Developing Pedagogical Leadership in Early Childhood Education

Te Whakapakari Kaiārahi Āhuatanga Ako Kōhungahunga
Developing Pedagogical Leadership

in Early Childhood Education
Kate Ord, Jo Mane, Sue Smorti, Janis Carroll-Lind, Lesley Robinson, Arvay Armstrong-Read,
Developing Pedagogical Leadership in Early Childhood Education

Pikihora Brown-Cooper, Elena Meredith, Debbie Rickard, Juvena Jalal
Established in 1963, Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa/New Zealand Childcare

Association (NZCA) is an incorporated society, representing around 600 early
childhood education (ECE) services that provide education and care to thousands
of infants, toddlers and young children. Governed by a Council comprised of
elected and appointed members, NZCA is a bicultural organisation promoting
high quality ECE through initial teacher education, professional development,
advocacy and membership services. Registered by the New Zealand
Qualifications Authority (NZQA) as a Private Tertiary Education (PTE) provider,
NZCA is today one of New Zealand’s largest providers of early childhood initial
teacher education (ITE) with, at the time of this report, over 80 academic staff
based at 15 sites throughout the country. NZCA has a long history of improving
standards of practice within the early childhood sector. In addition to its centre-
based Bachelor of Teaching (ECE) degree, it delivers Ministry of Education (MoE)
funded professional development to hundreds of ECE services.
This publication reports the third of a series of Flagship research studies
undertaken by NZCA. These projects facilitate our goal to generate new, credible,
and useful research knowledge related to early childhood education or teacher
education in the Aotearoa context. Typically collaborations between staff, ECE
communities and experienced researchers, these projects also expand and
develop our staff research capability.
The focus of this third Flagship research project is effective pedagogical
leadership in early childhood services. Pedagogical leadership is an emerging
discourse in early childhood. It refers to the way in which the central task of
improving teaching and learning takes place in educational settings. This
report investigates the implementation of a research and development project
designed to enhance pedagogical leadership practice in early childhood centres.
By learning to understand the centre as a social (activity) system, leaders who
New Zealand Childcare Association
Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa
participated in the study learned to ‘play the system’ rather than the person as
they engaged in change conversations within their workplace settings.
ISBN 978-0-473-25326-4 (print version)

978-0-473-25327-1 (online PDF)
Te Whakapakari Kaiārahi
Āhuatanga Ako Kōhungahunga:
Developing Pedagogical
Leadership in Early Childhood
Education
Kate Ord, Jo Mane, Sue Smorti, Janis Carroll-Lind, Lesley Robinson,

Arvay Armstrong-Read, Pikihora Brown-Cooper, Elena Meredith,
Debbie Rickard, Juvena Jalal
Wellington 2013
Develo p i ng P e dag o g i cal lead e rs hi p in ea r ly c h il d h o o d Ed uc at io n
Te Whakapakari Kaiārahi Āhuatanga Ako Kōhungahunga:

by Kate Ord, Jo Mane, Sue Smorti, Janis Carroll-Lind, Lesley Robinson, Arvay Armstrong-Read,
© Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa/NZ Childcare Association, 2013
PO Box 12 725, Wellington 6144

Phone (04) 473 4672
www.nzca.ac.nz

978-0-473-25327-1 (online PDF)
Edited by Anne Else

Designed and typeset by Lynn Peck, Central Media Ltd
ii
Acknowledgements
He mihi nui tēnei ki a koutou mā e tautoko pūmau ana i tēnei kaupapa rangahau. Ka nui te
miharo hoki ki a koutou ngā kaiako i tākoha mai ki te kaupapa nei me o koutou kaha ki te
whakapakari ā koutou mahi, hei painga mo ngā tamariki, mokopuna. Ka nui te mihi ki ngā
ringa awhina i a mātou kia tūtuki mārika i ngā mahi kua mahia. No reira, ka nui te mihi ki
a tatou katoa.
We would like to acknowledge the energies, enthusiasm and commitments across a range
of people and groups that have collectively made this research possible.
First and foremost we wish to thank our participants, who with courage and foresight
agreed to be part of this research project. You participated in the programme with
openness and a sense of adventurous spirit. We hope that insights into your processes
of learning will inspire others to similarly open themselves to the possibilities of new
theoretical frameworks for leadership.
To our fellow researchers and colleagues we thank you for joining us in this project and
for your acumen and collegiality. We have been privileged to have worked with you in this
capacity.
To members of the Māori Research Advisory Group, our appreciation for your much valued
advice, support and encouragement is acknowledged in our journey of leading research
that upholds Tiriti-based relationships within our organisation. Kia kaha tātou ki te whai
tēnei huarahi.
Three extra research assistants, Gaynor Clark, Jenny Butcher and Margaret Hammond
were each attached to a cluster and provided analysis and critical support.
This project was supported and carried out with funding allocated by the Council of Te Tari
Puna Ora o Aotearoa/ NZ Childcare Association.
We are especially grateful to Associate Professor Joce Nuttall for her generosity in sharing
her knowledge and extensive experience with our research team and for mentoring us in
our role as co-directors. You have been inspirational.
Lastly, Dr Janis Carroll-Lind, our Research Director at NZCA has been our ‘rock’. Her calm,
patient and guiding hand has helped steer this project from inception to completion.
Jo Mane and Kate Ord
Ehara taku toa i te toa takitahi, engari he toa takitini

Success is not the work of one but the work of many
iii
iv
Contents
Acknowledgements........................................................................................ iii
Foreword..........................................................................................................ix
Abstract .........................................................................................................xi
CHAPTER 1: Introduction...................................................................................1
Rationale for the study .............................................................................. 2
The project takes shape............................................................................. 3
Introduction to the research study............................................................. 4
The purpose of the study........................................................................... 4
Aims and objectives of the research project.............................................. 4
Objectives of the project............................................................................ 5
Research questions .................................................................................... 6
The research team...................................................................................... 6
Overview of report..................................................................................... 7
Organisation of chapters............................................................................ 8
CHAPTER 2: Background to the study and literature review............................. 10

Leadership in early childhood education...................................................... 10
Distributed leadership.............................................................................. 12
Dilemmas of leadership............................................................................ 13
The interface between Māori leadership and pedagogical leadership.....13
Te Kōpae Piripono..................................................................................... 15
Te Kōhanga Reo o Mana Tamariki.............................................................16
Professional Learning.....................................................................................16
Professional learning and its importance in early childhood education .......16
Principles of effective professional learning ............................................ 17
Key issues in professional learning............................................................18
Diverse models/approaches.....................................................................18
Reconceptualising of professional learning..............................................18
Foregrounding of context.........................................................................19
Centrality of teachers’ beliefs ..................................................................19
The individual and collaborative nature of learning................................ 20
How do teachers construct and reconstruct their practice?.................... 20
Intervention-based professional learning programmes.................................21
Coaching and mentoring within intervention-based
professional learning programmes...........................................................21
Early childhood coaching and mentoring programmes on leadership .... 23
v
CHAPTER 3: Methodology.................................................................................. 25
Research questions....................................................................................... 26
Supplementary questions.............................................................................. 26
Theoretical frameworks................................................................................ 26
Kaupapa Māori theoretical framework......................................................... 26
Kaupapa Māori research methodology.................................................... 27
Kaupapa Māori principles in action......................................................... 29
Expansive learning theory and third generation activity theory................... 30
Activity theory................................................................................................ 31
Second generation activity theory........................................................... 34
Third generation activity theory.............................................................. 35
The current study .................................................................................... 37
Conclusion ............................................................................................... 38
Kaupapa Māori theory and activity theory: Alignments Mahia te mahi ........... 38
Activity theory and alignment to Kaupapa Māori......................................... 38
Theoretical fieldwork: Research in action..........................................................40
Research design.................................................................................................. 40
Gaining ethics approval...................................................................................... 40
Ethics procedures.......................................................................................... 40
Identifying research participants: recruitment and selection ........................... 43
Recruitment ....................................................................................................... 43
Selection........................................................................................................ 44
Description of participants............................................................................ 45
Methodology of the learning and coaching and mentoring model ................... 45
Data generation and analysis strategies............................................................. 47
Data analysis.................................................................................................. 47
CHAPTER 4: Kaupapa Māori findings.................................................................. 49

Introduction: Taking up the model................................................................ 49
Kua mārama: Do you understand?................................................................ 49
Te Kore: the beginning................................................................................... 50
Language....................................................................................................... 52
Contradiction................................................................................................. 55
Te Pō: Taking up the model mid-project.........................................................57
Te Ao Mārama — the completion..................................................................61
Kua mārama? Do you understand?............................................................... 64
CHAPTER 5: Learning the model......................................................................... 65

Introduction: “Smooth seas don’t make a skilful sailor”............................... 65
Two patterns of engagement ....................................................................... 66
Responding to an urgent/pressing need....................................................... 66
Alignment with the concept of contradiction............................................... 69
Alignment with the concept of playing the system, not the person............. 76
Conclusion..................................................................................................... 78
vi
Contents
CHAPTER 6: Expanding pedagogical leadership ................................................80

Introduction.................................................................................................. 80
A way of working more systematically..........................................................80
Becoming more efficient............................................................................... 85
Bigger picture thinking.................................................................................. 87
A framework for bringing contradictions to consciousness ......................... 88
A framework for redistributing knowledge and decision making ................ 93
Tool for leading pedagogical dialogue (and change)..................................... 95
Conclusion..................................................................................................... 97
CHAPTER 7: Discussion and conclusions: Working in the shared zone............... 98

Introduction.................................................................................................. 98
Third generation activity theory as a mediating tool for leadership............. 99
How can kaupapa Māori pedagogy, leadership and expansive
learning theory inform and enhance each other?...................................... 100
Kua mārama: Do you understand?........................................................ 100
How can pedagogical leadership in early childhood settings
in Aotearoa/New Zealand be transformed through knowledge
and understanding of expansive learning theory? ......................................102
Objective 1: Trialling a methodology ...........................................................103
Objective 2: Exploring possible alignments ................................................ 104
Objective 3: Learn a framework...................................................................105
Objective 4: Developing strategies to lead ................................................. 106
Objective 5: Develop confidence and self efficacy.......................................107
The professional learning model..................................................................107
Implications of the study ............................................................................. 110
1. NZCA procedures for researching with Māori ................................... 110
2. Opportunities for early childhood centres to
participate/engage in research/professional learning........................ 111
3. Future research by NZCA as a follow up study
to evaluate sustainability.................................................................... 111
4. Collaborative research projects .......................................................... 111
5. Professional learning opportunities.................................................... 111
Conclusion..................................................................................................... 111
References......................................................................................................... 113
Glossary............................................................................................................. 121
vii
viii
foreword
Foreword
Tēnā koutou katoa
Educators working in education and care services for young children implicitly understand
the value of effective leadership, and the early childhood field in Aotearoa New Zealand
has produced many prominent leaders. Yet the field of leadership remains one of the
most complex and contested domains of contemporary theory and practice in education.
Many discourses of leadership have come to the early childhood field from the study
of organisational systems, particularly from the corporate sphere where the issues of
intimacy and confidentiality typical of early childhood settings are often overlooked.
These discourses have led the field to understand the value of effective management and
efficient administration, but have been less useful for shaping leadership that promotes
effective teaching and learning. We now understand, both within and beyond education,
that the most effective leaders are those who promote the learning of their teams. This
has been the focus of this Flagship project.
Most early childhood educators have a familiar grasp of theories of child development;
we know how children learn and we know how to promote that learning. As educators
become more experienced and more senior in their roles, this knowledge remains
important. However a further body of theory and practice also becomes necessary: an
understanding of how adults learn and develop in the workplace. This Flagship project
has taken these understandings in new directions in Aotearoa/New Zealand because
of the way it has supported leaders to think about centres as coherent systems, rather
than as a group of individual staff. By learning to view their centres as distinctive cultural
constructions, with their own rules and cultural norms, the leaders participating in this
project have come to view themselves as agents of cultural change, not just as managers
of individual performance. This is a profound step forward for the field.
It has been a privilege to work with the Flagship 3 team on this project, particularly the
opportunity to work with tangata whenua to push the limits of existing theory in new
directions. This report speaks eloquently of the insights that are possible at the boundaries
where theoretical perspectives meet and the ways in which conversations at these
boundaries can offer new ways of thinking about practice.
The work reported here is also an account of a remarkable research effort, with the project
conceived, planned, implemented, analysed and reported within a short period of time for
a project of this scope. This speaks to the determination of the research team and, indeed,
their own capacity to lead. I congratulate Te Tari Puna Ora for instigating and supporting
this project, and hope it will inspire others to think about leadership in new and exciting
ways.
Joce Nuttall, PhD
Associate Professor and Principal Research Fellow
Faculty of Education, Australian Catholic University
ix
x
A bstract
Abstract
There is a growing awareness of the need for leadership development within the
early childhood sector. This report investigates the implementation of a research and
development project designed to enhance pedagogical leadership practice in early
childhood centres. The project involved trialling a mentoring and coaching methodology
across a diverse range of early childhood settings, with the aim of enhancing pedagogical
leadership through engaging in change conversations to improve teaching and learning.
This involved the application of Engestrom’s (1987, 2001) expansive learning theoretical
framework as a tool to understand the dynamics of change within systems of activity
such as early childhood centres. It was hypothesised that pedagogical leadership could
be enhanced through the appropriation of knowledge associated with expansive learning
theory, which itself sits within and draws on the theoretical perspective and tools of third
generation activity theory.
The research, which largely replicated Nuttall’s (2013a) research design, was carried out
across multiple sites (clusters) and with multiple research teams. It incorporated two
theoretical perspectives: kaupapa Māori and expansive learning theory. One cluster
specifically comprised participants who identified as working within a kaupapa Māori
approach. All participants were designated leaders in their early childhood centres.
They attended a series of workshops interspersed with coaching and mentoring sessions
in their centres over a period of seven months, from July 2012 to February 2013. Data
were generated through audiotaped and transcribed interviews with paired participants
from each centre (although some variation existed), and conducted at roughly six-week
intervals across the programme. In addition, field-notes were made by researchers during
the workshops. Analysis of transcripts was iterative and carried out both deductively and
inductively, first within each of the three clusters and secondly across the full data set.
The key findings suggest that participants appropriated and adapted the tool of third
generation activity theory, including participants who identified as working within kaupapa
Māori. The project established that there are some clear synergies between kaupapa
Māori, leadership and expansive learning theory, and this relationship is worthy of more
thorough investigation. In varying degrees, participants across the project made sense of
themselves as pedagogical leaders within and against their developing understanding of
expansive learning theory. Significantly, all participants found sense in third generation
activity theory as a tool for understanding the centre as a system collectively focused on
the achievement of shared objects (or tasks), rather than as a collection of individuals.
This indicates a significant transformation in the consciousness of many leaders for whom,
prior to the project, pedagogical leadership equated to working with or on individuals.
Through the project, many leaders experienced a shift in the locus of control from the
individual to the group or collective, in terms of both where most problems of practice lay
and where solutions are to be found.
xi
While the purpose of the project was to teach a methodology for leading pedagogy in
centres, changing what happened in centres was not the work of the project. However,
there is ample evidence to suggest that change did occur at the level of the centre. Our
findings strongly suggest that the methodology of expansive learning theory is productive
as a framework for conceptualising pedagogical leadership in early childhood settings, and
that this is well-suited to a range of settings, including those that prioritise the collective
over individual ways of working, as in kaupapa Māori settings and Pasifika centres in the
project.
xii
Introduction
CHAPTER 1:
Introduction
The focus of this Flagship research project is pedagogical leadership in early childhood
education. Broadly speaking, pedagogical leadership refers to the way in which the central
task of improving teaching and learning takes place in educational settings. It is leadership
“focused on curriculum and pedagogy rather than on management and administration”
(Thomas � Nuttall, in press). Pedagogical leadership is an emerging discourse, surfacing in
the school sector in the early 1980s (Robinson, Hohepa, � Lloyd, 2009) and with discernible
beginnings in early childhood education in the late 1990s (Heikka � Waniganayeke, 2011). As
a construct it still requires significant theoretical development, especially within countries
where the notion of pedagogy is itself a relatively new concept (Heikka � Waniganayeke,
2011).
Robinson, Hohepa, and Lloyd (2009) assert that pedagogical leadership has an emphasis
on “educational purposes” (p. 38), such as establishing educational goals, curriculum
planning, and evaluating teachers and teaching. Clarkin-Phillips (2009) suggests that
pedagogical leadership “commands particular interest because it is pedagogy that impacts
most immediately on children” (p. 22). The concept of leadership itself is a highly contested
and at times elusive term (Thornton, Wansbrough, Clarkin-Phillips, Aitken, � Tamati,
2009). A focus on children and their educational experience and outcomes provides a
focus for leadership within educational settings that is firmly orientated towards those
whom these institutions aim to serve and benefit. Pedagogical leadership is, in effect,
leadership for learning. Having reviewed empirically based literature examining the
relationship between school leadership and student outcomes, Robinson, Hohepa and
Lloyd conclude that “the closer leaders get to the core business of teaching and learning,
the more likely it is that they will have a positive impact on their students” (p. 201).
Heikka and Waniganayeke (2011) argue that the time has come for early childhood
teachers to “step up to the role of leading pedagogical conversations within classrooms
and beyond” (p. 510). The study we report on here is focused on supporting pedagogical
leaders in early childhood settings to do just this. It covers a research and development
project which trialled a methodology, including a theoretical framework, for use by centre
leaders, and which focuses on supporting and enhancing pedagogical leadership practice
in centres.
1
Rationale for the study

While research into educational leadership is extensive in the compulsory sector (see
Robinson, Hohepa, � Lloyd, 2009), it is an underexplored area of early childhood research
(Thornton, 2011). The research and development project reported on here sits within and
responds to the current context of a heightened awareness and interest in (Bell, 2011)
and growing empirical evidence base for the importance of leadership, and of leadership
learning and development, within the early childhood education sector (Thornton, 2010).
In 2002, the early childhood 10-year strategic plan (Ministry of Education, 2002) set a
coherent and unique direction for early childhood education in Aotearoa New Zealand,
principally through the staged plan for 100% qualified teachers1. At that time, a concomitant
focus on leadership was identified. This was articulated as a commitment to “provide
leadership development programmes to strengthen leadership in ECE services” (Ministry
of Education, 2002, p. 15).
In 2009, the New Zealand Teachers Council (NZTC) research report, Conceptualising
Leadership in Early Childhood Education in Aotearoa New Zealand (Thornton et al., 2009)
identified effective leadership as a factor associated with quality in early childhood
settings. However, there is no leadership strategy within the early childhood sector
equivalent to the one within the school sector. This poses “a significant risk to professional
initiatives supporting quality teaching and learning within the sector” (Lind, 2009, media
release). While NZTC’s occasional paper has helped to promote discussion, as yet it has
not influenced Government policy.
In 2010, NZTC convened a working group to describe ECE leadership and outline a plan for
its development. That same year, the Education Review Office identified nine key aspects
of early childhood practice that contribute to quality learning opportunities for infants,
toddlers and young children. The first of these interrelated elements was leadership.
The recent government report, A Vision for the Teaching Profession (2011), recommends
leadership development for all of the teaching sectors. This theme is picked up in the
2011 ECE taskforce report, Amazing Children, which also recommends ECE leadership
development.
This clearly identified need for leadership development within the early childhood sector
provided the impetus for this research project. It is one of NZCA’s Flagship projects,
intended to facilitate our goal to generate new, credible, and useful research knowledge
related to early childhood education or teacher education in the Aotearoa context. It was
decided that, as an advocacy organisation for the sector and as a provider of initial teacher
education, NZCA would support initiatives and contribute to the research platform focusing
on leadership and leadership development. This decision was based on the assumption
that, given the limited parameters of government initiatives to support leadership
programmes in ECE (NZTC, 2009) and a relative absence of leadership as a focus in initial
teacher education programmes (Weisz-Koves, 2011), a programme of leadership learning
and development would be a timely and socially just initiative for an organisation such as
ours.
Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd’s (2009) Best Evidence Synthesis (School leadership and
student outcomes: Identifying what works and why) clearly identifies that it is pedagogical
leadership, as opposed to other forms of leadership, that has the most significant impact
1 The National Government’s policy change on 1 February 2011 reduced funding to centres with 100% qualified teachers.
2
Introduction
on student outcomes. However, as these authors point out, other forms of leadership,
(e.g., transformational leadership) have not previously had student outcomes as their
focus. Pedagogical leadership attends to leadership practices that “make a difference to
student achievement and well-being” (Robinson, Hohepa � Lloyd, p. 35). Although this
evidence relates to the school sector, like Scrivens (2003), we consider that research
generated in other sectors of education has the capacity to illuminate related issues within
early childhood education. This does not remove the need for early childhood education
to research its own practices as well, particularly given the distinctiveness of the sector
(Thornton et al, 2009).
The project takes shape

