a randomised controlled trial of Quality Teaching Rounds. Teaching and Teacher Education 68: 99–113.

14.

Gore

Miller

Fray

, et al. (2021) Improving student achievement through professional development: Results from a randomised controlled trial of Quality Teaching Rounds. Teaching and Teacher Education 101: 1–12.

15.

Gore

Rickards

(2021) Rejuvenating experienced teachers through Quality Teaching Rounds professional development. Journal of Educational Change 22: 335–354.

16.

Gore

Rosser

(2022) Beyond content-focused professional development: powerful professional learning through genuine learning communities across grades and subjects. Professional Development in Education 48(2): 218–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1725904

17.

Grootenboer

(2018) The Practices of School Middle Leadership. Singapore: Springer.

18.

Grootenboer

Edwards-Groves

(2020) Educational middle leading: A critical practice in school development. Leading and Managing 26(1): 23–30.

19.

Grootenboer

Edwards-Groves

Rönnerman

(2015) Leading practice development: Voices from the middle. Professional Development in Education 41(3): 508–526.

20.

Grootenboer

Edwards-Groves

Rönnerman

(2019) Understanding middle leadership: Practices and policies. School Leadership and Management 39(3–4): 251–254.

21.

Grootenboer

Rönnerman

Edwards-Groves

(2017) Leading from the middle: A praxis-oriented practice. In Grootenboer

Edwards-Groves

Choy

(eds) Practice Theory Perspectives on Pedagogy and Education: Praxis, Diversity and Contestation. Singapore: Springer, pp.243–263.

22.

Gurr

(2019) School middle leaders in Australia, Chile and Singapore. School Leadership and Management 39(3-4): 278–296.

23.

Gurr

Drysdale

(2013) Middle-level secondary school leaders: Potential, constraints and implications for leadership preparation and development. Journal of Educational Administration 51(1): 55–71.

24.

Hammersley-Fletcher

Strain

(2011) Power, agency and middle leadership in English primary schools. British Educational Research Journal 37(5): 871–884.

25.

Harris

Jones

(2017) Leading in context: Putting international comparisons into perspective. School Leadership and Management 37(5): 431–433.

26.

Harris

Jones

Ismail

, et al. (2019) Middle leaders and middle leadership in schools: Exploring the knowledge base (2003–2017). School Leadership and Management 39(3–4): 255–277.

27.

Harris

(2018) Speaking the culture: understanding the micro-level production of school culture through leaders’ talk. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 39(3): 323–334.

28.

Harry

Sturges

Klingner

(2005) Mapping the process: An exemplar of process and challenge in grounded theory analysis. Educational Researcher 34(2): 3–13.

29.

Jarvis

(2008) Leadership lost: A case study in three selective secondary schools. Management in Education 22(1): 24–30.

30.

Kemmis

Grootenboer

(2008) Situating praxis in practice: Practice architectures and the cultural, social and material conditions for practice. In: Enabling Praxis. Netherlands: Brill, pp.37–62.

31.

Kemmis

Wilkinson

Edwards-Groves

, et al. (2014) Changing Practices, Changing Education. Singapore: Springer.

32.

Ladwig

King

(2003) Quality Teaching in NSW Public Schools: An Annotated Bibliography. Sydney, Australia: NSW Department of Education and Training.

33.

Lipscombe

De Nobile

Tindall-Ford

, et al. (2020a) Formal Middle Leadership in NSW Public Schools: Full report. Report, New South Wales, Australia: NSW Department of Education, December. https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/school-leadership-institute/research/sli-research-and-reports/middle-leadership.

34.

Lipscombe

Grice

Tindall-Ford

, et al. (2020b) Middle leading in Australian schools: Professional standards, positions, and professional development. School Leadership and Management 40(5): 406–424.

35.

Lipscombe

Tindall-Ford

Grootenboer

(2020c) Middle leading and influence in two Australian schools. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 48(6): 1063–1079.

36.

Lipscombe

Tindall-Ford

Lamanna

(2023) School middle leadership: A systematic review. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 51(2): 270–288.

37.

Mahon

Kemmis

Francisco

, et al. (2017) Introduction: Practice theory and the theory of practice architectures. In Mahon

Francisco

Kemmis

(eds) Exploring Education and Professional Practice: Through the Lens of Practice Architectures, 1st ed. Singapore: Springer, pp.1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2219-7_1

38.

Miller

Gore

Wallington

, et al. (2019) Improving student outcomes through professional development: Protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial of quality teaching rounds. International Journal of Educational Research 98: 146–158.

39.

Newmann

(1991) Classroom thoughtfulness and students’ higher order thinking: Common indicators and diverse social studies courses. Theory and Research in Social Education 19: 410e433. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/coedu_pub/71

40.

Newmann

(1996) Authentic Achievement: Restructuring Schools for Intellectual Quality. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

41.

Nguyen

Harris

(2020) A review of the empirical research on teacher leadership (2003–2017): Evidence, patterns and implications. Journal of Educational Administration 58(1): 60–80.

42.

Nicolini

(2016) Is small the only beautiful? Making sense of ‘large phenomena’ from a practice-based perspective. In The nexus of practices (pp. 110–125). Routledge.

43.

NSW Department of Education (2020) Quality Teaching in NSW Public Schools: A Classroom Practice Guide. New South Wales, Australia: NSW Government.

44.

NSW Department of Education (2022) Middle leadership role description released. Accessed at: https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/school-leadership-institute/latest-news/mlrd-release

45.

Povey

Porter

Kennedy

, et al. (2023) Building Capacity for Quality Teaching in Australian Schools: Queensland Replication Study – Final Report. Report, Queensland, Australia: Institute for Social Science Research, The University of Queensland, February.

46.

Quality Teaching Academy and University of Newcastle (2020) Quality Teaching in NSW Public Schools: A Classroom Practice Guide, 3rd ed. NSW Australia: Quality Teaching Academy. https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/38438441.

47.

Rönnerman

Grootenboer

Edwards-Groves

(2017) The practice architectures of middle leading in early childhood education. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy 11(1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-017-0032-z

48.

Struyve

Meredith

Gielen

(2014) Who am I and where do I belong? The perception and evaluation of teacher leaders concerning teacher leadership practices and micropolitics in schools. Journal of Educational Change 15(2): 203–230.

49.

Visone

(2022) What teachers never have time to do: Peer observation as professional learning. Professional Development in Education 48(2): 203–217.

Building middle leading practice through pedagogy-focused professional development

Abstract

Keywords

Middle leadership in schools – A crucial and complex role

The absence of targeted PD

Driving pedagogical improvement through QTR

Practice architectures as an analytic lens

Methods

Background

Sample

Analysis

Results

Sayings: establishing a shared language

Doings: the power of observing and being observed

Relatings: flattening power hierarchies through collaboration

Discussion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Notes

Author Biographies

Appendix 2.

References