There were many forms a research project with a focus on leadership could take. It was
decided that a dual programme of professional learning and research had the potential to
contribute to the sector in material ways, and also to contribute to the developing research
and knowledge base with respect to pedagogical leadership. In other words, the project
was not a ‘side by side’ model of research and professional development, but featured
a dialectical relationship between development and inquiry. This approach is consistent
with Edward’s (2007) contention that research in early childhood education should not
limit itself to contributing to the knowledge base, but should also be an opportunity for
teachers, as research participants, to engage in “reflexive learning experiences” (p. 85)
which enhance the cultural capital they bring to the research space.
Our decision was based substantially on a research project designed and carried out in
Melbourne, Australia by Associate Professor Joce Nuttall (Australian Catholic University);
a longstanding friend of NZCA who is widely recognised for her early childhood research
studies in cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) methodology. In particular, it is Associate
Professor Nuttall’s research design and implementation of a programme of professional
learning for pedagogical leaders in Melbourne early childhood settings that forms the basis
of our project. Associate Professor Nuttall also acted as NZCA’s advisor and critical friend
for the current study. Our link with this particular research programme also contributes to
building research capacity in a cross-national sense (Nuttall, in press-a).
Typically, centre leaders here and in Australia have expertise working with children and
families, but not in fostering adult learning. We agree with Associate Professor Nuttall
when she suggests that “effective centre and service leadership relies not only on
dispositions such as determination, initiative, and courage, but on leaders knowing how
to marshal organisational dynamics around common goals or learning objects” (personal
correspondence, March, 2012). The Melbourne project she has developed assists centre
leaders to foster ongoing professional learning in their teaching teams, focused on
curriculum and pedagogy consistent with a “communities of practice” approach (Wenger,
1998).
The initial intention was to replicate Nuttall’s (2011-2012) commissioned project in
Melbourne (see Nuttall, 2013a). However, as is often the case, it soon became clear that
different research questions were required for our Aotearoa/New Zealand context (see
below). Nuttall’s research and consultancy focuses on collective approaches to effective
professional learning in early childhood settings; in the same way, she helped our research
team to understand the conceptual framework that underpins both the coaching and the
research methodology of this study.
3
Introduction to the research study

Through exploring a research focus on leadership it was decided to base this project
on an intervention that had the potential to support and enhance current pedagogical
leadership practices in centres. Our decision to explore pedagogical leadership (over
other forms of leadership) was related to how this form of leadership is deemed to have
a direct relationship with positive outcomes for children (Robinson, Hohepa, � Lloyd,
2009). Because teachers in early childhood education work closely together and share the
responsibility for children’s learning, pedagogical leadership requires leaders to develop
strategies that will assist them to lead and develop the pedagogical practices of their
teams.
The purpose of the study

The purpose of the study was to simultaneously undertake research and development.
This involved trialling a mentoring and coaching methodology that we believed had the
potential to support designated or positional leaders (those who are responsible for the
learning and teaching programme in their early childhood centre/service), in a culturally
diverse range of settings, to understand the centre as a system and not as a group of
individuals. This position reflects the dominance of particular or cultural ways of being
and doing over the individual as the primary source of meaning. Central to the project
is the mobilisation of the professionalism of the teaching team, whereby the designated
leader/s help create the space for all teachers to be leaders. This represents a link with the
notion of distributed leadership; a form of leadership that is currently gaining momentum,
according to the literature (Clarkin-Phillips, 2009; Heikka � Waniganayeke, 2011; Scrivens,
Jordan, Bary, Deans, Charlton, et al., 2007), and is congruent with the collaborative nature
of teaching in early childhood settings in Aotearoa/New Zealand. While leadership can
be exercised without positional power, we wanted to offer support specifically to those
in designated positions, as they ultimately carry the responsibility for ensuring the
pedagogical focus within centres. The project was also designed as a research project,
whereby insights derived from the mentoring and coaching programme are investigated
and made available to the wider early childhood and education community.
Aims and objectives of the research project

This project is framed around four key aims. The first aim was to trial a methodology
that has the potential to empower research participants to implement a sustainable
programme of pedagogical leadership, based on confidently engaging with colleagues in
change conversations to improve teaching and learning within their centres. This involved
the application of Engeström’s (1987, 2001) expansive learning theoretical framework as
a tool to understand the dynamics of change, and thus to support a transformation in
pedagogical leadership in centres. It is hypothesised that pedagogical leadership can be
enhanced through the appropriation of knowledge associated with expansive learning
theory, which itself sits within and draws on the theoretical perspective and theoretical
tools of cultural historical activity theory (CHAT). The project was not designed to make
pedagogical leaders into coaches or mentors; but rather to enable them to learn a new
tool for exerting pedagogical leadership.
4
Introduction
The second aim of our project was to strengthen participants’ (designated pedagogical
leaders) confidence and sense of self efficacy (Weisz-Koves, 2011) in leading and framing
pedagogical discussions through the intervention-based professional learning programme
which was the subject of our research. Educational leadership researcher Viviane Robinson
(cited in Boyd, 2009) asserts that a good educational leader “should be confident in leading
discussions about curriculum, assessment and pedagogy” (p. 38). Robinson, Hohepa and
Lloyd (2009) found that being able to engage in “constructive problem talk” (p. 43) is a key
leadership dimension that impacts on student achievement.
A third aim, linked to the previous one, was to empower pedagogical leaders to build
positive teaching and learning cultures in their settings, based on collective action, by
adapting the model we propose in the professional learning programme.
Finally, our fourth aim was linked to our desire to work across a diverse range of cultural
settings inclusive of kaupapa Māori. With this aim in mind, we sought to explore the
alignment between our understandings of CHAT in relation to kaupapa Māori (Bishop �
Glynn, 1999; G. Smith, 1997; L. Smith, 1999). Kaupapa Māori research, theory, practice
and methodology align directly to some of the core aspects of CHAT. Both are strengths-
based approaches that seek positive outcomes for collective good, with an aim of
transformational change. Questions arise from this discussion about how expansive
learning theory, in its practical application, is understood in and related to centres that
identify as kaupapa Māori. Given the project’s bicultural commitment to Māori as tangata
whenua, it was important to demonstrate how this project played out for centres that are
founded on kaupapa Māori principles. Consequently, it was determined that the cluster
led by kaupapa Māori researchers would specifically target centres that either align
to kaupapa Māori theory or work from a philosophical base grounded in Māori world
views. This fourth aim is a significant variation on the Nuttall (2013a) project, as discussed
previously.
Objectives of the project

These four aims gave rise to two research objectives for this project:
• To trial a methodology that has the potential to support and extend pedagogical
leadership in early childhood centres
• To explore possible alignments between pedagogical leadership in kaupapa Māori
settings, kaupapa Māori research and the theory of expansive learning
Objectives specific to the coaching and mentoring programme were:
• Participants will learn a framework for identifying factors that afford and constrain
pedagogical leadership in their early childhood centre/service
• Participants will develop strategies to lead and develop the pedagogical practice of
their teams in systematic and focused ways
• Participants will develop confidence and a sense of self efficacy as pedagogical
leaders.
5
Research questions
In order to address the purpose and aims of the project and to guide our inquiry, we
framed two key research questions. The first of these was:
• How can pedagogical leadership in early childhood settings in Aotearoa/New
Zealand be transformed through knowledge and understanding of expansive
learning theory?
Initially we expected this question to encompass our desire to work with a culturally diverse
range of settings and their respective leaders, and in particular with centres that identified
as working from a base of kaupapa Māori. However, upon critical scrutiny, dialogue with
our Māori staff and Māori research advisory group identified the relevance of bringing
kaupapa Māori to the fore. Thus the second research question that evolved was:
• How can kaupapa Māori pedagogy and leadership be informed and enhanced by
expansive learning theory?
Of fundamental importance to the discussion of leadership is the Association’s commitment
to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and consequently to kaupapa Māori research, theory and practice
(G. Smith, 1997). Further consideration early in the development of the research proposal
prepared for our internal ethical approval process also raised questions as to how the
research would relate to and impact on Māori aspirations (Robinson � Hohepa, 2010) for
pedagogical leadership.
The place of kaupapa Māori within this project contributes to the conversation about
kaupapa Māori research within the early childhood sector (see Soutar, 2010; Tamati,
Hond-Flavell, � Korewha, 2008). Developing pedagogical leadership in early childhood
settings raises several key areas of discourse in terms of kaupapa Māori research, theory
and practice within the project; but notably also in the organisation of Te Tari Puna Ora
o Aotearoa/New Zealand Childcare Association and early childhood education more
generally (Mane, Armstrong-Read, � Brown-Cooper, in press).
As a project that has a kaupapa Māori cluster as part of a larger project, many would
ask, how does that happen exactly? While the involvement of kaupapa Māori was not
explicitly intended from the inception of the project, it did nevertheless eventuate in the
development of the proposal, in terms of building te Titiriti o Waitangi-based capacity
within the organisation’s bicultural framework. Specific focus on the establishment of a
kaupapa Māori cluster was to be led by a kaupapa Māori research team, consisting of
three Māori researchers who all have whakapapa links to iwi in their region; and who
all live and work in those regions. The specific task of this team has been to explore the
alignments between kaupapa Māori theory, activity theory and expansive learning theory,
as articulated within the second research question.
The research team

Flagship research projects are an integral part of NZCA’s research strategy. These are
designed to contribute to building research capacity within the organisation, whilst also
contributing to the sector. Flagship projects involve experienced researchers, drawn from
within the organisation, working alongside and mentoring colleagues who share a passion
and commitment to research that adds to our knowledge of high quality early childhood
6
Introduction
education. In this project, as previously indicated, we were advised by Associate Professor

Joce Nuttall, who also acted as a critical friend.
The NZCA research team was:
• Drs Kate Ord and Jo Mane: project co-directors/researchers (workshop facilitators,
coaching and mentoring, analysis and writing)
• Sue Smorti: project researcher (workshop facilitator, coaching and mentoring,
analysis and writing)
• Dr Janis Carroll-Lind: project supervisor (writing and editing)
• Lesley Robinson: project researcher (analysis and writing)
• Arvay Armstrong-Read: project researcher (analysis and writing)
• Pikihora Brown-Cooper: project researcher (analysis and writing)
• Juvena Jalal: project researcher (analysis)
• Elena Meredith: project researcher (analysis)
• Debbie Rickard: project researcher (analysis and report editing)
Overview of report
As previously stated, the purpose of this study was to undertake a research and
development project focused on supporting centre leaders to actively lead the development
of pedagogy in their centres. This involved learning what was, to most, a very new and
unfamiliar theoretical framework for envisioning their centres as a system of collective
activity, rather than a collection of individuals who are often referred to as a team (Hard,
2006). This framework, known as cultural historical activity theory (CHAT), was predicted
to have the potential to be used as an analytic tool. This tool could support participants
to understand leadership problems or dilemmas in a different way (Reynolds � Cardno,
2008). Rather than being something to be ‘managed’, they can be used positively as the
basis for productive dialogue within and between teachers, in order to create positive
change both for children and for teachers themselves. This dual approach is inherent in
the nature of the term “pedagogy”. As Loughran (2010, cited Dalli, White, Rockel, � Duhn,
2011, p. 66) explains, “pedagogy is concerned with the relationship between teaching and
learning. Understanding this interplay between teaching and learning and learning and
teaching is an important shift in focus from teaching alone, because it really means that
the two exist together” (p. 36).
This report details the research project and learning journey undertaken by our
participants, as interpreted and re-presented by the research team. In constructing the
report, we have had two interrelated audiences in mind. The first are those leaders
(including our participants) and emerging leaders, in a diverse range of education and
care centres, who wish to access our findings in order to expand their understandings of
pedagogical leadership. While we did not extend invitations to participate in the study to
kindergarten teachers, we see this report as being of interest to them too. Secondly, we
offer this report as part of the evolving research-based dialogue on leadership within the
teacher research community.
7
This report is by no means a definitive account of our findings. Like other research studies
located in interpretive and qualitative traditions, it is only one of many possible accounts.
As such, it represents our first in-depth analysis of the data, and we are committed to
subsequent analyses and re-presentations. Other accounts from the perspective and
authorship of participants are in preparation. The report follows a fairly conventional
pattern: setting the research and development project within relevant literature, outlining
our methodological framework and approach, presenting the findings, and ending with a
discussion and conclusion.
Organisation of chapters
In this introductory chapter (Chapter 1), we have located the project within the current
context of interest in leadership within early childhood over the past decade, beginning
with its identification in the 2002 early childhood strategic plan (Ministry of Education,
2002). The specific focus for the study was aligned with pedagogical leadership, because
of its concerns both with children’s learning and well-being and with the learning and
development of research participants. We have gratefully acknowledged the relationship
between this study and that of Associate Professor Joce Nuttall, and have also briefly
discussed the ways in which this project varies from hers. While the project substantially
draws on her methodology, including workshop content and the coaching and mentoring
programme (see Chapter 3), we have included kaupapa Māori research principles across
the project and more specifically in one research cluster. This is expressed as a Tiriti o
Waitangi responsibility and constitutes an ongoing research narrative in subsequent
chapters of the report.
In Chapter 2 we present three bodies of research literature related to our study: on
leadership in early childhood education, with an emphasis on local studies, including
those located within kaupapa Māori frameworks; on current approaches to professional
learning; and on coaching and mentoring programmes. All three point to a more dynamic
and complex picture of teacher learning than is often portrayed in public discourses about
teaching and in earlier scholarly publications (see Cochran-Smith � Fries, 2005; Ord,
2010). The chapter provides a background for locating the study.
Chapter 3 presents the methodological frameworks for the study; kaupapa Māori and
expansive learning theory, including the evolution of cultural historical activity theory and
the methods. It then presents an analysis of possible alignments between kaupapa Māori
theory and activity theory. Next comes an account of data generation methods, selection
and recruitment of participants, and ethical procedures. In this section we discuss the
determination of three discrete research clusters. Each cluster included a lead researcher
who led and facilitated a series of workshops and carried out the coaching and mentoring
aspect of the project, together with two supporting researchers and participants from
selected centres who were all designated leaders. As will be explained, these participants
were encouraged to take part in the project in pairs. Two clusters had participants from six
education and care centres in two different geographical regions; the third, our kaupapa
Māori cluster, had participants from four centres in a third region.
Chapters 4, 5 and 6 present our findings to date. In Chapter 4 we give a narrative based
account of how participants in the kaupapa Māori cluster came to learn (or appropriate)
the model offered through the workshops and the follow-up coaching and mentoring
8
Introduction
programme. The analysis begins to address our question about the alignments between
kaupapa Māori and expansive learning theory (this discussion is continued in Chapter 7).
In Chapter 5 we look at the ways in which participants across all three clusters engaged
with and made sense of the tool of activity theory. Learning this tool is a prerequisite to
understanding expansive learning theory and exploiting the productive potential of this
theory for pedagogical leadership.
Chapter 6 builds on the previous two chapters and presents an analysis which directly
addresses our research question about the way in which pedagogical leadership can be
transformed through knowledge and understanding of expansive learning theory. Here
we argue that our data provides sufficient evidence that it is possible to support centre
leaders to appropriate the tool of third generation activity theory and that this, in turn,
can support and enhance pedagogical leadership in centres. While we perhaps too
cautiously claim that these are ‘flickers’ of understanding, rather than deeply entrenched
transformations, we are excited by our findings.
Our final chapter (Chapter 7) begins by revisiting the theoretical model as a mediating tool
for pedagogical leadership. We then continue the discussion begun in each of the three
preceding chapters, addressing our research questions more specifically and responding
to the objectives of the project, which to a great extent mirror our aims. This is followed
by a consideration of the professional learning model used in the project, linking this back
to the literature discussed in Chapter 2. The chapter concludes with the implications of
the study, and future directions.
9
CHAPTER 2:
Background to the study and
literature review
In order to locate the study, we present overviews of three bodies of literature: on
leadership, with an emphasis on pedagogical leadership; on professional learning; and on
coaching and mentoring; a subset of professional learning.
Leadership in early childhood education

Ten years ago, Cushla Scrivens (2003). describing the state of knowledge about leadership
in early childhood education, wrote that this constituted “a rather muddled collection
of literature that doesn’t fit together well” (p. 29). Certainly a key message from the
literature and commentary about leadership in early childhood education is that it lacks a
consensual core of definition, understanding and theoretical framing. Nivala (2002) calls
this “leadership confusion” (p. 14), and attributes it to models of educational leadership
not having their own identity, but rather being related to the adoption and/or adaption of
leadership models and discourses that originated in the business world. In a similar vein to
Scrivens, Nivala writes, “the more you read, the more it is difficult to build a clear picture
of what is good leadership or what skills you need or you have to develop to call yourself
a good leader” (p. 14).
More recently, an occasional paper by Thornton et al. (2009) explored the current state
of leadership and leadership development within Aotearoa/New Zealand. They paid
considerable attention to a range of issues and dilemmas facing leadership generally in
early childhood, and identified six areas which we briefly discuss here. The first is “the low
profile of leadership” within the early childhood research community, despite there being
“considerable potential” (p. 5) for this research. Reasons given for this low profile include
reluctance from those working in the sector to engage with the notion of leadership,
and, interestingly, similar reluctance to explore relevant models generated in the school
sector and elsewhere. Central to this discussion is how the notion of leadership is to be
constructed within the sector, and the relevance of emphasis on a single person, in a
sector that generally constitutes groups of teachers working collaboratively. The evidence
presented suggests the gendered nature of the early childhood teaching workforce
means that it does not warm to dominant discourses of leadership located in masculine
constructions.
10
Background to the study and literature review
The second issue noted is the “lack of an accepted definition or common understanding
of leadership” (p. 6). This is linked to there being no consensual concept of leadership,
possibly because of the diversity of the sector, with its diverse programmes and structures
(community, private, corporate/institution). In Bloom’s (2003, cited in Thornton et al.,
2009) terms, this makes leadership an elusive phenomenon. However, according to Kagan
and Hallmark (2001, cited in Thornton et al., 2009), diversity is a positive feature, as it
allows a range of approaches to leadership to be explored. We see this playing out in the
current context, where leadership within kaupapa Māori settings is providing impetus in
leadership research (as discussed below).
A third issue noted by Thornton et al. (2009) is the “confusion between leadership
and management/terminology used in the sector which emphasises management
over leadership” (p. 8). The fact that early childhood education and care services are
often standalone enterprises and have historically been located outside the education
sector may be responsible for this blurring of the boundary between leadership and
management. Thornton et al. cite literature that locates the management/ leadership split
in the predominance and influence of management discourses over the last two decades.
This confusion is arguably about to decline. Newer discourses and models of leadership
are beginning to make more explicit use of terms such as ‘educational leadership’ and
‘pedagogical leadership’, to signify a more specific focus for leadership as opposed to
management. There has also been rising interest in the notion of distributed leadership
(Clarkin-Phillips, 2007, 2009; Muijs, Aubrey, Harris, � Briggs, 2004; Rodd, 2006; Scrivens,
2006), which appears to resonate with early childhood teachers and their collaborative
teaching contexts more than the notion of a sole leader. This may also help to clarify the
relationship between leadership and management.
A fourth issue for Thornton and colleagues is linked to how leadership in early childhood
education can be taken up by “newly qualified, less experienced teachers taking on
leadership positions” (p. 9). (The research cited here is local and attributed to the change
in regulatory requirements for qualified teachers.) Such teachers ‘find’ themselves
in leadership positions with limited experience even as teachers, let alone sufficient
experience across a range of teaching experiences and roles, which would arguably enhance
their leadership capacities. This presents a particular problem when leadership is held
within the person/position, and is not considered to be a more collective responsibility.
Thornton et al.’s fifth and sixth issues respectively address the “lack of emphasis on
leadership in the early childhood sector by the Ministry of Education” (p. 9) — an issue
raised previously in this report — and a “lack of leadership development programmes
in ECE” (p. 11). These two issues are compared by Thornton et al. with the substantive
provisions for leadership policy and provision within the schools sector. A cumulative
effect of this situation is a lack of preparedness, both structurally and professionally, for
leadership within our sector. The lack of leadership programmes identified by Thornton
et al. lends weight to our decision to incorporate both research and development within
the one project.
In returning to Scrivens’s (2003) appraisal of the literature as a “muddled collection”
(p. 29), Thornton and colleagues suggest that clarity around the notion of leadership, as
both a lived and researched phenomenon, is a ‘work in progress’. Two very different but
equally promising lines of inquiry are currently being explored in the research literature.
The first is distributed leadership, and the second focuses on the dilemmas of leadership.
11
Distributed leadership
Distributed leadership “recognises the role that all professionals within an educational
setting play in implementing change, and that it is through collaboration and collectivity
that expertise is developed” (Clarkin-Phillips, 2009, p. 22). A focus on collaboration and
collectivity works well in educational settings such as early childhood education, given the
nature of teaching in this sector.
For Clarkin-Phillips (2009), distributed leadership is a strengths-based approach whereby
those working together call on their strengths and interests, and this in turn allows greater
agency and motivation. In their review of the literature on distributed leadership, Bennett,
Wise, Woods and Harvey (2003) note that it was difficult to find a clear definition of
distributed or devolved leadership, as few such definitions existed in the literature they
reviewed. This is possibly because this conceptualisation of leadership is relatively new
and still evolving. For example, Bennett et al.’s search of the literature initially restricted
the search to publications from 1988 onwards, but this yielded few studies, and bringing
the date forward to 1996 “made almost no difference” (p. 4). Bennett et al. suggest that
this lack of clarity around a clear definition is due to the many different definitions of
leadership that already exist. They note that many of the studies they reviewed defined
distributed leadership in ways that closely mirrored existing conceptions. The situation
is further confused by the pragmatics of ‘leading’ and ‘leadership’, and the distinctions
between leading/leadership and ‘management’ (Bennett et al., 2003).
In the absence of a clear definition, Bennett et al. (2003) concluded that it was nevertheless
possible to identify a cluster of “three distinctive elements of the concept of distributed
leadership” (p. 7). One of these in particular foregrounds the notion of leadership as being
“an emergent property of a group or network of interacting individuals” (p. 7), rather
than the property of an individual. Drawing on Gronn’s (2002) analysis, Bennett et al.
appropriate the concept of ‘concertive action’ to give distributed leadership an edge that
distinguishes it from other forms of leadership. Concertive action is described by Bennett
et al. (2003) as being:
…about the additional dynamic which is the product of conjoint activity. Where
people work together in such a way as to pool their initiative and expertise, the
outcome is a product or energy which is greater than the sum of their individual
actions (p. 7)
The other two elements named by Bennett et al. (2003) include an openness to the
boundaries of leadership, within (and possibly beyond) the community in which
leadership is exercised, and a related idea that “varieties of expertise are distributed
across the many, not the few” (p. 7). Gronn’s (2002) work is located in third generation
activity theory, as espoused by Finnish researcher Engeström. Within this form of activity
theory, it is collective agency, as opposed to individual agency, that makes things happen
in organisations. Gronn (2002) suggests that a growing dissatisfaction with the notion
of visionary leadership and organisational change, in favour of flatter structures and
ideas about organisational learning, have fuelled interest in the notion of distributed
leadership. Within the education sector, new knowledge technologies and information
age requirements are promoting a “normative view, that distributed leadership is a more
effective way of coping with a complex, information rich society” (as cited in Bennett et
al, 2003, p. 17).
12
More recently, a number of Aotearoa/New Zealand studies (Bary et al. 2008; Clarkin-
Phillips, 2009; Scrivens et al., 2007) have explored the construct of distributed leadership.
These studies find strong links between this form of leadership and pedagogical decision-
making that leads to positive pedagogical change. For example, Clarkin-Phillips suggests
that “learning environments become richer due to the contribution of all players”… [and]
“a significant factor in empowering teachers and affording them opportunities for ongoing
learning and leadership development” (p. 26). Similarly, Scrivens et al. discuss how
professional knowledge was strengthened through professional dialogue and pedagogical
challenge that surfaced in their exploration and experience of distributed leadership. In
the context of our study, the decision to focus on working with designated leaders did not
exclude or ignore the literature that attests to how everyone can, in a sense, be a leader
(Clarkin-Phillips, 2009).
Dilemmas of leadership
Cardno and Reynolds (2009; see also Reynolds � Cardno, 2008) argue that a central task of
leadership is the capacity to help resolve complex problems or what they term dilemmas.
Drawing on Hoy and Miskel (2005, cited in Cardno � Reynolds, 2009) “a dilemma arises
when one is confronted with decision alternatives in which any choice sacrifices some
valued objective in the interest of other objectives” (p. 208). Reynolds and Cardno propose
that early childhood leaders need a theoretical tool to enable them to address these
complex dilemmas. The tool they suggest is ‘productive reasoning’, based on the work of
Argyris and Schön. This framework supports leaders in confronting dilemmas and creating
learning cultures in ECE services that are committed to solving dilemmas or problems.
This work (conducted in both education and care centres and kindergartens) strongly
indicates that the capability to identify and resolve dilemmas is an important feature of
achieving organisational goals, such as pedagogical goals. Of interest to the current study
is the authors’ assertion that a theoretical model is required to shift leadership practices
to embrace dilemmas, as being productive of professional learning.
The interface between Māori leadership and pedagogical

leadership
Māori leadership is critical to the discussions and understandings of pedagogical
leadership, particularly in the context of Aotearoa/New Zealand. Tu Rangatira (Robinson
� Hohepa, 2010) provides significant insight into key aspects of leadership within Māori-
medium learning settings, highlighting the character of Māori leadership as holding
multiple responsibilities. With a distinct focus on ‘expanding’ learner potential, its aim
is to inform and strengthen leadership practice within the Māori medium sector. Tu
Rangatira is underpinned by a framework based on the concept of a korowai, a symbol of
prestige, leadership and accomplishment, intertwined with concepts of care, protection
and warmth.
The multiple responsibilities of Māori leadership are clearly defined in this document by
interweaving seven key roles of leadership with seven key areas of focus. The seven key
roles of leadership are defined as:
• He Kaitiaki — guardian
• He Kaiwhakarite — manager
13
• He Kanohi Matāra — visionary

• He Kaiako — teacher and learner
• He Kaimahi — worker
• He Kaikōtuhtuhi — networker
• He Kaiarataki — advocate
The seven key focus areas for leadership are:
• Mana Mokopuna — placing the learning at the heart
• Mana Wairua — spiritual and holistic well-being
• Mana Tangata — recognising that relationships are critical to effective practice
• Mana Reo — the preservation of te reo Māori
• Mana Tikanga — Māori customs and protocols
• Mana Mātauranga Māori — Māori discourses and knowledge
• Mana-A-Kura — the uniqueness of each kura
Tu Rangatira’s framework therefore highlights a fundamental connection between key
principles of Māori leadership within teaching and learning environments and pedagogical
leadership. Outlined in the summary of key roles and focus areas of leadership mentioned
above are key concepts that promote strength, opportunity and success (Robinson �
Hohepa, 2012) for Māori students. High teacher expectation is also a given within this
framework.
Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd (2009) and Robinson and Hohepa (2010) provide some key
definitions, concepts and discussion particular to Māori leadership for this body of work;
as do recent research publications regarding Centres of Innovation projects funded though
the Ministry of Education (Soutar, 2010; Tamati, Hond-Flavell, � Korewha, 2008; Te Kopae
Piripono, 2006). Although the work undertaken by Robinson and Hohepa does not draw
from the experience of early childhood education, it is perhaps one of the few publications
to date that provides clear discourse in relation to the multiple roles and responsibilities
involved in Māori leadership; and the significant interface with pedagogical leadership.
Skerrett’s (2010) response to Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd’s (2009) Best Evidence
Synthesis acknowledges the leadership that exists within whānau, hapū and iwi. With
Māori leadership evident in Māori-medium education, particularly in the initiatives of
Kōhanga Reo and Kura Kaupapa Māori which were led and driven by Māori; it is suggested
that key aspects of Māori leadership have much to offer the understanding and practices
of pedagogical leadership more generally (Te Kopae Piripono, 2006).
While there is a building body of literature specific to Māori leadership, research
studies about Māori leadership within mainstream early childhood settings are scarce.
Nevertheless, new areas of literature emerging in recent years represent the views and
experience of Māori immersion early childhood settings (Soutar, 2010; Tamati, Hond-
Flavell, � Korewha, 2008). While there are few Māori immersion early childhood centres
as yet, several are seen as featuring highly innovative leadership initiatives. The importance
of sharing these successes cannot be over-stated in terms of providing inspiration for both
existing and aspiring Māori medium initiatives. It is also critical to showcase the success of
initiatives that actively seek to revitalise Māori language, culture, identity and knowledge.
Notably, these centres are driven from strong whānau and community based commitment
to te reo Māori me ōna tikanga.
14
Two research studies, accounts of which were published as part of the early childhood
Centres of Innovation projects (Soutar, 2010; Tamati, Hond-Flavell, � Korewha, 2008; Te
Kopae Piripono, 2006), are at the cutting edge of literature on Māori leadership in the
early childhood sector. These are discussed below.
Te Kōpae Piripono
Undertaken as part of a Taranaki-based early childhood Māori immersion initiative, Te
Kōpae Piripono focused on the following three research questions:
1. How does whānau development at Te Kōpae Piripono foster leadership, across all
levels, to enhance children’s learning and development?
2. How might leadership look for an individual whānau member, be that a child, a
parent or a teacher? and
3. What might it specifically entail for the whānau as a collective whole?
With its clear focus on leadership and whānau, the project highlighted roles, responsibilities
and relationships (Tamati, Hond-Flavell, � Korewha, 2008; Te Kōpae Piripono, 2006)
as important to defining clear accountabilities for whānau of Te Kōpae Piripono. Both
individual and collective philosophies were considered in their ‘evolving theory of
leadership’ (Tamati et al., 2008). Notably, the research is further informed by the premise
that every person, whether child or adult, has a right, responsibility and ability to lead
(Lambert, 2002). As a result of this research, Te Kōpae Piripono came up with the following
areas of responsibility, referred to as Ngā Takohanga e Wha:
• Te Whai Takohanga — Having Responsibility — relates to having designated roles
and positions of responsibility.
• Te Mouri Takohanga — Being Responsible — relates to an individual’s attitude
and actions. Being responsible is about being professional, acting ethically and
appropriately, being honest, being positive, and being open to others and different
perspectives.
• Te Kawe Takohanga — Taking Responsibility — relates to courage, risk-taking, having
a go, taking up the challenge and trying new things.
• Te Tuku Takohanga — Sharing Responsibility — relates to sharing power, roles and
positions, but more than this, to relationships. Sharing responsibility denotes an
interaction and engagement with others, being able to listen to others’ points
of view, acknowledging different perspectives, and also asking for and providing
assistance.
These responsibilities, as outlined above, encapsulate leadership in all aspects of
functioning as a collective. Essentially, they highlight the expectations and, accordingly,
the contributions that are made by members of the collective. Importantly, these
responsibilities also rely on human interaction, where relationships are considered pivotal
to working as a collective system. It is significant to add that while Te Kōpae Piripono
provides a current and contemporary view of Māori leadership, the responsibilities have
a strong alignment to traditional concepts and practices within Māori societal structure.
Lambert (2002) considers the definition of leadership in determining how people are
enabled to participate in the notion of leadership, as both individuals and collective
members. For the whānau of Te Kōpae Piripono, drawing from the past has been
15
important to determining the future. With the emphasis on every person being able to
lead, the role of children as leaders is clearly stated where leadership is assumed as a
norm within the setting. This represents a shift from traditional forms of leadership as
residing in a single person, or just a few people. It also incorporates the evolving discussion
and implementation of distributed leadership, as discussed above. Additionally, it moves
discourses of leadership, and specifically pedagogical leadership, beyond a child-focused
approach of pedagogical leadership to a more expansive view of what leadership might
entail.
Te Kōhanga Reo o Mana Tamariki

Another Centres of Innovation project undertaken by one of the leaders of Māori immersion
education, Mana Tamariki, is briefly discussed here. As an education setting committed
to the revitalisation of te reo Māori me ona tikanga, Mana Tamariki also looks to global
initiatives to inform and reaffirm their pedagogical practice. In particular, the importance
of whānau development to language revitalisation strategies is noted as critical (Soutar,
2010). The link between building and strengthening whanaungatanga is highlighted as it
further relates to Māori leadership and pedagogical leadership.
These studies emphasise the role of Māori leadership as dynamic, in that it incorporates
multiple functions. Highlighted are the expectations of both individual and collective
responsibilities of leadership, and the notion of everyone being a leader. It is significant
that while child-focused learning sits at the heart of their initiatives, Te Kōpae Piripono
and Te Kōhanga Reo o Mana Tamariki work from a position that draws from the centrality
of whanaungatanga; a concept explored within our study.
Professional Learning
As our research project was dialectic between research and development, we turn now
to overview literature that illuminates professional teacher learning, where learning is a
precursor to development.
An effective leader continues to learn and develop. Professional learning should be
responsive to the evolving needs of leaders, as they develop their leadership capabilities.
To gain a clear picture of the role of coaching and mentoring within professional learning
programmes requires a two-pronged approach. First, we review the literature and related
research on professional learning, before looking more specifically at the role of coaching
and mentoring in such programmes.
Professional learning and its importance in early

childhood education
Professional learning and development is about the growth of an individual and his or
her organisation. Growth occurs through change and transformation, as well as through
support and challenge (Robertson, 2005).
Professional learning is identified as one of the key reasons for the success of the early
childhood education system in New Zealand (McLachlan, 2011). According to Sheridan,
Edwards, Marvin and Knoche (2009), it can be defined as a “number of experiences
16
that promote education, training and development opportunities for early childhood
practitioners who do or will work with young children” (p. 379). It is widely documented
that such experiences generate change in teachers’ practice and pedagogy, and lead to
positive outcomes for children and their learning (Buysse, Winton � Rous, 2009; Mitchell
� Cubey, 2003; Thornton, 2003).
Whilst positive outcomes for students are at the heart of professional learning, it is
important that professional learning opportunities meet the needs of all stakeholders:
students and families, teachers and centres, government priorities and, importantly,
tangata whenua (Thornton, 2003). In relation to this last group, Education Review Office
(ERO) (2008) recommends that early childhood services provide “support, encouragement
and professional development for managers and teachers to build their capability in
implementing policies and practices that include knowledge of Māori culture, te reo
and tikanga” (p. 16). Education is a dynamic, professional field, and teachers need to be
consistently refining and expanding their knowledge and understandings about learning
and teaching, in order to keep these current and effective (Guskey, 2000).
Principles of effective professional learning

Feiman-Nemser and Norman (2000) describe four key principles for effective professional
learning. It:
1. provides meaningful, sustained engagement with colleagues, ideas and materials
for deeper learning;
2. takes account of the contexts and the experiences of the teachers and helps them
to consider the ‘fit’ between new ideas and prevailing norms and practices;
3. supports critical discussion that promotes the assessment of alternatives, the close
examination of underlying assumptions, and the search for evidence; and
4. is placed within the educational setting and its wider culture and is organised around
common concerns and collaborative problem-solving, thus helping participants to
view their practice and leadership roles in relation to the work of others (pp. 749–
750).
One of the key success factors in effective professional learning is ensuring sufficient time
is available to provide opportunities for sustained enriched learning dialogue, so that the
professional conversations encourage the use of critical consciousness and the application
of theoretical considerations to underpin and transform professional practice (Bevan-
Brown et al., 2011; Robertson, 2005, 2011; Stoll, 2011). In addition, participants need to be
able to develop active problem-solving techniques that are sustainable over time. There is
a greater likelihood of this occurring when theory is valued and skills are embedded within
the programme (Bevan-Brown et al., 2011).
As much attention needs to be given to the conditions that promote deep professional
learning as to the content itself (Timperley, 2011). During group sessions, in particular, the
dynamics of the group need to be conducive to developing coaching relationships, in order
to capture the energy and dialogue and then build on it (Robertson, 2005). The venue
should be comfortable and away from the distraction of the participants’ daily practice.
17
Key issues in professional learning

Professional learning is an effective way to maintain professional standards. However,
there are concerns about the quality and effectiveness of professional learning (Cullen,
2009). Two issues are well documented: (1) changes in teaching and learning require
fundamental changes in teachers’ knowledge and their working relationships with children
and colleagues; and (2) traditional forms of professional development are not working
(Feiman-Nemser � Norman, 2000; Timperley, 2011).
Roberts, Crawford and Hickman (2010) describe professional learning initiatives in
education as “fodder for debate” and “frequently criticised because of their lack of
effectiveness” (p. 258). Similarly, Lieberman and Wood (2001, p. 174) maintain that
the history of professional learning for teachers “is the landscape littered with failed
approaches” (cited in Hedges, 2010, p. 300).
A variety of reasons are cited for this lack of effectiveness. Critiques contend that initiatives
are frequently too limited and fragmented to prompt change in teacher practice. Guskey
(2000) argues that the stand-alone model of professional learning is not robust, and
encourages teachers to “view new ideas as passing fancies” (p. 20). As Feiman-Nemser and
Norman (2000) note, the conventional ‘one size fits all’ approach does not take account of
different contexts, needs, interests and concerns. Nor do those one-off in-service courses
or conferences provide continuity, follow-up or links to the goals of the participants’
settings. Fleet and Patterson (2009) assert that sustained change is undermined by the
lack of support after stand-alone events. The lack of theoretical frameworks for traditional
professional learning initiatives is also cited as a reason for lack of effectiveness (Edwards
� Nuttall, 2009; Eun, 2008; Wood � Bennett, 2000).
Despite such concerns, there continues to be significant support for the intentions and
purposes of professional learning, in the belief that potentially it can support teachers to
“enrich their knowledge and increase their sense of professionalism over the course of
their careers so as to implement current research-based practice” (Goble � Horn, 2010,
p. 87).
Diverse models/approaches
There is a wide variety of models and approaches for professional learning, ranging from
stand-alone events that include workshops, lectures, presentations and conferences to
engagements that typically involve coaching and mentoring, consultation, teacher inquiry
and communities of practice (Sheridan, Edwards, Marvin � Knoche, 2009). The former
models frequently take a motivational and/or information giving stance, whilst the latter
models tend to be longer term and typically involve external expertise. There is increasing
support for initiatives with a sustained timeframe; however, there is also support for
initiatives that use a mixed method approach. Guskey (2000) states that “combining
models in thoughtful ways can provide a highly effective means to professional growth
and improvement at both the individual and organizational levels” (p. 29).
Reconceptualising of professional learning

In recent years there have been important shifts in the way that the early childhood sector
perceives and theorises the practice of developing teachers. The post-modern trends to
challenge normative assumptions and foreground social and cultural diversity that led
18
to the reconceptualising of early childhood education are also permeating the field of
professional learning (Edwards, 2007; Wood, 2009).
There is scholarly support to move professional learning from a technical-rational model,
where initiatives have tended to be policy led with a top down transmission of ideas and
practices, to a post-developmental perspective where teachers are active learners who
construct their own learning, and the complexity of their work is acknowledged (Blaise,
2009). The traditional view of adult development as linear with generic stages is seen as
simplistic and deficit-based, and there is the intent to move to a more constructivist view
of knowledge (Fleet � Patterson, 2001). These shifts are reflected in the trend to replace
the traditional term of ‘professional development’ with ‘professional learning’ (Edwards
� Nuttall, 2009). The change in terminology positions teachers as knowledgeable and
empowered “with emotional and intellectual investment” (Fleet � Patterson, 2001, p. 3)
in their own development. These deep shifts in the field are leading to the application
of a relatively new wave of theoretical perspectives to professional learning, including
sociocultural theory, cultural historical activity theory and post-structural theory (Edwards,
2009a).
Foregrounding of context
There is support in the literature for situating professional learning in the everyday reality
of teachers’ work and acknowledging ‘on the ‘job’ elements of the work. Mitchell and
Cubey (2003) identified positive effects in practice when teachers are given opportunities
to work on their own issues and explore real examples of pedagogy in their own settings.
Howe, Jacobs, Vukelich and Recchia (2012) conclude, from their study into different models
of professional learning initiatives, that approaches need to be more flexible and tailored
to individual sites. This foregrounding of the local setting acknowledges that teachers
are embedded in a local and cultural context which gives meaning to and mediates their
learning (Fleet � Patterson, 2009; Nuttall, Coxon � Read, 2009).
Centrality of teachers’ beliefs

A key theme in the literature on professional learning is the centrality of teacher beliefs
and the view of the teacher as a powerful learner. Mitchell and Cubey (2003) found that
a key characteristic of effective professional learning is the utilisation of teachers’ own
aspirations, skills, knowledge, and understandings, as a starting point for the introduction
of new ideas and practices. Grey (2011) underlines the importance of a trusting and caring
environment. Dewar and Sharp note, “Teachers need to be trusted to form their own
interpretations of practice in a way that is meaningful to them, so they can control and
own any shift in thinking” (cited in Grey, 2011, p. 25). Wood and Bennett (2000) explain
that understanding teacher theories and exploring the relationships between theories
and practice can be powerful, as this can illuminate the tacit beliefs that may be influential
drivers of practice. Edwards (2007, 2009) agrees with the imperative of acknowledging
and attending to the cultural capital of teachers, and argues that this is crucially a more
productive area to explore than the perceived gap between theory and practice. It is
argued that such approaches “value the situated nature of teacher knowledge and use
them as a basis for engaging in professional learning that generates conceptual change”
(Edwards, 2009a, p. 84).
19
The individual and collaborative nature of learning

Contemporary perspectives are expanding the traditional focus on the individual to
include an examination of the dynamic and complex ways in which learning is shared
and mediated within a system (Georgeson, 2009; Nuttall � Edwards, 2009; Sheridan et
al., 2009). This new area of interest seeks to throw light on the distributed nature of
professional learning and affords more critical engagement of teachers. There is interest
in the relational and collaborative dimensions of professional growth, including the
influence of those recruited from outside, such as facilitators, critical friends, academics
and researchers (Fleet � Patterson, 2001; Hedges, 2010; Helterbran � Fennimore, 2004).
A range of innovative methodologies reflects this growing area of interest; action research,
communities of learners/practice, teacher inquiry, collaborative research, reflective
practice and developmental work research. These new models of professional learning
provide teachers with opportunities to participate in critical learning forums and discourse
communities (Wood, 2009; Wood � Bennett, 2000).
How do teachers construct and reconstruct their practice?

How teachers change their theories and practice is another emerging theme in the
literature. New ways to theorise and inform the process of change are of interest, as the
limitations of stage theory of development are recognised. A small but growing body of
research is illuminating this process of growth. Lines of inquiry include questions such
as: How do teachers appropriate new theoretical frameworks? What is the process of
change? Why do some teachers change more than others? What are the affordances and
the constraints to change? Sheridan et al. (2009) argue that research needs to address
not only the forms of professional learning, but also the processes — “the underlying
mechanisms responsible for change” (p. 379).
Nuttall, Coxon and Read’s (2009) small-scale study found that the dispositions of teachers
are critical in the process of growth, and argues that “learning dispositions are important
because they foster teacher agency in the face of structures that can limit teachers’
learning” (p. 112). Guskey (2010) challenges the view that change in beliefs must take place
before new ideas are put into practice. He contends that change occurs after teachers
experience success in the implementation of new ideas and practices. “The crucial point
is that it is not the professional development per se, but the experience of successful
implementation that changes teachers’ attitudes and beliefs” (Guskey, 2010, p. 383).
Wood and Bennett’s (2000) study of teachers’ theories and practice of play led the authors
to argue that change is supported by a three stage process, whereby teachers first bring
their personal and informal theories to a conscious level of awareness, then problematise
their practice, which leads them to reconceptualise their practice. The authors and the
participants in this study identified opportunities for reflection as being critical for growth.
Edwards’ (2007) research examined the processes of adopting a new theoretical
framework. This study found that teachers’ appropriation of sociocultural theory occurs
as a result of engagement in repeated cycles of reflection, beginning with reflection on
existing practices. Edwards (2007) concludes that factors such as opportunities for teachers
to reflect on existing practices, to trial new ways of working, to share new models with
colleagues and to consolidate new practices all contributed to the generation of change.
Similar findings on the role of reflection were reported by Fleet and Patterson (2001) in
their large-scale study involving 75 teachers from 12 centres. The authors highlight the
20
importance of positioning teachers as empowered learners who “build their working

knowledge through spirals of engagement over time” (Fleet � Patterson, 2001, p. 1).
Intervention-based professional learning programmes

The coaching methodology for the present study employs an intervention-based
professional learning model. Another New Zealand study (Bevan-Brown, Bourke, Butler,
Carroll-Lind, Kearney, � Mentis, 2011) identified seven components for an effective,
integrated professional development and intervention-based model:
1. Team interaction (learning from, with, and about each other, ensuring contextual
relevancy and input from all);
2. Cultural relevance (identifying and acknowledging cultural backgrounds and
legitimising this knowledge base);
3. Expert facilitation (using credible and approachable facilitators with knowledge of
the topic and expert facilitation skills);
4. Integrated professional development and intervention (combining both professional
development and intervention to occur simultaneously, thus ensuring a needs-
based and needs analysis focus and cultural relevancy);
5. Theory into practice (reflecting on course content and pedagogical approach, using
contemporary theories of learning);
6. Time for reflection, practice and action (allowing time both during and outside
course attendance to analyse, apply and evaluate problem-solving strategies); and
7. Authentic context (applying insights learnt in the PD context to real-life settings).
In an intervention-based professional learning programme, the role of the facilitator
should be to “encourage and provide opportunities for defining and solving problems and
for reflection and collaboration” (Carter � Curtis, 2010, p. 122). Carter and Curtis consider
that participants are most likely to bring more energy to their work and contribute to the
growth of their organisation as a learning community when they are supported in their
own professional development, particularly around goal-setting and creating strategies.
Coaching support is necessary because, as Timperley (2011) warns, the difficulties in
stepping outside one’s own frame of reference make it harder for people to identify their
own professional learning needs.
Coaching and mentoring within intervention-based professional

learning programmes
The current project defined the terms coaching and mentoring as follows. First, the
facilitators ‘coached’ in relation to the group sessions (i.e., group coaching during
workshop sessions) and ‘mentored’ during the individual or paired follow-up interview
sessions. We differentiate between the terms because it is not realistic to mentor during
group sessions, given the level of personalisation required. Coaching, on the other hand,
can work with groups, because it involves advice about general strategies. However, for
the purpose of this literature review, we use the terms synonymously.
Professional learning for teachers requires two learning tasks. The first involves
learning new skills and strategies. The second requires a different form of professional
development, because it includes helping teachers to transform their perspectives and
21
practice. For teachers to improve their practice, collegial support is needed to enable them
to participate in ongoing serious and sustained conversations about their work (Feiman-
Nemser � Norman, 2000).
Coaching and mentoring helps to sustain leaders and leadership (John, 2008). The
process also offers new conceptions of leadership enquiry and learning development,
by providing the professional support and challenge necessary for critical reflection on
leadership practice (Robertson, 2004, 2005). Robertson (2005) describes coaching as
a powerful learning methodology, because it enables the leadership development most
likely to grow “an organisational culture in which authentic learning and leadership are
the two key components for all participants” (p. 197). According to Robertson, this model
facilitates quality leadership development by interrupting accepted ways of interacting,
and freeing participants to engage in new and more productive interactions. In so doing
it creates within them a deeper understanding of their own professional requirements.
Educative coaching and mentoring is not an instinctive activity. It consists of a set of
learned skills, and has a knowledge base into which mentors must be inducted. Mentors
can act as mentors only to the extent that they understand the possibilities of the role
in a particular situation (Edwards � Collison, 1996). A subtle mentoring skill is the ability
to identify and strategically use ‘entry points’ for learning (Moir, Barlin, Gless, � Miles,
2009, p. 57). Coaching and mentoring is not telling people what to do. It is helping them
to examine their actions in the light of their intentions (Edwards � Collison, 1996). Baron,
Moir, and Gless (2005) maintain that coaching has the capacity to improve practice and
change attitudes and beliefs through:
• a collaborative relationship built on trust and mutual respect;
• ongoing, regular coaching sessions;
• a focus on inquiry about practice;
• strong reflective conversation skills by the coach; and
• use of data to guide reflection and determine future actions (p. 88).
Baron and colleagues also advise that successful coaching and mentoring is based on:
(1) building a sense of community and being a team member; (2) promoting thoughtful
decision-making and reflection; (3) encouraging an internal locus of control and autonomy;
and (4) developing a strong sense of efficacy and resourcefulness (Baron et al., 2005,
p. 88).
Early childhood mentors bring to the mentoring process their knowledge and experience
of early childhood services and multidisciplinary working, as well as their knowledge of
organisational dynamics, power politics and the effects of change (John, 2008). They
understand the challenges of holding on to one’s beliefs and values within a workplace
where opposing beliefs and values are dominant. Change that challenges closely held core
values and beliefs linked to professional practice is most likely to provoke the most intense
discomfort (Isaac � Trodd, 2008). Of relevance to this research study is that mentors are
able to identify the seeming “contradictions and ambiguities that characterise complex
organisations and meaningful human interactions” (John, 2008, p. 58). In their 2008
article, Isaac and Trodd make the further link between Engeström’s expansive learning
theory (on which our research study is based), and its empowerment of learning teams to
come together to pursue a common goal, in such a way that everyone is able to articulate
their knowledge in action, make their differences explicit and explore alternatives together
(p. 44).
22
In essence, “coaching leadership can provide the deep learning in context that is necessary
to facilitate the self-awareness essential to creating the disposition to change one’s
practice” (Robertson, 2011, p. 223). However, coaching leaders consists of more than just
the transmission of information; it is “a complex process of jointly creating new knowledge”
(Robertson, 2011, p. 213). By acting as a ‘co-thinker’, the coach is better able to encourage
their mentees to see new perspectives, explore new ways to solve problems, and find
solutions through productive discussion and questioning, thus assisting them to find out
what the issues are and what works best for them (Feiman-Nemser, 2000). Edwards
and Collison (1996) suggest that discussion is the engine that drives well-planned, active
mentoring. Similarly, Lee (2008) highlights mentoring and provocation as a key feature of
the Educational Leadership project in Hamilton, New Zealand for developing leadership
within early childhood centres. Nelson, Deuel, Slavit, and Kennedy (2010) posit that
shifting congenial conversations to collegial conversations requires skilled leaders who are
able to increase the depth of dialogue by using “conflicting views as starting points for
developing shared meanings” (p. 175).
It is evident that working with adult learners has many concepts and practices in common
with good teaching. However, adult-to-adult professional interactions are sensitive to such
factors (among others) as age, power, role, judgement, relational trust, centre and school
climate, and perceptions of competence (Moir, Barlin, Gless, � Miles, 2009).
Early childhood coaching and mentoring programmes on

leadership
Although some ECE services claim that their structures enable them to monitor and nurture
the leadership capacities of leaders within their centres, and to develop formal systems for
mentoring and peer support (Colmer, 2008), traditionally the guidance, supervision and
mentoring of staff are not linked well to the leadership role in early childhood (Dunlop,
2008).
The UK’s National Professional Qualification in Integrated Centre Leadership (NPQICL)
uses a coaching and mentoring approach for facilitating leadership learning. The Penn
Green Research, Training and Development Centre (which designed and piloted this
qualification programme) views mentoring as central to the development of leaders. The
rationale is that leaders are better able to cope with the challenges of leading their centres
when their own support and development needs are met (John, 2008). Adopting a ‘non-
directive-stretching’ mentoring approach, Penn Green’s leadership mentoring enables
leaders to discuss the challenges of leading their own centres within a safe, supportive
and confidential space in which leaders develop self-assurance, sense of purpose and
agency by learning from others (John, 2008).
Formosinho and Oliveira-Formosinho’s (2005) evaluation of the United Kingdom’s NPQICL
programme has applicability to the coaching and mentoring component of NZCA’s
intervention-based professional learning programme. As stated by Formosinho and
Oliveira-Formosinho:
There is interdependence between the intrapersonal dimension of the learning
process — the building of individual learning journeys — and the interpersonal
dimension — this building of individual learning is developed within a learning
community. The learning community is a significant scaffold for the development of
individual journeys. (p. 38)
23
In a year-long project with 22 New Zealand kindergarten leaders, Cardno and Reynolds
(2009) adopted a developmental action research approach to communicate complex
problems and dilemma management as both a theory and a set of skills for resolving
leadership dilemmas. Their coaching and mentoring model involved phases of
reconnaissance, intervention and evaluation, underpinned by principles of collaboration
and critique. The participating leaders were introduced in the intervention phase to the
“theory of productive reasoning and the practice of productive dialogue as a means of
resolving dilemmas” (p. 220). Cardno and Reynolds contend that their intervention-based
professional learning programme bestowed confidence in their participants to confront
important leadership issues within their centres.
Podmore and Wells (2011) reported the findings of the early childhood education pilot,
commissioned by the New Zealand Teachers Council as part of their Induction and
Mentoring Pilot Programme, to investigate different models of support and development
for mentor teachers and Provisionally Registered Teachers. In this study, building
relationships to enable open and honest communication and making time to talk and
to engage in courageous conversations were highlighted as key elements of effective
mentoring programmes.
The present study is closely aligned to Joce Nuttall’s work in Australia, which encompasses
the employment of third generation activity theory as a tool to foster the leadership of
professional learning in early childhood education. In particular, our study was informed by
Nuttall’s Melbourne pedagogical mentoring and coaching programme development project
(2011-2012). Nuttall (2012, 2013a, 2013b) found that coaching early childhood leaders to
learn a framework for identifying factors that afford and constrain the implementation of
pedagogical leadership in their ECE services further supports them to develop strategies
to lead the pedagogical practice of their teams in systematic and focused ways.
24
M ethodology
CHAPTER 3:
Methodology
In this chapter we discuss the research focus and methodology of the study, including
research and development methodology, theoretical informants, data generation methods,
selection and recruitment of research participants, and ethical procedures followed.
As outlined in Chapter 1, the research and development project this report covers largely
replicated a study originally designed and carried out by Associate Professor Joce Nuttall
with early childhood co-ordinators (centre leaders) in the greater Melbourne area (see
Nuttall, 2013a). Nuttall’s study drew on the theoretical framework of expansive learning,
which is derived from third generation cultural-historical activity theory, as developed
by Finnish researcher Yrjö Engeström (1987, 1993). The research and development
methodology described in this chapter closely follows that of Nuttall’s Melbourne project
with one significant addition; the incorporation of kaupapa Māori methodology, and the
desire to explore the synergies between that methodology and expansive learning.
As previously discussed (see Chapter 1), the inclusion of kaupapa Māori research, theory
and practice arose due to the Association’s commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which
meant that our research and development project (hereafter also referred to as the
project) was to be proactively inclusive of Māori, and have an accompanying commitment
to work with a diverse range of early childhood education and care settings. At a broad
level across all three clusters, the project adopted the research principles of kaupapa
Māori as articulated by Graham Smith (1997). Within one of our clusters, the methodology
of kaupapa Māori was specifically incorporated on equal terms with the methodology
of expansive learning theory, including third generation cultural-historical activity theory
(also referred to as activity theory). The adoption and incorporation of kaupapa Māori
methodology and related methodological issues are also explored within this chapter,
as these became a significant part of the choreography (Janesick, 2000) of the research
process, and thus of the resultant research narrative.
Ethical approval to undertake the study followed the guidelines and process outlined
in the Association’s Ethical Approval policy. Briefly, this involved the development and
submission of a written proposal and the inclusion of a range of related ethical documents.
Consideration of ethical requirements is picked up in more detail in subsequent sections
of this chapter.
We begin by restating the original research questions, and adding two further questions
that arose once the research project was under way. This is followed with an articulation of
each of the theoretical frameworks used in the study. We then describe the research and
development process, including the professional learning programme embedded in the
25
project, and outline our data generation and analysis strategies. Finally we describe the
recruitment and selection processes that led to the eventual identification of participants
in this study.
Research questions
Two research questions framed this project.
• How can pedagogical leadership in early childhood settings in Aotearoa/New
learning theory?
• How can kaupapa Māori pedagogy, leadership and expansive learning theory inform
and enhance each other?
In Chapter 1, we discussed the context that led to the determination of our second
research question framed around kaupapa Māori, and we return to that narrative shortly.
The second question also formed an important part of our reoriented methodological
commitment. It gave rise to a number of challenges that are important to articulate within
the context of a Tiriti based research project and our relationship with kaupapa Māori
methodologies. In this respect, we are reminded by research methodologist Ian Baptiste
(2001) how qualitative research is by nature an “iterative, interactive, and non-linear”
(p. 2) process.
Supplementary questions
As the research progressed, we subsequently identified two further research questions.
These identified, more specifically than our original question had done, third generation
activity theory as the central tool of our research and development project. These
questions are:
• How can the tool of third generation activity theory be adapted through a kaupapa
Māori approach as a decolonising artefact?
• How is the tool of third generation activity theory externalised through leadership
practice?
Theoretical frameworks
As indicated in the research questions, two theoretical frameworks were used in this
project, kaupapa Māori theory and expansive learning theory (incorporating third
generation activity theory). In the following section, each framework is explained and
discussed in terms of its application to this project. A final section discusses the way in
which alignment between the two frameworks can be considered.
Kaupapa Māori theoretical framework

As a theoretical approach, kaupapa Māori is essential to providing appropriate foundation,
practice and analysis from a Māori world view, by advancing and prioritising matauranga
Māori (Māori ways of knowing) in terms of tikanga and āhuatanga Māori (Māori ways
26
M ethodology
of doing and being). An important aspect of this view is that kaupapa Māori asserts
the status of Māori as tangata whenua where themes of mana motūhake Māori and
tino rangatiratanga are assumed (Mane, 2009). Understanding Māori aspirations of
self-determination is also important to understanding kaupapa Māori, as is its distinct
relationship to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Similarly, Tuki Nepe (1991) outlines kaupapa Māori as
critical to what is a specifically Māori framework, in that it substantiates Māori views of
the world in an approach that is both Māori owned and controlled. With the notion of self-
determination evident in this statement, emphasis is adamant that it is Māori that have
full autonomy of kaupapa Māori initiatives.
Nepe (1991) further asserts that kaupapa Māori differs distinctly from Western structure
and philosophy, in that it is directed essentially by tikanga Māori. Tikanga Māori is
understood as providing a cultural foundation that is distinctly Māori and driven from
Māori views of the world, where Māori values and aspirations determine outcomes for
the benefit of the collectives of whānau, hapū and iwi. This position is reinforced by G.
Smith (1999).
Kaupapa Māori initially arose as a response to mainstream New Zealand’s historical
inability to serve Māori interests generally, notably so in both education (G. Smith, 1990,
1997; L. Smith 1999; Walker, 1996) and media (Day, 1994; Mane, 2000, 2009; Spoonley
� Hirsh, 1990). Over the last three decades, significant change has occurred. This change
has been Māori led where te reo Māori me ōna tikanga are central to understandings of
kaupapa Māori. Thus, the term kaupapa Māori evolved from initiatives that have been
designed, led and driven by Māori, and have largely come about from the educational
developments of the 1980s and; specifically, from the initiatives of Kōhanga Reo and Kura
Kaupapa Māori (G. Smith, 2012; Walker, 1996).
Māori leadership was critical to the development of kaupapa Māori initiatives during this
period, resulting in those initiatives also having significant spin-offs to other areas of much
needed development. Early childhood education is one such area (Williams, with Broadley
� Te Aho, 2012). Founded in notions of Māori self-determination, kaupapa Māori notably
exists in multiple sites of Māori development. During the 1990s, Māori initiatives continued
to develop further in the settings of education, health, social services and broadcasting.
In more recent years there has been additional growth in other sectors (Hoskins, 2012).
Kaupapa Māori research methodology

Just as kaupapa Māori originated as an approach seeking to effect change for Māori, the
role of research is critical to effecting transformative action and change in multiple settings.
In their thesis work, Linda and Graham Smith provided the forerunners of literature that
named itself distinctly as kaupapa Māori. As key drivers of kaupapa Māori education
and research, the academic teaching and research led by Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Graham
Hinengaroa Smith, Leonie Pihama, Margie Hohepa; Kuni Jenkins, and Patricia Johnstone
provided the first cohort of what was specifically kaupapa Māori education during the
mid-1990s. While there were other Māori scholars (Barnes, 2000; Bishop, 1996; Durie,
1998; Irwin, 1988; Walker, 1996) also making a difference in the world of academia,
those working in Māori education at the University of Auckland carved out what, at that
particular time, became the new discipline within academic education, kaupapa Māori.
As a recognised leader of indigenous research, Professor Linda Smith (1999) outlines
kaupapa Māori as a counter-hegemonic approach to Western research, in that it challenges
27
research that validates only Western knowledge and ways of knowing. Kaupāpa Māori
research is “research of, by and for Māori” (Meade, Kirikiri, Paratene, � Allan, 2011, p. 8).
Thus, Smith’s critique is specific not only to the discipline of research, but is further
relevant to the everyday experience of Māori and indigenous peoples.
Generally within kaupapa Māori methodology, the importance of te reo Māori me ōna
tikanga, where the concepts of identity and belonging are intrinsically bound to language
and culture, is considered as the foundation stone or purpose for existence. This concept
is further reflected in the curriculum document for early childhood settings, Te Whāriki
(Ministry of Education, 1996). This provides a framework that reflects the importance
of language and culture within early childhood settings. The most recent account from
Mason Durie (2012) suggests that while language revitalisation is important, other social
outcomes also need to be achieved through a kaupapa Māori approach.
In drawing on the work and writings of Paulo Freire, Māori academics speak to the
struggles of oppression and alienation effected by colonisation (Simons � Smith, 2001).
Freire’s theory of praxis has been prominently used in the work of Māori academics,
providing a platform for the discussion of kaupapa Māori as a theoretical framework
(Hohepa, 1999; Pihama, 2001; G. Smith, 1997; L. Smith, 1999). Freire’s work has been
frequently used to discuss issues relating to the survival of Māori identity, language, and
culture, and the politics of self-determination. Notably, Freire’s theory of praxis argues
for “conscious, deliberate action” (Freire, 1970, p. 68); the underlying message in all of
his writing advocates for liberation and freedom. His work is explicitly relevant to Māori
struggle and expressions of freedom, and holds some important cautions in terms of how
change might be effected. This is in turn reflected by Graham Smith (1997), who highlights
the importance of non-hegemonic strategies and structures that will advance Māori
aspirations of self-determination. Freire’s notion of acting consciously and deliberately
(Freire, 1970) is a central tenet of kaupapa Māori.
The principles of kaupapa Māori research, theory and practice, as initially outlined by
Graham Smith (1990), provide a framework that outlines clear definitions of the purpose
and intent of kaupapa Māori. He developed these further (G. Smith, 1997) to emphasise
kaupapa Māori principles as working in an active relationship with practice. Smith’s over-
arching principles are listed as follows.
Tino Rangatiratanga — the principle of self-determination

Tino Rangatiratanga relates to sovereignty, autonomy, control, self-determination and
independence. The notion of Tino Rangatiratanga asserts and reinforces the goal of
kaupapa Māori initiatives: allowing Māori to control their own culture, aspirations and
destiny.
Taonga Tuku Iho — the principle of cultural aspiration

This principle asserts the centrality and legitimacy of te reo Māori, tīkanga and mātauranga
Māori. Within a kaupapa Māori paradigm, these Māori ways of knowing, doing and
understanding the world are considered valid in their own right. In acknowledging
their validity and relevance, it also allows spiritual and cultural awareness and other
considerations to be taken into account.
28
M ethodology
Ako Māori — the principle of culturally preferred pedagogy

This principle acknowledges teaching and learning practices that are inherent and unique
to Māori, as well as practices that may not be traditionally derived but are preferred by
Māori.
Kia piki ake i ngā raruraru o te kainga — the principle of socioeconomic mediation
This principle asserts the need to mediate and assist in the alleviation of negative pressures
and disadvantages experienced by Māori communities, and for kaupapa Māori research
to be of positive benefit to Māori communities. It also acknowledges the relevance
and success that Māori derived initiatives have as intervention systems for addressing
socioeconomic issues that currently exist.
Whānau — the principle of extended family structure

The principle of Whānau sits at the core of kaupapa Māori. It acknowledges the
relationships that Māori have to one another and to the world around them. Whānau and
the process of whakawhanaungatanga are key elements of Māori society and culture. This
principle acknowledges the responsibility and obligations of the researcher to nurture and
care for these relationships, and also the intrinsic connection between the researcher, the
researched and the research.
Kaupapa — The principle of collective philosophy

The ‘kaupapa’ refers to the collective vision, aspiration and purpose of Māori communities.
Larger than the topic of the research alone, the kaupapa refers to the aspirations of the
community. The research topic or intervention systems therefore are considered to be an
incremental and vital contribution to the overall ‘kaupapa’.
Two further principles have been added to the original framework.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi — the principle of the Treaty of Waitangi

Pihama (2001) identified another principle to be taken into account within kaupapa Māori
theory. Te Tiriti o Waitangi (1840) is a crucial document which defines the relationship
between Māori and the Crown in New Zealand. It affirms both the tangata whenua status
of whānau, hapū and iwi in New Zealand, and their rights of citizenship. Te Tiriti therefore
provides a basis through which Māori may critically analyse relationships, challenge the
status quo, and affirm Māori rights.
Ata — the principle of growing respectful relationships

The principle of Ata was developed by Pohatu (2005) primarily as a transformative
approach within the area of social services. This principle relates specifically to the building
and nurturing of relationships. It acts as a guide to the understanding of relationships and
wellbeing when engaging with Māori.
Kaupapa Māori principles in action

The principles of kaupapa Māori research, theory and practice, as initially outlined by
Graham Smith (1990), provide clear definition and understanding around the purpose
and intent of kaupapa Māori. While the principles in their entirety are all relevant to this
project, those that surfaced consistently are whānau, kaupapa and taonga tuku iho. For
29
example, the principle of whānau is used frequently in discussing whanaungatanga as a key
aspect of practice, inclusive of staff, tamariki, parents and wider community. The principle
of whanau also overlaps with the principle of kaupapa, in that whanaungatanga is based
within the concept of the collective; as it also provides the purpose of the collective. The
principle of taonga tuku iho, in the case of this project, is related to Māori concepts and
ways of ‘being’.
In positioning ourselves as kaupapa Māori researchers, it was important that we placed
at the forefront of our discussion some of our own baseline assumptions and approaches
from which we work. Of significance to our research approach was our understanding
and commitment to whanaungatanga — between the research team, between the
research team and centre participants, and within centre environments. This was
crucial to the research process. While simply defined as relationships, the complexities
of whanaungatanga in Te Ao Māori involve accountability, responsibility and reciprocity
amidst other key considerations. As kaupapa Māori researchers, each of us have
whakapapa links to the region. Living and working in our tribal region, our commitment to
whanaungatanga was further consolidated.
Whanaungatanga is understood as a core component of the research process, as it is relevant
to how research is undertaken by, with, and for Māori (Bishop, 1996; G. Smith, 1997; L.
Smith, 1999). Research undertaken by Ritchie and Rau (2006) also provides a fundamental
platform of understanding, in highlighting the critical nature of whanaungatanga to the
research process of their own studies within early childhood contexts. Ritchie and Rau
(2006) also provide discussion specific to collaborative research methodologies that has
relevance to this study, in that the project has involved various researchers that work
accordingly from various research paradigms.
As Māori researchers within kaupapa Māori, we consistently sought to define, de-scribe
and determine our views of the world as Māori. With the firm intent of kaupapa Māori
being about claiming space for Māori (Pihama, 1997), we needed to be cognisant of not
becoming re-colonised, re-absorbed and re-constructed by western theories, process
and practice. In this sense we were vigilant in our own thinking and practice, in order to
retain or find our authentic Māori voice. Thus an indigenous approach to research issues
of power, initiation, benefits, representation, legitimation and accountability (Bishop,
1999) informed the development and implementation of this study, and was central to the
research process ,not only in terms of participants but for the researchers as well.
Expansive learning theory and third generation activity

theory
The second theoretical framework underpinning the methodology of this project draws
on the work of Finnish researcher Yrjö Engeström, who proposes a theory of expansive
learning (Engeström, 1987, 2001). Expansive learning is “learning what is not yet there
by means of the actions of questioning, modelling, and experimentation. Its core is the
collaborative creation of new artifacts and patterns of practice” (Engeström, Engeström,
� Sunito, 2002). Engeström is interested in the ways learning takes place when groups
of people come together to work on a shared task and face learning challenges. In
constructing his theory, Engeström suggests that orthodox theories of learning cannot
account for:
30
M ethodology
…learning something that is not stable, not even defined or understood ahead
of time. In important transformations of our personal lives and organizational
practices, we must learn new forms of activity which are not yet there. They are
literally learned as they are being created. … Standard learning theories have little
to offer if one wants to understand these processes (pp. 137–138, italics added).
Expansive learning theory describes a process of how learning takes place within and
between people in collective enterprises such as work groups. It rejects the rational-
cognitive account of learning associated with Cartesian accounts of knowledge and
knowledge construction inherent in Western intellectual traditions (Blackler, 1993). Instead
it proposes that the potential for learning sits more productively within people’s creative
and idiosyncratic tendencies. These have their basis in people’s different understandings
and motives for the activity being collectively engaged in. Expansive learning theory
suggests therefore that when groups of people come together to work on a shared task
(or object), such as ‘early childhood education’, they inevitably find themselves facing
dilemmas (identified as contradictions) between components that collectively constitute
the object of their activity; not necessarily because these dilemmas inhere in the object,
but because the object itself is a human construction or enterprise. In this situation,
groups are faced with either resolving the dilemma or layering over and obscuring it, in
order to continue working collectively on the object (or task). Engeström proposes a way
forward in this situation that allows members of the group to learn from the dilemma:
The theory builds upon the idea of learning as a longitudinal process in which
participants of an activity system take specific learning actions to analyse the inner
contradictions of their activity, then to design and implement a new model for their
activity that radically expands the object, opening up new possibilities for action and
development. … Theories of learning typically speak of the outcomes of learning
in terms of knowledge, skills and changes in patterns of behaviour. In expansive
learning, the outcomes are expanded objects and new collective work practices,
including practices of thinking and discourse (Engeström � Kerosuo, 2007, p. 339).
In expansive learning theory, learning results from surfacing, recognising and addressing
tensions (theorised as contradictions) that inevitably arise in activity systems. Tensions
and contradictions provide affordances for learning. The notion of contradiction has a
very specific meaning here, which draws on its location within cultural historical activity
theory (CHAT). In order to understand and appreciate expansive learning theory in more
depth, it is therefore necessary to first understand the basic outline of cultural historical
activity theory, as assumptions and concepts in the former draw significantly on the latter.
In addition to the notion of contradiction, expansive learning theory draws on the concept
of mediation, which is a founding theoretical concept of activity theory.
In the next section we outline the genesis of activity theory and discuss its evolution
(Engeström, 2009) through three generations, “each building on its own version of the
unit of analysis” (Engeströmp, p. 6), before returning to expansive learning theory and a
discussion of how this relates to pedagogical leadership.
Activity theory
Activity theory has its origins in the work of the Russian psychologist, L. S. Vygotsky, and
his notion of mediated action (Engeström, 2009). This notion explains the relationship
between mind and human action, and in particular how people/subjects (individuals,
31
dyads, groups) make sense of objects (or tasks) through tool use. This is represented in
Figure 1 (below). Tools can be conceptual (e.g. language, signs, symbols) and/or material
(often referred to as cultural artefacts), and they are imbued with the history and culture
of the particular community within which each is developed and used. Tools therefore
hold and transfer cultural meanings. Through tool use, individuals internalise collective
external knowledge and skills — a process Vygotsky calls mediation. In the context of
this study, examples of conceptual tools in relation to early childhood centres are ideas
(concepts), such as ‘whanaungatanga’, ‘empowerment’, ‘tikanga’, ‘relationships’, ‘play’,
‘sociocultural theory’, ‘shared sustained thinking’, ‘leadership’, and so on. All of these are
currently part of early childhood discourse, although some, such as ‘whanaungatanga’
and ‘play’, have long cultural histories, whereas others are relatively recent additions
to early childhood discourse, and have either been adopted from other contexts of use
or created to meet a need. Examples of artefacts or material tools in relation to early
childhood centres are policies, rosters, toys and other technologies, assessment and
planning processes, curriculum documents, and so on. Tools do not remain static, and
each generation both borrows and adapts these; eventually new tools are developed to
meet new demands and requirements. Through tool use and adaption, communities are
gradually transformed. Vestiges of historical tools, however, remain in circulation.
Tools and signs (mediating

concepts and artifacts)
Subject Object
Figure 1. The basic mediation triangle
The notion of tools as mediating between the subject and the object was Vygotsky’s
response to the prevailing view (proposed by 19th century psychology) which proposed the
notion of a reflex arc, whereby an independent subject responds to an object (stimulus),
ostensibly devoid of mediation. This perspective gave rise to the behaviourist movement
and to associationism, which attempted analytically to separate the individual from the
environment (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010).
In counter-distinction, Vygotsky argued in favour of a “unified framework” in which
“the organism and the environment were parts of a complex system that co-created
consciousness through human participation in activities” (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010, p. 15).
Drawing on these ideas, activity theorists argue that the mind is thoroughly social, and
that it is through “collectively organised practical activity” (Brennan, 2005, p. 40) that
mental processes are largely created and revealed. For Vygotsky, higher mental processes
originate in social processes — activity. Activity forms the smallest unit of analysis, as it
embodies the link between mind and society, and attempts to rid psychological processes
of slippage into dualistic conceptions of mind.
Vygotsky drew on Marxist theory (Blackler, 1993; Yamagata-Lynch, 2010) and on Marx’s
view of human nature, which holds that human nature is not fixed but “people continually
32
M ethodology
make themselves through their productive activity” (Blackler, p. 867). For Vygotsky, it is the
social environment that gives rise to consciousness, and his work describes the relationship
between individuals and the social environment (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010). Vygotsky coined
the term ‘internalisation’ to explain how individuals turned what was encountered and
learned in the social through mediated action into individual consciousness. This is not
a process of transfer, but a gradual appropriation, as individuals participating in social/
cultural processes, and with mediating tools (both conceptual and material), internalise
their experiences. Vygotsky created the ‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD) as a
conceptual and metaphorical tool for describing the fusing of the interpersonal and
intrapersonal that takes place when subjects (notably children in Vygotsky’s work) are
learning with others.
Engeström (2001) describes Vygotsky’s “insertion of cultural artifacts into human actions”
as “revolutionary” (p. 134), because it provided a unit of analysis which overcame the
Cartesian split that separates out the individual from the the social. Engeström sums up
this shift as:
The individual could no longer be understood without his or her cultural means;
and the society could no longer be understood without the agency of individuals
who use and produce artifacts. ...Objects became cultural entities and the object-
orientatedness of action became the key to understanding human psyche (p. 134).
Vygotsky’s primary focus was on the individual. Brennan (2005) and Yamagata-Lynch
(2010) each discuss the risks taken by Vygotsky in trying to resolve the individual/social
dichotomy through his concept of internalisation. This concept invites slippage into the
individual mind. Yamagata-Lynch contends, however, that “Vygotsky was attempting to
move away from viewing individual consciousness as a commodity that grew within an
individual: instead he viewed it as a shared embodiment between individuals and their
social environments, including social others” (p. 19). In this sense, the mind is social at
the outset and remains so, and the dualistic distinction can be considered a heuristic, a
linguistic/discursive and/or an ideological construction. Yamagata-Lynch (2010) contends
that contemporary CHAT researchers and practitioners “are still working to identify how
to explain human activity with a non-dualistic framework” (p. 18). As researchers, we too
found ourselves at times slipping into this dualism; this is discussed later in the chapter
when we present our analytic and representation strategies.
Daniels and Edwards (2010) note a profound implication of Vygotsky’s claim that cultural
tools or artefacts mediate the relationship between mind and human action. This
implication is that “by adapting cultural tools, humans can foster their own cognitive
development from the outside (p. 2, italics in original). Because cultural tools carry cultural
meanings, Nuttall points out that “by adapting those meanings, humans can adapt their
activity (both internal activity in the form of thought and external activity in the form of
behaviour) and therefore human culture” (p. 2). An example of this could be a group of
teachers working with a tool such as an assessment template (artefact) that has been
borrowed from another setting, and is adapted to work in the new setting (Nuttall, in
press-b). This ability to adapt cultural tools, meanings and activity constitutes agency.
This continual modification of cultural tools is not neutral, however, as people become
invested in the tools that are ‘dear to them’.
33
Second generation activity theory

While Vygotsky’s focus was on individuals and their mediated action (object), a second
generation of activity theorists moved away from the individual as the unit of analysis to
a focus on collective human activity, which includes both mental activity and observable
activity (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010). This shift is attributed to one of Vygotsky’s collaborators,
Leont’ev (see Engeström, 2001). Peter Smagorinsky (2010) writes how Leont’ev “shifted
the unit of analysis from individual, volitional, goal directed, tool-mediated, and socially
and culturally conditioned action to the mediated action of the collective” (p. 13). In this
conceptualisation, activity provides the unit of analysis rather than patterns of speaking
and thinking, which are derived from the social and cultural, as in Vygotsky’s account of
human consciousness.
Engeström (2001) notes how the concept of activity moved thinking forward — the
notion of activity itself becomes an adapted mediating tool. Rather than the model
being based on an individual activity system, as in Figure 1, it became a collective activity
system focusing on “complex interrelations between the individual subject and his or
her community” (pp. 134–135). Engeström (2001) describes object-orientated actions as
“always, explicitly or implicitly, characterized by ambiguity, surprise, interpretation, sense
making, and [having the] potential for change” (p. 134). He has depicted this in Figure 2
with the use of the oval.
Tools and signs
Subject Mediating Object Sense,

artifacts meaning Outcome
Rules Community Division of labour
Figure 2. The structure of a human activity system

(adapted from Engeström, 2001, p. 135).
In Engeström’s (1987) activity systems model (see Figure 2), the top triangle is Vygotsky’s
original mediated action triangle, with subject (individual or groups), tool (conceptual
or artefact), and object (task/motive). In addition, new nodes of rules, community, and
division of labour are included. These constitute the “socio-historical aspects of mediated
action that were not addressed by Vygotsky” (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010, p. 23). Rules are
those explicit or implicit regulations and demarcations which can either constrain or
enable the activity, and which provide guidelines to the subject about how to be with
others in the community. The community is the social group that the subject/s engage
with while carrying out the activity, and the division of labour determines how the tasks
are shared among the community. Each of the components identified in the triangle can
mediate the activity and lead to an outcome for all involved in the activity system. The
object is the task that gives motive force to collective activity, and which contributes to
34
M ethodology
the outcome (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010, p. 16). Yamagata-Lynch (2010) asserts that although
a unified view of the term ‘object’ is elusive, among CHAT scholars there is agreement that
“the ‘object’ is the reason why individuals and groups of individuals choose to participate
in an activity (Kaptelinin, 2005), and it is what holds together the elements in an activity”
(p. 17).
To place this term within the current study, objects (broadly speaking) are the things that
need to be done to achieve the outcome of ‘doing early childhood education’ (each centre
constitutes an activity system). Objects are therefore general things (e.g., assessment,
planning, collaborating, etc), but they can also be more specific than this and be any task,
large or small, that an individual or a group is working/focusing on (e.g., preparing the
parent newsletter).
Within the original thinking about second generation activity theory, there was a focus on
the way in which activity systems develop and transform themselves. The mechanism for
this is located in the concept of contradiction. Contradictions arise when there is tension
within or between elements of the system. But they can also arise because of tensions
between activity systems. Engeström (2001) defines contradictions as “historically
accumulating structural tensions within and between activity systems” (p. 137).
Contradictions are discussed again shortly, as these provide the opportunity for learning
and change within activity systems and within expansive learning theory.
Blackler (1993) points out that activities themselves and the settings in which they are
carried out “are not determined by objective, physical features but are provided by those
who engage in them” (p. 868). Thus he is highlighting the socially constructed nature of
activities. This means that ‘early childhood education’ is not an objective category; rather,
the meanings people give to it make it what it is; in essence, it is socially constructed.
Nowadays there are many schools of thought about the notion of social construction as
a theoretical orientation. Burr (2005) argues they all have a “family resemblance” (p. 2)
because of their common adherence to a set of assumptions associated with the nature
of knowledge. It is outside the scope of this chapter to delve into this discussion; however,
the key notion to keep uppermost in relation to the social construction of ‘reality’ (activity)
is that it is never neutral. Engeström (2009) notes that the issue of power has received
“weak treatment” (p. 6) in activity theory, but suggests that his third generation of activity
theory has the potential to take account of this. It is to this third generation that we shift
our focus.
Third generation activity theory

Third generation activity theory incorporates at least two interacting activity systems
(Engeström, 2001) (see Figure 3). When two activity systems come together, they have the
potential to create a shared (third) object: the co-construction of joint meaning. In reality
there are a myriad of systems at play in most social situations, as each person brings with
them their meanings (cultural tools), developed in their activity system of the family. In
our study, the project facilitator, in the role of the coach and mentor, is the subject of an
activity system that comes into contact with the activity system of the participant’s centre.
Through the coaching relationship, a shared zone of mediation is potentially created.
35
Mediating artifacts Mediating artifacts
Subject Object1 Object2 Object2 Object1 Subject
Object3
Rules Community Division of labour Division of labour Community Rules
Figure 3. Two interacting activity systems as minimal model for the third generation of activity
theory (adapted from Engeström, 2001, p. 136)
Summing up the nature of activity theory, Engeström (2001) suggests that there are five
principles at its core. The activity system and its networked relations to other activity
systems is the prime unit of analysis. The other four principles are the multi-voicedness
of activity systems; the historicity of activity systems; contradictions as the driving force
of change in activity systems; and cycles of expansive transformations in activity systems.
These principles are best illustrated by considering a case such as an early childhood service/
centre. The ECE service/centre forms a system of activity, as shown by the components
captured in one of the triangles in Figure 3. This centre therefore is “a collective, artefact-
mediated and object-orientated activity system” (Engeström, 2001, p. 136) which is inevitably
influenced by other activity systems (e.g., the activity system of the Ministry of Education,
the umbrella organisation under which it may exist and operate.). Within the service/centre
there are many people, each with their ‘own’ socially constructed points of view, ways of
being and doing that intersect with others in the system who bring their biographical selves.
The system itself is also a collective standpoint, built up over its history and laid down in its
tools, artefacts, rules, division of labour, the goals it is directed to, and so on. In other words,
the activity system is multi-voiced. All systems (and early childhood services/centres are
no different) have a historicity about them, which contributes to shaping and transforming
them over time. Consider how the early childhood sector of today (or individual centres
within it) is in many ways — but not all — quite different from that of former generations.
Social practice is by its very nature conflictual (Engeström, 1987), as people have different
motives for taking part in the object of the activity system. This sets up a milieu of
“ambiguities, uncertainties, and contradictions that are such a characteristic of the
human condition [but which] can provide key opportunities for individual and collective
development” (Blackler, 1993, p. 870). Therefore within and between activity systems,
there is a tendency towards the accumulation of contradictions. Engeström (2001)
argues that “contradictions are not the same as problems or conflicts. Contradictions
are historically accumulating structural tensions within and between activity systems”
(p. 137). While they can create tensions and conflicts, within Engeström’s version of activity
theory they also hold the potential for change and transformation. In relation to an early
childhood setting, this might be represented by a new teacher bringing in an idea that is
not considered to fit with ‘the way things are done here’. Or a teaching team may find that
36
M ethodology
their tools, such as the timetabling system, no longer meet the needs of the group or of an
externally imposed regulatory requirement. Engeström’s formulation of third generation
activity theory proposes a particular way of working through this type of situation. This
process is called expansive learningAs systems address contradictions, they move through
expansive cycles of transformation. This can be precipitated by an individual who brings
the contradiction to the consciousness of the group, or by the group itself. At other times
it takes place as individuals question practices and deviate from the norm. An example
of this is the development of kaupapa Māori methodology within the research field, as a
response to the hegemony of Western world views as the dominant paradigm for research.
Within early childhood education, there is the current challenge to developmentalism by
socio-cultural theory (Edwards, 2007) or by post-structuralists (Cannella, 1997).
The current study

In the study described in this report, third generation activity theory was first explained
to participants, who were then coached in its use. Participants learned to ‘map’ their
centre as a system of activity in relation to particular objects (or tasks), and to recognise
contradictions that may be hampering or obstructing the achievement of these objects.
This attempt to resolve the situation using a specific tool (in this case, the model of an
activity system itself) is termed double-stimulation; a concept first proposed by Vygotsky
(Engeström, 2007). The first stimulus is the recognition of the existence of a tension or
identification of a contradiction; the second stimulus is use or adaptation of a tool to
understand or mediate the situation. In this project, the model of activity theory is the
mediating tool (artefact); a cultural object that mediates between participants and their
learning. The researcher’s interest is centred on the sense of what the participants make
of the tool and the ways in which they use and reshape the meaning of the tool (Ellis,
2010). In our study, the workshops provided a shared space with others to learn about the
tool, and the coaching and mentoring sessions aimed to provide a shared zone of proximal
development whereby participants engaged further with the tool, in dialogue with the
coach and their centre co-participant.
In returning to the notion of expansive learning, the identification, surfacing and analysis
of contradictions form the core of expansive learning. This is not to say that contradictions
are readily identifiable, or that the recognition of them is unproblematic. Consider
structural contradictions such as racism, which remains one of the most pervasive and
difficult to tackle (Bishop � Glynn, 1999). Capper and Williams (2004) distinguish between
‘invisible’ and ‘undiscussable’ contradictions. The former are so much a part of our daily
functioning that we fail to see them. These are taken for granted by many. Undiscussable
contradictions are the ones that are not talked about, because they are too hard or
perhaps too embarrassing to raise.
All forms of contradiction potentially hinder achievement of the object (task) at hand. When
work groups learn how to address these, they can in turn provide the fulcrum for change in
the activity system of the workplace, and they have the potential to drive the system through
a cycle of expansive transformation. Rather than seeing disturbance and tension (which can
be markers of contradiction) as negative influences on a system, activity theory suggests that
they can be viewed “as springboards for learning, innovation, and development” (Capper �
Williams, 2004, p. 9).
37
Conclusion
Engeström’s focus on expansive learning is an attempt to address the learning and
developmental tasks of workgroups. It is premised on the belief that traditional theories
of learning based on the process of transmission, where a known object is passed to the
learner to be learned, cannot account for the type of learning that must take place in
the complex workplaces of post-modernity. Learning and development are a mediated
process. The tool of activity theory can be used to describe and analyse complex systems;
but it can also be used as an effective tool to bring about transformation. In the next
section, we present a discussion that explores alignments between kaupapa Māori and
third generation activity theory.
Kaupapa Māori theory and activity theory:

Alignments Mahia te mahi
Exploring the alignments between kaupapa Māori, activity theory and expansive learning
theory has been a specific focus of the research component of this project. Alignment
with kaupapa Māori from the beginning of the project was visible, in that the key concepts
used in Engeström’s third generation activity theory were recognisable as concepts which
are common in the experience of Te Ao Māori. Working as a collective or system is not a
new concept for Māori, who until the last few decades have been highly reliant on working
and living as collective groupings of whānau, hapū and iwi. While this is still a reality for
many Māori today, the fragmentation of Māori societal structures (G. Smith, in Jones,
1990) has increased significantly in recent generations. Despite this, the resurgence of the
Māori renaissance from the period of the 1970s reignited efforts focused on keeping the
collectives of whānau, hapū and iwi intact. The strength of the collective remains highly
valued in the Māori world.
Activity theory and alignment to Kaupapa Māori

As this research proposes to explore how activity theory aligns to kaupapa Māori, a further
notion that will be discussed is: how can the model of activity theory be adapted through
a kaupapa Māori approach as a decolonising artefact? This in itself is articulated to some
extent in the situation where the researcher realises her ‘colonised state’.
Kaupapa Māori theory and methodology align directly to some of the core aspects of
activity theory, in that both are strength-based approaches which seek positive outcomes
for ‘collective good’ with an aim of transformational change. Kaupapa Māori also utilises a
range of principles based on tikanga Māori as a framework to guide practices which have
particular gain for Māori. These comparisons show that there are similarities within the
two theories that serve to complement this research.
One of the propositions raised in the discussions of activity theory was that traditionally,
Māori society has been a system of activity. In making these alignments more explicit,
activity theory can be examined as a “theoretical framework for the analysis and
understanding of human interaction through their use of tools and artefacts” (Hasham �
Jones, 2007, p. 1).
38
M ethodology
Kaupapa Māori theory may be claimed similarly as a “Māori centred approach, locating
Māori aspirations, preferences and practices at the centre of the exercise and involv[ing]
Māori in the design, delivery, management and monitoring of educational initiatives and
developments” (Bishop � Glynn, 1999, p. 34).
Analysing these two theories, a convergence begins to develop. Activity theory draws
upon the analysis of human interaction employing tools to better understand dynamic
change within systems (Engeström, Engeström � Suntio, cited in Wells � Claxton, 2002).
Kaupapa Māori theory also has a strong position which articulates that Māori people are
highly regarded in their participation within the project. This resonates with the well-
known whakatauki that is shared within Māori circles: ‘he aha te mea nui o te ao, he
tangata, he tangata, he tangata, what is the most important thing in the world, it is people,
it is people, it is people’.
Māori culture is a highly dynamic self-organising system (Henare-Solomona, 2011),
sophisticated in nature and understood through traditional protocols and practices known
as kaupapa or tikanga Māori. Marsden (2003) postulates that culture is a way of life
accepted and adopted by society:
In Māori terms, culture is the complex whole of beliefs, attitudes, values, mores,
customs, knowledge … This corpus provides the thread of continuity which integrates
and holds together the social fabric of a culture. Māori culture is a complex system
which supports whānau, hapū, and iwi. (p. 69)
Māori descend from systems that are embedded in tikanga Māori and are guided by
traditional Māori cultural practices. The collective is intricately linked through a range
of self-organising systems which is complex in nature (Henare-Solomona, 2011). These
systems are demanding and often challenging, because of the dynamic human interaction
that exists within them. For Māori working within these collective, complex systems, this
is a normal part of life. At times this can prove to be demanding for Māori, as they are
required to fulfil duties entailing not only how they look after their immediate and extended
families, but also upholding the roles and responsibilities of their marae, including hapū
decision-making that meets the needs of whānau/hapū well-being; as well as being part
of larger work involving iwi.
Activity theory aligns to this notion, as it is considered a tool to understand human
interactions and practices, needs and social interactions (Engeström, 2001). These
understandings create transformative practices for collectives and organisations
(Engeström, Engeström � Suntio, as cited in Wells � Claxton, 2002) to creatively shape the
design. With the assistance of conceptual tools, activity theory has the potential to critique
practices that aim to create changes supporting people to think more critically about the
way in which they may work more cohesively, in order to develop positive outcomes.
Crawford and Hansen (as cited in Hasham � Jones, 2007) propose that activity theory
“provides a rich, holistic understanding of how people do things together with the
assistance of sophisticated tools in complex dynamic environments” (p. 5). Marsden
(2003) suggests that the ancient Māori seers, like the later modern physicists, created
sets of symbols to provide Māori with maps/models to portray each state of the Māori
world. These symbols were utilised as tools to decipher cultural practices. The tools which
Māori use to understand and navigate the world around them are derived from tikanga
Māori. Tikanga is explained by Marsden (2003) as a means, plan, reason, custom or right
way of doing things. Kathie Irwin, as cited in Smith (1999), asserts that Māori have their
39
own tools, which they will design for their own purposes. They do not need others to do
this for them. Thus we offered the tool of third generation activity theory tentatively to
take account of Irwin’s advice and guidance.
Theoretical fieldwork: Research in action

This next section describes the research process, including: the research design; process
for gaining ethical approval; identification of research participants; recruitment and
selection processes; and data generation and analysis strategies.
Research design
Consistent with Engeström’s third generation research process is the notion of research
as an intervention. This led to the professional learning programme embedded within
the research and development project. Participants in the study were introduced to third
generation activity theory as a way of viewing their centres as systems of activity. As stated
in Chapter 1, an aim of the project was that pedagogical leadership could be enhanced
through appropriating the knowledge and theoretical tools of activity theory.
Gaining ethics approval

Ethics procedures
The research project gained ethics approval from the Association’s Research and Ethical
Approval Committee. The research proposal was prepared following ethical procedures
set out in the Association’s Ethical Standards of Practice for Research, and using the
Association’s Ethical Approval for Research Application process. Over and above this was a
commitment to carry out the research consistent with Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s (1999) kaupapa
Māori practices and incorporating the Māori Potential Approach in Education model
(Ministry of Education, 2009). In addition, we observed the New Zealand Association for
Research in Education (NZARE) Ethical Guidelines for Research in Education that involves
Māori, notably clauses 1.2, 2.2 and 2.3, and the Pasifika research guidelines (Anae, Coxon,
Mara, Wendt-Samu, � Finau, 2001).
A Māori Research Advisory Group was established to provide advice and guidance on all
aspects of the project. The advisory committee arose from identifying that in the early
drafting of the proposal, Māori were not initially involved in the actual conceptualisation
and design of the project, despite Māori leaders being a target group for participation in
the project. This tauiwi ‘blind spot’ constituted a contradiction, given the Association’s
commitment as a Te Tiriti o Waitangi based organisation. As outlined previously, the notion
of contradiction is central to expansive learning theory, so this realisation provided the
research project and tauiwi personnel with a contradiction that required urgent attention.
• Obtaining informed consent
The process of obtaining informed consent began with an information sheet
outlining what participation in the project entails. This was followed up with a verbal
discussion prior to the first interview (the needs analysis), where the participant
40
M ethodology
was given an opportunity to ask questions and have their queries clarified. Lastly,
participants signed a consent form.
• Anonymity and confidentiality
Because this research project involved participants taking part with others in
workshops, it was not possible to guarantee complete anonymity. Participants
were asked to provide a pseudonym for themselves for use in the final research
report and any other publications stemming from this project. No identifiers that
could be used to deduce the identity of participants would be reported in research
publications. Use of personal information that could be used to identify participants
would not be reported either.
• Potential harm to participants
Participation in the project was voluntary. We made it possible for two people from
each service/centre to attend, so as to minimise isolation both in the workshop
groups and later, when applying workshop material to the workplace. It was not
anticipated that participants would experience any harm arising from participation
in the project beyond the experience of everyday working life. If a situation arose
during the follow-up consultation meetings or in any of the audio-taped interview
sessions, participants were asked whether they wished to continue the interview.
Participants had the right, at any time, to request that recording be discontinued.
• Participants’ right to decline to take part
In the first instance, participation in the project was voluntary. There was a slight
possibility that participants might feel obliged to participate in the project if a
centre/service manager directed them to do so. At the initial meeting and in the
consent form, it was made clear that participation was voluntary. Participants were
informed that they could withdraw at any stage of the project. Additionally, they
retained the right to withdraw their data contributed to the study at any time up
until the data was analysed. Project personnel were non-judgemental and affirmed
the participants’ right to withdraw from the project, or to withdraw their data,
whilst remaining members of the coaching and mentoring programme.
• Potential harm to researchers
No potential harm to researchers was envisaged. The project was carried out as
a collaborative project and each cluster team (comprising facilitator/researcher
and two researchers) formed sound working relationships. Each of the project co-
directors were also available for support. The facilitator/researcher and the two
supporting researchers in the kaupapa Māori cluster, as indicated previously, did
experience some unease and discomfort throughout the research process, as the full
project adapted to the contradictions experienced by questioning what constitutes
kaupapa Māori within a project such as this. This research and researcher story is
woven throughout this final report.
• Potential harm to Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa/NZ Childcare Association
The research project involved working with teachers/kaiako in functioning early
childhood settings. It was not envisaged that the work of the Association through
any of its functions (e.g. teacher education, professional development, membership
support) would come into disrepute. Researchers were charged with working with
ethical sensitivity and respect through all aspects of the research and coaching and
mentoring project.
41
• Uses of information
All research data was analysed and used to produce research outputs such as
research reports, conference papers, journal articles etc. (See also ‘Procedures for
sharing information with research participants’.)
• Conflict of interest/Conflict of roles
No conflict of interest was predicted in the project. However, there existed a
potential for conflict of roles. This could have arisen in circumstances whereby a
project participant was also a student in the Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa/NZCA
teacher education upgrade to the degree programme. This was a strong potential,
as a number of students in that programme in 2012 (the year of the project)
were qualified, experienced teachers who held positions of responsibility in their
centres/services. (Students in the full-time degree programme were excluded from
selection into this project.) Conflict of roles could also apply to facilitators and
researchers who were also lecturers in the teacher education programme. Inherent
in the conflict of roles between facilitators and researchers, and participants who
were also student teachers (as described above), was the possibility of a power
imbalance which could arise because of lecturers’ role as assessors of students’
academic work. It was decided that where selected participants were also students
of the Association, they would be able to discuss any conflicts of interests, especially
power issues, with the Research Supervisor or Research Leader.
To address the potential conflict of roles, participants who were also students in the
Association’s teacher education programme would be enabled and encouraged to
discuss this dynamic with cluster facilitators when completing the consent process.
They would be reminded that they were able to contact the supervising researcher,
Dr Janis Carroll-Lind, using contact details listed on the information form.
• Cultural concerns
As this project involved a diverse range of participants, approaches which were
culturally appropriate and adhered to kaupapa Māori principles of research were
to be used in all aspects of this project. Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa/NZCA has a
commitment to a bicultural foundation; therefore protocols are guided by ethical
practices in accordance with tikanga Māori, where recognition and respect of all
peoples is paramount. While the kaupapa Māori methodology provided a basis in
Te Ao Māori, we incorporated Linda Tuhiwai-Smith’s (2003) principles of conducting
kaupapa Māori research in order to provide appropriate research processes and
protocols. These ethical principles are:
1. Aroha ki te tangata (a respect for people);
2. Kanohi kitea (the seen face, meet face to face);
3. Titiro, whakarongo, korero (look, listen, speak);
4. Manaaki ki te tangata (share and host people, be generous);
5. Kia tūpato (be cautious);
6. Kaua e takahia te mana o te tangata (don’t trample over the mana of people);
and
7. Kaua e māhaki (don’t flaunt your knowledge).
42
M ethodology
Identifying research participants: recruitment and

selection
Recruitment
Three geographical areas for recruitment were targeted, based on the availability of
research capacity in three of Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa/NZ Childcare Association’s
teaching bases. Two were located in the North Island and one in the South Island. Two
clusters each consisted of six participating centres. A third cluster consisted of four centres
which identified as kaupapa Māori. Thus a total of 16 early childhood services were
involved in the project.
Participant recruitment was handled through a three-step process. The first step involved
the distribution of flyers publicising the project. These were emailed out to all education
and care centres within the targeted geographical areas, using a Ministry of Education
generated data base of addresses. The flyers briefly informed potential participants of
our project (both the research and professional learning elements), and supplied details
of how to register an expression of interest in the project. On receipt of an expression of
interest, centres were mailed an expression of interest form and an information sheet.
Within one cluster, education and care services on the Ministry of Education list were also
contacted by phone in an attempt to create a more diverse mix of participating centres.
For the regional cluster, comprised of services that identified as kaupapa Māori there was
a more specific recruitment process, which involved kanohi-ki-kanohi/face-to-face contact
and a meeting of interested centres before selection took place.
All participants (i.e., the designated leader/s in their centre) were in early childhood
services situated within a current base of sound management, including effective policy
and procedures, as evidenced by a satisfactory Education Review Office report. Centres
needing strategic management, planning and budgeting support were not the target
group, and none responded to the initial flyer.
It was proposed that up to two leaders per centre would take part in the project. This
decision was made in response to Lesley Rameka’s (personal communication, 6 March,
2012) finding that sole participants from centres in Rameka’s study found the process
of interpreting and feeding back to their setting isolating and lonely. Many of Rameka’s
participants mentioned how they would have felt better had they shared the professional
learning context with a colleague (Rameka, 2012).
Dual participation is also important to the process of succession, as a traditional aspect
of Māori leadership that requires both revitalisation and strengthening in Te Ao Māori. All
of the centres who identify as kaupapa Māori (i.e., those in the kaupapa Māori and one
centre in another cluster) had two participants; one centre requested, successfully, that
three participants be included, based on the argument of succession planning. It is of note
that a number of leadership dyads/triads in this project were made up of an experienced
and a less experienced member, the latter often as the result of recent personnel changes
in the centre. We did not explore whether this feature contributed to the decision to
apply for participation in the project. One centre was accepted into the project with a sole
participant, and in two centres one participant in each withdrew during the project.
Centre commitment to engage in the project was high, with participants/designated
leaders agreeing to release time to attend all facets of the research and professional
43
learning programme. (This included a one-hour needs analysis interview and attendance
at six two-hour workshops, as well as six hours of coaching and mentoring interspersed
between the workshops.)
Selection
A total of 19 centres completed Expressions of Interest for the 16 places allocated across
the three clusters. Selection was based on creating diversity within the cluster, as well
as the ability for centres to provide two participants. Three centre applications were
declined, based on the selection criteria.
Selection for kaupapa Māori cluster: ngākau Māori

Knowledge is of the head, knowing is of the heart (Marsden, 2003).
Prior to the project commencing, two of the researchers in the kaupapa Māori cluster asked
“who defines kaupapa Māori?” As the start of the project drew closer, the researchers
became clear in articulating their view in terms of what was defined as kaupapa Māori.
They were concerned that centres who may have been unable to identify as kaupapa
Māori could meet the criteria through identifying as ngākau Māori. The researchers
asserted that centres working from concepts and practices of what they termed ‘ngākau
Māori’ should be included in the ‘kaupapa Māori’ cluster within the project.
What emerged from these discussions were several critical questions pertaining to
kaupapa Māori. The two key questions posed were:
1. Who determines kaupapa Māori?
2. How is kaupapa Māori defined?
Through this questioning process it became apparent that by implementing the original
criteria, we would be excluding centres who highly valued kaupapa Māori practices within
their centres, but did not explicitly define themselves as such. This led to further discussion
in terms of the selection criteria. In a kaupapa Māori view, we collectively agreed that
the selection criteria should include centres identifiable as ngākau Māori; this resulted in
widening the view of kaupapa Māori to incorporate centres of this nature. This in itself
proved to be a complex discussion. Again the research team needed to ascertain their
own understandings of ngākau Māori and what this term meant in relation to kaupapa
Māori. As discussions evolved, the research team came to similar understandings. Ngākau
Māori was defined by our team as meaning both Māori heart and Māori at heart. This
can be further described as the means to accomplish principles of kaupapa Māori from
the heart, in meaningful ways where core aspects related to the practices held within
kaupapa Māori. Practical aspects of ngākau Māori were determined by the team as having
an understanding and a sense of familiarity of te reo Māori and embracing tikanga Māori.
Ngākau Māori was further defined as a holistic way of being and knowing tikanga Māori.
It was difficult to provide a definitive term for ngākau Māori; as an holistic approach it
has depth and meaning that can be interpreted in various contexts, depending on one’s
own understanding of tikanga Māori. We knew of centres within our region which were
active practitioners of the concepts defined as ngākau Māori. As we came to clarify ngākau
Māori as a concept, we were able to draw on a wider consideration of centres that could
be included in the research project.
44
M ethodology
With the move to include centres that worked from a foundation of ngākau Māori;
acknowledgement of the researchers, their experience and knowledge of the sector
and their thoughts around this particular issue was important to how the cluster moved
forward.
It took time as a research team to establish collaborative understandings of both kaupapa
Māori and ngākau Māori. This reaffirmed the need to have a collective process to ensure
that all research voices were heard and validated (Ritchie � Rau, 2006). This process
created respectful relationships, inclusive practices, and a sense of reciprocity in being
able to listen to what each of us had to say. This is noted as an important aspect of kaupapa
Māori theory and practice (L. T. Smith, 1997) that further highlights commitment to how
whanaungatanga is enacted within research process (Bishop, 1996; Ritchie � Rau, 2006).
For the research team, it also demonstrated that we valued each other and that the
relationship between ourselves as researchers was respectful and committed to working
towards shared understandings.
Description of participants
Our information sheet stated that “Research participants are those designated pedagogical
leaders who are responsible for the learning programme in their early childhood centre/
setting”. Thus centres self-selected their participants, although the facilitator/researcher
in each region did guide centres who asked for clarification of ‘what a pedagogical leader
is’. The broad definition outlined in the introduction to this report was used: a pedagogical
leader was someone who had overall responsibility for the teaching and learning that
took place in each setting; that is, leadership focused more centrally on curriculum and
learning/pedagogy than on management and administration.
The data in Table 1 provides a summary of the characteristics of the research participants
and their centres, as reported from the Expression of Interest forms.
The Expression of Interest form asked participants to describe their “leadership position
(i.e., I am the head teacher; I am the head teacher for the infants and toddlers; I am the
supervisor…)”. The data in the table differs somewhat from that gathered in the needs
analysis interviews, where there was some reluctance to specify the actual leadership
position held. (Possibly the interview question, which was about pedagogical leadership
may have influenced the responses, or the interview context mediated the responses).
Methodology of the learning and coaching and

mentoring model
The programme consisted of monthly cluster workshops with pedagogical leaders,
interspersed with individual centre-based consultations spread over seven months. Project
participants experienced the methodology of expansive learning during the project, and
learnt and were supported to apply the methodology in their own settings.
Each cluster consisted of a facilitator (who was also a researcher) who led each workshop
session (six workshops in total) and carried out each of the one-hour follow up coaching and
mentoring meetings in participants’ centres after each workshop session. The purpose of
these meetings was to further support pedagogical leaders to foster and support ongoing
professional learning in curriculum and pedagogy at the level of the centre, through guided
45
Table 1: Characteristics of participants1
Cluster A Cluster B Cluster C

(n = 10) (n = 13) (n = 8)
Ethnicity Māori 1 4 4
(Q5)
NZ/European 8 7 4
Pasifika 1 2
Sector of Privately owned 2 4 1
ECE (Q6)
Education and care
centres — community 7 4 2
based
Pasifika 1 2
Kohanga reo 3 1
Age range Mixed age 2 3 8
of children
(Q7) Young children 2 4
4 (1 infants and
Infants and toddlers 2
toddler*)
Across all age groups 4 2
Description of leadership position (self reported in needs analysis form, Q8)
Cluster A (n = 10) Cluster B (n = 13) Cluster C (n = 8)
Centre manager x 2 Centre director Centre manager x 2
Owner/head teacher Centre supervisor Head teacher x 3
Head teacher 0-3 years Principal Shared leadership x 2

Kaitiaki (supervisor/head)
Head teacher 3-5 years Teacher
x2
Assists the manager/
Section manager
relieving
Manager Team leader, infants
Senior teacher Head teacher, under 2s*

Kaiwhakaaro (lead teacher
Head teacher
infants & toddlers)
No response Head teacher, infants
Assistant head teacher Head teacher, toddlers

Teacher (self-sustaining
team)
Teacher (4-year-olds)
46
M ethodology
use of third generation activity theory. These meetings were audio-taped and transcribed
to generate data regarding the efficacy of the research intervention. Where two (or more)
participants from the same centre took part in the project, consultation meetings were
held jointly.
Before the workshop and coaching/mentoring programme began, participants took part
in a needs analysis interview. This focused on:
• Participants’ understanding of the concept of pedagogical leadership
• Participants’ analysis of factors likely to afford and constrain their pedagogical
leadership
Each cluster consisted of the designated pedagogical leader/s from six (or four in the case
of the kaupapa Māori cluster) centres/services in the cluster, a project facilitator and two
researchers. (The project facilitator was also a researcher.)
Data generation and analysis strategies

Data was generated through audiotaped coaching and mentoring sessions with the
participants at roughly monthly to six-weekly intervals across a seven month period
spanning July 2012 to February 2013. The audiotapes were transcribed and returned to
each project facilitator for clarification of any missing detail or any wrongly interpreted and
transcribed material, and to de-identify any features that could lead to the identification
of any participant or centre. Cleaned and de-identified copies of each transcription were
then passed on to each of the two researchers attached to each cluster. These were read
and analysed individually before the researchers and cluster facilitator (also a researcher)
came together to share their analysis. Researchers analysed only data generated within
their own clusters. This pattern was repeated with the audio tapes of each subsequent
coaching and mentoring session.
Participants were informed that they could access copies of their transcripts at each point in
the process. For example, once Workshop 1 was transcribed and cleaned, transcripts were
available to participants. Few participants across the three clusters requested transcripts.
A final reminder was emailed to participants once the workshop programme had ceased
and report writing had begun. At this point, a further three requests for transcripts were
received.
Workshop sessions were audiotaped but not transcribed, due to the number of participants
taking part in these, and the tapes were held in store as a potential data source. Hand-
written field-notes were taken during the workshops by each researcher and used as data;
these were collectively analysed immediately after each workshop by the researchers and
cluster facilitator. This process was repeated five times within each cluster.
Data analysis
Analysis of the data was iterative and carried out both deductively and inductively. We
began with a deductive analysis employing a priori constructs brought to the research
process. These included constructs such as ‘leadership’, ‘pedagogical leadership’, kaupapa
Māori, ‘activity theory constructs (rules, tools, division of labour, system, contradiction’,
object/task) ‘appropriation’ for example. As we became familiar with the data, we applied
a second order inductive analysis which identified themes and/or new constructs. In
47
terms of the needs analysis interviews (held at the outset of the project), the analysis of
these was largely deductive, as the interview schedule generated a number of specific
constructs such as ‘satisfaction/challenges of being a leader’, ‘leadership courses’.
Each cluster worked collectively to clarify and confirm a priori and emergent constructs.
The cluster facilitators/researchers kept in contact to discuss the shape that data analysis
was taking in each cluster.
In October 2012, all project personnel came together in a two-day hui to share experiences
and to discuss our analysis process and procedures. The hui was planned and facilitated
by Associate Professor Joce Nuttall, our critical friend to the project. At this time we
separately and jointly analysed a consistent piece of data in order to attend to issues of
validity and credibility across the clusters.
In February this year, once all data generated within clusters had been analysed, the three
project facilitators (including the project co-directors) came together to discuss insights,
confirm themes and decide on the data story of the report in order to address our research
questions. It was then decided to treat the data horizontally (i.e., across the data sets),
with a separate analysis of the kaupapa Māori cluster as a case study.
Careful, recursive analysis (i.e., returning to the data source) took place, as evidenced by
the analytic data coding. This is consistently used across the chapters in the following way.
First, pseudonyms chosen by the participants themselves are used to differentiate the
various quotes. Participants in our kaupapa Māori cluster are identified as belonging to
this cluster. However, participants in the other two clusters are not specifically identified
by cluster. Brackets enclose the abbreviations denoting the data file. Our referencing
format for data extracts identifies the source of each piece of data as follows:
• NA = Needs Analysis
• CM = Coaching and Mentoring
• W = Workshop
• WFN = Workshop field notes.
In addition:
• The numeral following CM indicates the coaching and mentoring session number
• The numeral following W indicates the workshop session number
• The page numbers indicate the page of the transcript from which the quote was
sourced.
The following chapters address the findings of this study. They begin with a narrative,
interpretive account of the ‘journey’ taken in the kaupapa Māori cluster. While the journey
described in this cluster is specific to it, there are many parallels with the participant’s
journeys in the other two clusters. This chapter is followed by two further findings
chapters, both of which draw on data from across the three clusters.
48
Kaupapa M āori Findings
CHAPTER 4:
Kaupapa Māori findings

Introduction: Taking up the model
This chapter discusses the notion of ‘taking up of the model’ within the kaupapa Māori
cluster as a progressive narrative which takes account of the initial stages, the mid-point
and the end-point. Areas to surface in the data were:
• the alignments between kaupapa Māori and activity theory;
• resistance to taking up the model; and
• the importance of understanding contradiction in the context of the model.
We outline the different stages experienced by the participants, as they sought to
understand Engeström’s (1987; 2001) model of activity theory, how it might be applied
within their centre practices and its relationship with expansive learning theory. The aim
here is to describe the experiences of participants in the project as frankly as possible.
We do not claim that a full understanding of the model was achieved by all involved, but
rather seek to demonstrate how different participants experienced the model. While this
chapter also explores the alignment of kaupapa Māori with activity theory and expansive
learning theory, this is seen essentially in terms of alignments to the specific principle of
whanaungatanga (Smith, 1997). Just as these alignments are conceptual, they also relate
to the practices involved within collective ‘being’.
Kua mārama: Do you understand?

Throughout the duration of the project, there were significant periods of confusion,
struggle and resistance as participants sought to understand the model and its function.
We may see some parallel in the whakapapa2 of Māori creation, beginning in a time of
nothingness (Te Kore), moving on to being born into darkness (Te Pō), and coming into the
world of light (Te Ao Mārama). There were definite moments within the project where
there was a sense of being in complete darkness, then moving from the place of darkness
and unknowing into the beginnings of light and knowing. As for the children of Rangi and
Papa, there was an unsettling and an uncertainty of not knowing, of not having clarity of
thought or understanding. This is an essential step in any learning process.
Significantly, in Te Ao Māori, Te Kore is the beginning, referred to as the space of
nothingness, the realm between being and non-being, the realm of potential. Te Pō, the
darkness, the realm of becoming and then; there was the struggle that ensued, to come
2 genealogy
49
into the world of light, Te Ao Mārama. Te Ao Mārama is the realm of being, a stream of
processes and events (King, 1977). The word mārama means light or clarity, māramatanga
means understanding.
The following section, drawing from participant interviews, discusses what we call ‘taking
up the model’ (appropriation) at the beginning of the project, mid-project and in the
completing stages of the project.
The participants involved demonstrated an initial understanding of the model, where
most gauged some idea of how it works. There was stated excitement from some of the
participants in terms of seeing how the model might impact within their centre practice.
Discussion around leadership had both variances and similarities across centre participants.
It seems to have been quite important that at least two leaders (from every centre but
one) were involved in the project, as they were able to discuss the model with each other
on an ongoing basis. Involving at least two participants emerged as being important to
succession.
In terms of leadership, particularly pedagogical leadership, an early discussion with two
centre participants at the beginning of the project focused on centre leaders identifying
themselves as designated leaders, managers, supervisors and head teachers. The two
participants found the need to identify themselves in this way very different from their
own centre approach, where all teachers led in their particular strength areas. Their centre
does not have lead teachers as such, and both participants expressed their difficulty in
understanding why teachers might want to be seen as the leader. Their understanding of
leadership is about recognising everyone as having strength and working collaboratively
in support of each other to provide optimal learning for the children in their care. In terms
of the project being specifically about leadership, this was quite an unexpected line of
discussion; but it was consistent with activity theory, which is a model of distributed
cognition.
Te Kore: the beginning

Initially, Raiha and Teina, the two participants from the immersion centre in the kaupapa
Māori cluster expressed resistance to the model. They had expected a Māori model as
being in line with a kaupapa Māori cluster approach, and also that the model might be
presented in te reo Māori. This was a clear barrier for these participants in terms of even
wanting to engage with the model. Their centre also consistently spoke of the multiple
struggles and demands which impacted on their time, resources and ability to trial the
model in the early stages of the project, although their resistance was also a factor.
Following the first workshop in the follow-up coaching session, Raiha commented:
Yeah, I wasn’t feeling altogether enthusiastic about this model and actually what I
was really hoping for, because there are models similar to this, but couldn’t we have
used a Māori model of organisation or operation? Couldn’t we have used a Māori
model? We’ve got some. We’ve got some good ones. Why did they choose this? I
know it’s all backed up with the theorists… . [CM1, p. 2]
Raiha had a ‘no nonsense’ approach to challenging the model:
…Couldn’t you fellas make up one [model] that you could bring to us to try out and
give some theory and give it some back-up that was truly bicultural? Sure, some of
the stuff in here, it’s valid, if what we’re doing is making an assessment of systems.
50
But oh, I don’t know, I was quite disappointed to hear all this. When you fellas threw
it up, I was like oh, is that it? I was waiting for something dynamic and contextually
appropriate to us as early childhood and as bilingual….something [like] Te Whāriki,
now Te Whāriki, that’s WOW! That is WOW! [CM1, p. 2]
Frank in her initial response and apparent disappointment in that the model is not a
Māori model, here Raiha is comparing Engeström’s model with Te Whāriki, the national
curriculum document for early childhood education (Ministry of Education, 1996). This
highlights several points for discussion. First, Raiha anticipated a Māori model of practice,
as might be expected in working as a kaupapa Māori cluster. In response to this particular
centre’s challenge that the model should be presented using te reo Māori, the facilitator
adapted the model to incorporate Māori phrasing in preparation for Workshop 2.
Ngā taputapu
Take a roopu mahi  ngā hua
Ngā ture Hapori Mā wai e mahi
Figure 4. Ngā taputapu Māori version of activity theory diagram
Raiha’s comparison of Engeström’s model to Te Whāriki highlights that at this early stage
of the project, she had quite understandably not recognised that the model provides a
mechanism for introducing a system of change. It is definitely not a ‘how to’ framework;
but rather an analytic framework. Te Whāriki is not a framework either — it too is a tool.
However, Raiha’s main point is that the model does not illustrate the strong Māori cultural
aspects forefronted in Te Whāriki.
…it’s been great and interesting and it’s really been thought provoking and I can see
all the benefits of the Vygotskian model but… I want to do a Māori model. Because I
think we have within us, i te ao Māori, we have a paradigm model of some sort that
could be as equally as beneficial and productive as this model, I’ve really enjoyed
this and it’s actually this one [model] that ironically calls for me to have all these
kinds of thoughts, but where is the Māori model? [CM1, p. 2]
In expressing their frustrations with the model, Raiha and her colleague Teina consistently
resisted the model by not trialling it. But they also saw on first view that there were
areas where te reo Māori could be naturally applied to the model, and in this way they
responded to the model by ‘making it Māori’. They immediately worked on adapting the
language in which to ‘take up the model’, aligning the key concepts to Māori concepts and
ways of doing (tikanga/ture, ngā taputapu, mā wai e mahi, ngā mahi, ngā hua).
51
This implies that not only did the language fit with the model, but, importantly, that the
concepts appeared familiar. The key concepts, rules, tools and division of labour easily
related to Māori concepts of activity. Although the model was adapted to include Māori
vocabulary, the concepts were retained as they were, in that they were seen as akin to
Māori ways of being. On different occasions they commented in terms of relating the
system of activity to the function of working in marae environments (W4, field-notes):
Talking about these roles and responsibilities, I guess when you come from that [Te
Reo] Māori focus, there’s a role for everybody, there’s a place for everybody and
everybody has their place, so I liken it a little bit to when you’re at home on the
Marae, everybody has their role to play. [CM1, p. 6]
Their response provides an excellent example of tool adaptation, which is evidence of
appropriation. Furthermore, there is evidence that the concepts of activity theory show
some alignment to kaupapa Māori and specifically to Māori ways of working using the
analogy of working on the marae.
Language
Generally all the centre participants referred to the model as the ‘triangle’, rather than
using the terminology of the model, activity theory, or activity systems or third generation
activity theory. Also there was a tendency to avoid the academic language associated with
the model, as participants generally preferred to discuss the model using language that
they were comfortable with. There was a certain level of resistance to taking up the model
due to the language used. The participants, for example, described the use of what some
called “speaky kind of jargon” [CM1, p. 2] as a challenge and barrier to enabling their
teaching teams and colleagues to become more familiar with the model. This is a common
thread occurring in discussion across the centres. For example, participants Ria and Lana
had the following discussion:
Ria: …you know when you reach certain levels of training, it becomes all this speak
that sounds so incredibly tech, I mean pedagogical for goodness sake that word
alone, just that word alone let alone all the other kind of things, you know can
make some people, not me so much personally myself because I have that strategy
of breaking it down, because when I did; my study there was those articles that
you’d read, and you’d think for goodness sake and you’d read it ten times and then
think oh that’s what they mean, and why didn’t they just say that. I’m certainly not
frightened about it, and I’m not overwhelmed but I am aware for some people that
[it] really can be very off putting, and like you say somebody might say ‘ah I’m a bit
thick I don’t get this or whatever’, and they’re not at all, it’s just that person’s made
it sound as complicated as they possibly can for their own level.
Lana: … when you’re in a workshop scenario when you have that opportunity to talk
to each other, and somebody says I think that just means that, and the penny drops
for you or for the other person or what have you, that that’s really valuable, if you
didn’t have that opportunity to break it down with each other, you could go away
just thinking this is too hard for me, and what am I doing here.
Ria: And that was just a couple of conversations that we’d had with the small group
that we were sitting next to, and it was that old ‘I’m not trained, I don’t know what
they’re talking about’ […] I think for parents too, like we talk often about, and I
guess you could apply this model to that sort of stuff too about not writing teacher
52
talk, so that it scares parents away, engaging whānau all the time you know you
really have to think about that.
Lana: we’re sharing it with our teachers and then we’re going to be sharing it with
our whānau, so yeah if we can’t break it down for ourselves then we’ve got no
hope. [CM1, pp. 4–5]
Their concern was clearly around using language that was inclusive, in order to allow
them to share the model with their team members and their centre whānau. Being able
to share the model with centre whānau positions the importance of whanaungatanga
as central to this centre’s practice. The result of this particular discussion was that Ria
and Lana adapted the language of the model to suit what they felt was appropriate for
their whānau. The majority of participants had no qualms about appropriating the model
through using language they related to, whether it was Māori or English.
By contrast, Amy felt that changing the language of the model defeated the purpose
of using the model, though she acknowledged that the other three centres had moved
forward in doing so:
To me it defeats, if I change it, but then I could understand how they had moved
forward more so than we had, because they had changed the word[s], but they still
have to go back to that whole point of what does that mean? [CM3, p. 2]
Amy makes a good point in terms of whether changing the language of the model will in
fact give the other participants a better understanding of the model, but she also realises
that the other centres’ understanding of the model and that their potential to implement
the model has progressed. Amy worked hard to make sense of the model and initially
felt that she had ‘got it’. Adapting the language of the model made little sense to her and
she questioned the purpose of changing the language if the concepts and know-how of
the model remained unclear. This section is particularly important because language is
the preeminent tool of all cultures. Ironically, Raiha challenged the origins of the model
by recognising Māori concepts and systems of practices in it: “…the concepts contained
inside the model, well obviously they are not exclusively European because we practice
these things by virtue of our nature anyway…” [CM1, p. 7].
In drawing from this data, Raiha is effectively laying claim to the concepts within the model,
as she raises the point that the model illustrates how Māori work as a collective because
they have been enculturated this way since birth. Indeed, Vygotsky (1978) argued that all
babies are hard-wired to enter the collective. In particular this applies to concepts around
the division of labour. This aligns specifically with the roles and responsibilities associated
with the various functions of marae. Participants made this comparison consistently over
the duration of the project.
As the project progressed, Raiha commented: “I think in a strange way we do that model
but it’s not, it doesn’t appear like that on a piece of paper, but in actual fact it is probably
what we do” [CM2, p. 2]. Here Raiha is identifying a familiarity and alignment of the model
to kaupapa Māori, in recognising that as a kaupapa Māori centre, they already practise
aspects of the model. In particular, the division of labour is recognised as an area of
alignment in terms of understanding the roles and responsibilities of the collective.
Thanks to the participants’ responses, the research team was prompted to consider ways
in which the model could be articulated in a manner that could draw on Māori principles.
Accordingly, the team expanded the model to incorporate Māori concepts of mōhiotanga,
mātauranga and māramatanga (knowing, knowledge and understanding). Ideally, the
53
opportunity to wānanga (workshop) this model more thoroughly with the participants
in the initial workshops would have been preferable, but the timeframes allocated in
the workshop settings did not allow for this level of engagement. Hence there is still
considerable work and research to be done in terms of how the model could be used in
this context.
In their initial introduction to the model, participants Amy and Jade indicated their interest
“… we’re very interested in the model and I personally would have liked more time spent
so I haven’t got the full grip on the model, of course I don’t expect to get it on the first day
either…” [CM1, p. 1].
The initial introduction to the model showed that Amy and Jade were still becoming familiar
with it and that they did not expect to understand it in totality in the first workshop.
Insufficient time to actively gain a confidence in understanding the model is indicated.
However, both participants spoke about the different strategies they utilised to better
understand the model “…we found that both of us had very different understandings of it,
but we came to the same outcome” [CM1, p. 2].
So even though they initially had different understandings of the model, the best approach
for conceptualising the model was by sharing and discussing it. Having time to become
familiar with the model was important to gaining confidence in understanding the model
and consequently taking up the model. Both participants seemed to come to grips with
the model early in the project, particularly Amy, who was very detailed and complex in her
thinking. In talking about her own complexity, she said: “Literally it’s like [working with] a
jigsaw puzzle, we’ve got all these pieces and I will pull them all apart and rebuild it, and
that has to have a purpose, so I go the long way around to it.”
In describing herself, Amy speaks of how she works through things by deconstructing and
reconstructing to make sense; she is very clear about needing to understand the purpose
of why she does what she does, and is quite pragmatic in saying so. She needs to be clear
about what she does and why.
In the initial introduction to the model, Lana said: “I certainly couldn’t say that I’ve got
really any in-depth knowledge about the model at this stage, it was just that okay this
is what we’re going to hopefully go into a little bit more detail about” [CM1, p. 2]. This
comment suggests that understandably, Lana had yet to gain clarity of the model but is
keen to work towards gaining a sense of how it works. This is similarly reflected by Ria,
who talked about working together with Lana to gain a better understanding of how to
utilise the model within their centre:
I think for me initially it was quite busy, when you look at those models it was quite
busy and quite full on, but once Lana and I sort of towards the end sat there and
thought well this has to pertain to our centre alone, how do we fit those little bits
and pieces, how do we do that, it became a little bit clearer. …we’ll have to unpack it
little bits at a time and relate it back to how we work, and how our centre functions,
and I think for them it will be when you have your korero. [CM1, p. 2]
From the beginning stages of the research project, Ria and Lana were able to make
alignments from their practice, engaging the model and drawing on centre practice and
beginning to link these tasks to the model. Despite their initial uncertainties, this team
quickly made alignments with centre tasks.
54
Following Workshop 1, Lorna and Kaye give the following feedback about their introduction
to the model:
Lorna: I have to see things worked into practice, like I have to experience it to get
it in my head, I’m a worker I like to… sometimes I don’t see clearly from board to
paper, my way of learning is actually doing something constructive so I can relate it
to my own practice…it was a little bit confusing in my mind personally…Kaye had a
bit more of a grip on things than what I did.
Kaye: Once they started about what the different tools…you know relating, same
sort of thing, yeah examples and I was like ah sweet yeah… . [CM1, p. 4]
Here Lorna highlights her preferred learning style, through hands on learning, and states
that this impacted on her gaining an understanding in the first workshop. This was echoed
by other participants, reinforcing that future workshops should provide for hands-on
activities around using the model. Despite not gaining an initial understanding of the
model, Lorna talks about being able to relate the activity to her practice. Kaye’s comment
indicates that she has gained some understanding of the model with the discussion around
tools and the examples given to illustrate the model.
Participants are generally showing a glimpse of understanding or at least of wanting to
engage in the model at this stage of the project. The discussion shows them moving from
not knowing to seeing potential in the model, searching for clarity around using the model,
seeking ways in which to make connection, and seeing a way forward. At this early stage
there are shards of light on the horizon.
Contradiction
Contradiction is crucial to affording the opportunity to implement change, because it
highlights areas of practice where there is tension or possibly where change is required.
Participants’ responses to this concept were varied. Introducing the idea of contradiction
was undertaken briefly in Workshop 1 and more fully explored in Workshop 2; by mid-
project, there was still a high level of discussion occurring around contradiction.
Participants in one of the centres immediately recognised ‘contradiction’ as holding the
potential to make change. They were intrigued by the potential of the model to do this, as
exemplified in the following excerpt:
Ria: it did make me stop and think yeah I get that. I quite liked it, I like the way that
it was put because it’s not hard to understand.
Lana: And contradiction is not always a negative.
Ria: And I think those are those healthy conversations that we have to have…you
have to have those conversations sometimes, and you really do have to think when
you’re in that leadership role, how are you going to approach it, but I still think that
comes back to having that relationship and knowing that person, or parent or staff
member well enough to know how you’re going to approach it, because it would
never be the same with any two people I don’t think. [CM1, pp. 5–6]
Here Ria makes links between leadership and the importance of relationships or
whanaungatanga to the role of leadership, seeing the integral connection between
leadership and whanaungatanga. As Ria articulates a preferred way of working as a leader
who is constantly mindful of others and building respectful relationships, the presence of
whanaungatanga is being articulated as a process to better understand how the model
can be implemented effectively.
55
While Ria and Lana saw some of the immediate benefits in identifying contradictions
within their centre, this was not necessarily the experience of the participants from other
centres. For example, Lorna expressed some discomfort with the place of contradiction
within the model: “I don’t like contradiction so I’m already taking like five steps back”
[CM1, p. 7].
Although contradiction is understood as an area that affords change, it is also seen by
Lorna as a particular area of challenge and discomfort, as she has particular concern
around imposing her own ideas on other staff members. She further holds the view that
contradiction is tied to personalities: “How do you get that, the contradictions without
the personal because the contradiction is the personal because that’s why you have the
contradiction, because you’ve got the personal” [CM1, p. 7]. This is in fact a misrecognition
of what a contradiction is, as discussed later in the report.
Participants were allocated the task of finding a contradiction within their centre which
would enable them to practise using the model. Amy and Jade found this extremely
difficult, partly because they sought a definition for the word contradiction outside the
context of the model. This caused initial confusion, preventing them from being able to
move forward with the task. The extra onus of sharing their learning with their home
centre also contributed to their confusion, as the definition of contradiction was examined
separately from the model.
Jade: Yeah I’m struggling on the whole contradiction thing, even finding one…
The things that I’ve been looking at are little things that are easily, I don’t think
I need this [model] to sort them out, it’s just little staff dynamics and the whole
courageous conversation is enough to get us through that with work. I suppose if I
was in a different centre it would be different, but here we know each other really
well and can approach each other. Yeah so finding the actual contradiction for me
to work on was really tricky so I went to Anne (centre owner) and she said take it to
my team, so now we’re looking as a team how we can put down for our next hui,
and even then we’re still kind of struggling really. Out of it though I’ve gotten little
things that I do, it’s just made me reflect on myself really. … so it’s made me look at
what I do, but that’s not so much fitting in to the model as what you have asked for,
actual contradiction so yeah. [CM2, p. 1]
Amy: I think we already work within the model in the centre, but we don’t have the
documentation or the actual model to know, like we’re already doing it without the
model already existing. Would that be fair to say? Yeah because that’s the difference
I think when we talked about that whole everybody being on the same path, you
don’t have the hierarchy and so you’re working together as a team constantly, rather
than just one person, and one person will lift where they need to, when they need
that bar to be moved they’ll uplift to that and then they step back down when they
need to.… but that’s how it’s always been, we don’t know any different. We came,
most of us came from a centre that you did have hierarchy, where here we never
had that, we’ve always seen each other as team members, not somebody because
you’re more qualified or more experienced is better than anybody else, and it’s just
the way we work. We acknowledge and respect each other as people, as colleagues,
as friends and we’re partners in this. [CM2, p. 2]
The emphasis Jade makes in her comment is that she does not at this stage see the tool as
of practical use, because her centre has systems/processes in place to manage anything
56
that comes up. Amy, on the other hand, is clear in her articulation that their centre is
already using systems that relate to the model in their current practice, and reaffirms
the leadership in the centre as working from a strengths-based, shared, team approach.
Analysis suggests that Jade sees the concept of contradiction as something that seeks
negative aspects of practice, and she is expressing a level of resistance to this notion of
contradiction. This was openly expressed by Jade and Amy in Workshop 3. Both Jade and
Amy repeatedly talked about their centre in positive ways in terms of their experience of
being part of a team with an open, shared approach to leadership and an active sense
of whanaugatanga focused on developing quality relationships within the centre. This in
itself has generated a high level of loyalty amongst staff.
Jade: We are very protective of this place, you know these are our families, our
children, it’s our little, it’s our community. So we are, we’re very protective of it […]
I think one of our biggest strengths as a team [is] we look after one another, that we
have each other’s backs, you know. [NA, p. 9]
Jade is here expressing not only her own loyalty, but the loyalty of the centre team as
a collective, as a whānau and as a community. As illustrated in the data, Jade affirms
their centre as a base of whanaungatanga in which quality relationships are considered
of high importance. While identifying contradiction remained an area of tension for Amy
and Jade, they continued to reaffirm that their centre actively worked as a system in
addressing tensions or discrepancies within their practice.
For some participants, then, the concept of contradiction within the model has set them
back from glimpses of light to a place of darkness, obscurity and withdrawal. While this
is not the situation for all the participants in this cluster, it is nevertheless significant to
mention at this stage of the project.
Te Pō: Taking up the model mid-project

The metaphor of Te Pō is used to illustrate what is occurring at the mid-stage of the project.
Te Pō is defined as the realm of becoming, the beginning of understanding and of knowing.
By mid-project, the participants involved had varying degrees of understanding in terms
of taking up the model. The introduction of Workshop 3 saw participants recapping on
the previous workshop with enthusiasm and excitement. For Amy and Jade, however,
the struggle to find a contradiction within their centre (as discussed above) was having
a impact on both of them, and they were starting to question their participation in the
project. Through their interpretation of the word ‘contradiction’ they were experiencing
the model as deficit-based rather than credit-based.
At this point participants from the other three centres interjected, reinforcing their views
in seeing the model as offering a positive and practical way forward for their centres.
Interestingly, Raiha and Teina, who had until this point strongly resisted taking up the
model, were now showing interest. In contrast, Ria and Lana, took up the model early in
the project and were actively trying it out. In Workshop 3 Ria stated, “I have the triangle
in my head” [WFN3]. She added, “The triangle is your centre, the centre is your culture…”
This statement indicates a clear understanding of the model, where Ria has actually
internalised it, so that it is ‘in her head’ and appears to be well embedded in her thinking.
57
After coaching and mentoring sessions 3 and 4, participants were showing some shift in
terms of how the model might be useful for their centres. Feedback comments on sharing
the model with their centre staff and emphasising how the model focuses on establishing
the centre as a system rather than on the specific actions of individuals included:
[B] said this is awesome, this takes away from us making mistakes, and it talks about
the gaps in the system, ae, so it’s not about, I didn’t do this and you didn’t do that,
it’s like here’s how it’s supposed to flow, something’s happened here, what is the
gap in the system that we need to correct… . [WFN4]
This quote highlights a sense of relief in terms of the model offering a framework that takes
pressure away from the individual. The focus is on working towards a shared agreement
with how the centre will work as a system through utilising the model. Notably, the staff
member who said this to her centre leader had only recently completed her teaching
diploma and had been given the head teacher role with the children aged under two
years. This is an important area of concern, as relayed by one of the centre participants in
coaching and mentoring session 4:
The teachers talked at length about this unrealistic expectation that they feel
sometimes they’re just ticketed, just [been] registered and they’re thrown in the
deep end, and suddenly they’re the boss and no one taught them in an ECE course,
whichever course they did, how to be the leader, and so whilst they know they feel
they’re ready to do some teaching, they’re not entirely ready to lead a team. [CM4,
p. 1]
There was also recognition of how contradiction is identified within the model and the
importance of identifying the contradiction to ‘adapt’ specific areas of practice. For
example, Raiha and Teina referred to ‘contradiction’ as a gap in how they understood
this particular aspect of the model, using their own interpretation of what ‘contradiction’
meant for them in terms of making the model work for them. While they changed the
terminology of the model to suit their needs, essentially the original concepts stayed
intact.
At mid-stage of the project, Raiha provided an example of how they trialled the model in
their centre:
…as a result of using this tool, they (kaiako) made up a tikanga last night, just during
our hui. Some parents have been arriving late and they’ve been opening the door
when we’ve already started karakia, and popping the kids through and taking off,
they (kaiako) decided last night no more of that. They were saying they were torn
because they want to have an open door policy to our parents, and they appreciate
that sometimes the tamariki are late, and they had mixed feelings about the tamariki
waiting outside with the parents, because it felt a bit rude, but after discussing it
more in-depth last night at the hui, they decided as a team that this is the tikanga,
and that parents [need to] understand clearly that when we’re in karakia session,
there is a reverence and a respect that goes with that…. we’ll open the door, and
the kids will be invited in, and if they want the tamariki to be involved in the karakia
then they need to come in a more timely manner. So this is all the stuff that came
out of us going around the triangle, and just talking to it. [CM4, pp. 2–3]
This particular excerpt demonstrates how the centre engaged in using the model to bring
about change in a particular aspect of their daily routine, involving karakia. Notably the
centre used the word tikanga within the model. There are two areas within the model in
58
terms of how tikanga might be applied: rules or tools. Tikanga may be considered in the
context of Māori cultural practices and protocols which may loosely translate to rules
or; more specifically, to rules or protocols of practice and/or engagement. Alternatively,
tikanga is being used as a tool/artefact to establish guidance or policy around a particular
area of practice. While the specific area (rule or tool) utilised by the centre that afforded
their solution for this scenario is not explicit, their ability to use the model in providing a
systematic process in this instance shows there is some initial uptake of it.
Although the previous excerpt provides a good example of how the centre has a basic
understanding of the model, whether there was ongoing application of the model for this
centre was not evident at this stage of the project. The participant’s request for further
support is evident in this comment:
Why is the project ending after 6 months, why are we not carrying on? I just feel
that, we haven’t even really touched on… we just have an awareness but I feel
like, I think that this model is really, really beneficial and used correctly it’s just so
helpful, you can see that already and I just feel like we haven’t got to the meat of it
and the project is nearly over. I feel like we could do with some support to actually
implement it and get some really good gains out of it. [WFN5]
Raiha asked for ongoing support several times during the course of the project, highlighting
that they had yet to gain confidence in using the model. This was further apparent in their
initial resistance to the model and the initial lack of effort put into trialling the model.
However, by Workshop 4, a sense of change was evident in that the centre had looked
at possible scenarios for introducing the model to their team, enabling them to see
some potential benefits: “We are I think more ready, more informed and [have] more
systematically identified not just the gaps but possible solutions” [W4, FN].
Throughout the project, Raiha talked about the need for more systematic approaches
within their centre practice. By Workshop 4 she displayed added interest in the model as
enabling the centre to work as a system. At this stage of the project, while Raiha and Teina
saw the benefits of implementing a systematic approach, it was not evident whether the
understanding of viewing the centre as a system was well imbued.
At mid-project, Lorna and Kaye discussed how collaboration was being impeded in terms
of both participants taking up and learning the model. They felt that if they were working
in the same teaching space within the centre, it would be easier for them to actively use
the model on a regular basis. Part of this discussion was specific to needing support within
their respective teams to effect change. Here Lorna describes her dilemma:
We haven’t been able to work through because it’s with my team and Kaye doesn’t
work in that team so for me…I think if only somebody else had come along that was
in my team so we could try and work that model like on a smaller scale…like when
do you use it as a whole team? [CM2, p. 2]
The data indicates that Lorna is either having difficulty in introducing the model to her
team or, alternatively, that she is not confident to do so:
Normally the common things are things that we’re going to head with anyway,
so they’re really confrontational anyway…I’ve found that to be a real barrier with
myself…whereas if I had someone in my team, I think we could have done some of
the things…and just sort of nutted it out a bit… . [CM2, p. 3]
59
At this stage the situation becomes clearer: there is an indication that introducing change
within her team is akin to going into battle, whereas if she actually had someone in her
team undertaking the programme, this may have supported her in implementing the
model and effecting change. She is positioned as stalemated.
At mid-project, Ria relayed how she was experiencing working with the model:
Maybe before the introduction of the model it would have been a bit you know
they talk about those courageous conversations, that’s what it would have felt like,
I don’t feel like that, being able to use the model I don’t feel like I have to have a
courageous conversation, that it takes that out of, out of the equation for me. [CM4,
p. 4]
Ria also commented on how she had shared the model with two of her staff in her initial
attempt to trial it:
I’ve had a conversation with the two staff that were going to initially, that we were
going to initially try this [model] on and so the whole time of talking to them that’s
what you can sort of see this little pyramid in your head going okay, always thinking
about it but changing up the words a little bit so, so they’re on board too with it,
though you know so it’s definitely about the way in which you deliver it. I think that’s
a bit you know we talked a bit with one of the other centres about tapping in to
those strengths you know so of those staff members that, that those contradictions
may lie with or those procedures or policy, whatever it may be. And so they’re quite
excited about it now too. [CM4, p. 5]
Ria and Lana then further discussed how they had trialled the model and also raised some
of the initial feelings of anxiety and excitement in introducing the model to their team:
Ria: And I’m not [like] oh god now I’ve got to have that … conversation that I don’t
really like to have, it’s like oh yeah we get to change things, oh yeah you know.
So although it’s just been in terms of having korero they’ve already brought in to,
they’ve already brought in to the triangle per se you know which is great.
Lana: Just, just love this, I was looking at my notes from the other day, this expansive
transformation is what happens when systems develop deeper, rich and more
complex and more robust responses to the object or the activity, the task at hand.
And I’ve written you know, will it add depth, will we see it in a new light? And I
think that certainly when we bring something to the table that’s exactly what we’re
hoping, that people will see things in a new light…so we’re expecting that there
will be further opportunity to practise another one [task] later on next week, well
probably the same but just expanding it ae Ria? [CM4, p. 5]
At this stage of the project Lana is starting to think about expanding the task, as she looks
forward to further trialling the model. In this excerpt we see Lana using the terminology:
“will we see it in a new light”; thus in reflecting on the learning taking place, Lana is further
relating to the metaphor of Te Ao Mārama. This highlights the variances of understanding
taking place across the cluster. The continual shifting between dark and light, between not
knowing and knowing is a consistent theme at this stage of the project.
60
Te Ao Mārama — the completion

Te Ao Mārama is used to describe the project in the completing stages. The use of Te Ao
Mārama is set within the context that signals a glimpse of light and flashes of understanding.
At Workshop 4, during the usual round robin at the start of the workshop, Amy and Jade
gave feedback on their progress since Workshop 3:
Jade: We’ve discovered a way for the model to work for us, instead of looking at
struggling over some problem that we can fix, we are now looking at something
new and developing something through using the model, man, we’ve got a massive
mahi coming up. [laughter] We found a way for the model to work.
Amy: This is part one of our homework. We didn’t go looking for it; it slapped us in
the face.
Jade: …my whole attitude’s changed… [laughter]
Amy: We’re using the model to introduce social media to the centre, and how are
we going to do that, with the outcome being increasing a higher level of parental
engagement in the children’s learning and development.
Jade: Interesting, you know how when you’re looking at the walls that have broken
down on itself (showing picture of the model with wavy lines on both sides of the
triangle, disrupting the model) it’s the actual tools that we found ...but there’s no
policies around it. We’re talking about putting the centre on Facebook, trying to
get our parents involved outside the centre, trying to get them really engaged with
what’s going on. So our biggest gap is the tools …to start off with …so that’s where
we’re heading. [W5, FN]
In this excerpt it is clear that after struggling to find a contradiction in their centre practice,
Jade and Amy have decided to introduce something new to their centre and are fully
engaged in doing so. They have come to the workshop with diagrams to illustrate how
they are using the model, the wavy lines demonstrating what Jade refers to as the “walls
breaking down on itself”. They are confident in their way forward and appear to have
re-orientated themselves to the model since the last workshop. While they have avoided
looking at the initial task of finding a contradiction, the task they have established for
themselves still allows them to utilise the model to introduce social media to the centre
community. This task in itself is anticipated as being potentially challenging, in that it is
likely to involve substantial ethical concerns requiring significant consultation with staff
and whānau. They are nevertheless looking forward to the challenge and excited at the
prospect of the task.
In the follow-up with Lorna and Kaye after Workshop 4, they discussed how they were
struggling with their team to collaborate, and commented that team members had
a tendency to sit on the fence and were not proactive in effecting or making change.
Although there was frequently an underlying sense of unease in their discussion, Kaye and
Lorna were not in the habit of making negative comments about their team, highlighting
this as a consistent frustration for them. In discussing the model, Lorna commented:
…it’s like hanging out your washing… I don’t know if other centres felt like that,
maybe you don’t want to share some of those things I don’t know in your groups
but they would be quite good to work with. [CM3, p. 4]
While Lorna is direct in raising the issue of sharing discussion as such outside her own
centre, she does signal her wariness in disclosing what could be viewed as less than
61
professional practice. She follows up in talking about how the model helps to discuss taken
for granted assumptions around leadership that tend to occur through being reliant on
someone else leading:
And I think that’s where that model can come in because we get so comfortable
in what we know and then when we actually, like when somebody leaves like our
manager has left…sometimes we just take for granted the things like you always go
to your manager…like I haven’t actually sought that [information, know-how] out
for myself. [CM3, p. 4]
Here Lorna provides her own example of how people tend to leave certain aspects of
leadership to ‘designated leaders’, rather than taking leadership themselves. She highlights
this in her own workplace situation and practice.
Following Workshop 5, Lana and Ria discussed how they utilised the model for their first
staff planning day in the New Year:
Lana: …Ria had already introduced the model to two of our staff around you know
one particular set of duties in terms of the shared job in the kitchen, so they were
familiar with it but [for] the other teachers it was a new full game. And it was really
successful! We took rather a lot on board, we used the triangle to evaluate all of the
areas of duties that we have like the inside teachers’ role and the outside teachers’
role and there was five [duties] I think we covered at the end of, by the end of the
day…. some teachers did comment at the end … that was a lot to process and some
had gone home and not slept very well that night because they were thinking about
it all. But I think both of us found it really positive in terms of amazingly how many
of them seem to really get it just on first introduction. [CM5, p. 2]
In taking up the model, Lana acknowledges here the opportunities of learning taken on
board, and the execution of the model as it is introduced to the team. Both participants
are enthused at how quickly their team have taken to the model, as they have also picked
up relatively well the terminology adapted by the team leaders: “We just changed some
of the names yeah, not the actual structure of it at all” [CM5, p. 2].
Expressing their thoughts in relation to the language used in the model in previous
workshops and coaching sessions, Ria and Lana simply adapted the language to suit their
own understanding of the model, as a way of moving forward.
Both participants were obviously excited by the success of the planning day and are pleased
with the overall results of their efforts in introducing the model and the active response
and contribution from their team. Significantly, Ria attributed the success of introducing
the model to the existing strength of whanaungatanga within the team. “I think it’s a true
reflection of our, our centre as a team, as whanaungatanga as well” [CM5, p. 3].
The centre leaders consistently spoke about the importance of whanaungatanga/
relationships to how they operate as a centre over the duration of the project. Further, they
illustrated the importance of inclusion of whānau within their professional discussions.
It appears that a strong base of whanangatanga amongst staff/whānau creates the
conditions for successfully implementing the model and also for pedagogical leadership
to occur. The scenario above would suggest that this is indeed the case for this centre
team, who have picked the model up from first introduction and used it to develop five
child-focused duties in a half day session.
62
Ria discusses the process as empowering, in that all staff have contributed in coming to a
shared agreement around specific child-focused tasks. This is an important point, because
it indicates evidence of distributed cognition. Collaboration across the team is apparent
as both Ria and Lana speak of the opportunities of growth and development provided in
working on the model with their colleagues. Both participants have taken ownership of the
model, and have applied it in meaningful ways, by unpacking it to provide understanding
for their team. A collaborative approach to working is seen as they work together with
their team to reflect on the procedures of the centre. This gives them the opportunity to
discuss and unpack the procedures as the model is taken up. Personalising the model has
made the sharing and implementation of the model a positive experience for Ria and Lana
and their team, and provides further evidence that ‘collaboration’ has become a conscious
rule.
Leadership qualities and taking up the model are highly demonstrated at this centre. A
shared understanding and knowledge has been gained from the workshops to enable the
model to be facilitated and taken on by the rest of the team. Attributes of leadership
are portrayed from taking up the model. The ability of Ria and Lana to role model for
the team they are representing and their ability to motivate, inspire and mobilise the
team through well-developed negotiation and facilitation skills (Ka’ai, Moorfield, Reilly, �
Mosley, 2004) are highlighted. Whanaungatanga is further expressed and understood as
a means of representation toward collective being and positive outcomes for the centre;
this is highlighted as opportunities are provided for the team to collaborate and contribute
toward discussions.
In Workshop 4, Raiha spoke of being inspired by the korero during the workshops between
the different participating centres: She saw the collegiality and shared conversations
during the project as invaluable and as a key part of learning throughout the progamme.
This is a good example of being able to communicate effectively through having a tool in
common. Raiha also repeated what she said before about aspects of the model being part
of how Māori work as a normal function (e.g., marae) where everyone just gets on with
whatever needs doing.
With Engestrom’s model focusing on providing child centred outcomes in applying the
model, Raiha noted a discrepancy while working on an activity of using the model on a
centre task. At times grappling with the model and constantly going back to her outcome,
she realised her dilemma and said:
Raiha: Our philosophy is also parent orientated it’s not necessarily just child…
Facilitator: It’s whānau.
Raiha: It’s whānau… . [W4, FN]
It was only in retrospect that the facilitator considered that this was clearly a huge
contradiction in Raiha’s thinking, and hence in her struggle with the task. The point being
made here is that from a traditional Māori view, children are not seen in isolation from
their whānau; and essentially they are viewed as not just part of their immediate whānau
but part of a wider collective of whānau groupings.
This also raises an important issue in terms of how whānau aspirations are realised within
teaching and learning settings. In terms of the model working from a base where the
outcomes were child-centred, the distinction from a kaupapa Māori view is that while it
also understands the outcome as child-centred, this is from a perspective that considers
63
the child as part of an extended family unit. Time spent on unpacking the ‘community’
aspect of the model was useful here. While other centres involved in the cluster did
not express this particular view, the centre that did was the one centre that staunchly
identified as kaupapa Māori.
Raiha also raised discussion (in Workshop 4) about the thinking that achieving an ECE
qualification is all that is needed for ECE staff; however, for a Māori immersion centre,
it is apparent that the qualification is only a small part of what is required. Raiha brings
attention to the training or reality of staff that do not hold fluency and knowledge of
te reo Māori, tikanga and mātauranga Māori as a huge gap for their centre — that is, a
contradiction. This view was also endorsed by Ria (in Workshop 4, field recording), who
stressed that Raiha was not on her own in her experience, and that a qualification in early
childhood is simply not enough — the need to strengthen te reo Māori in all centres is
critical. The point raised by Raiha is that we have two competing systems where one is
secondary to the other. With emphasis placed on an early childhood qualification, te reo
Māori me ōna tikanga significantly holds less importance than theories of development.
While genuine efforts are being made to address this in the sector, the system of dominant
culture currently presides.
Kua mārama? Do you understand?

This section has outlined the key discussion by the research participants in this kaupapa
Māori cluster, and has concentrated on providing a narrative of how these participants in
the project have taken up the model of activity theory, which at times has ‘morphed’ into
examples of expansive learning theory. Though the visibility of expansive learning theory
has not been specifically articulated, it does appear from time to time in the discussion
and experience of the participant leaders. Well illustrated within these narratives is the
sense of moving between darkness and light, between unknowing and knowing; this shift
is consistent and at times disconcerting.
The case study provides different levels of understanding of activity theory through use
of Engeström’s model throughout the programme; as it also shows different examples of
how participants have taken up the model. Some of these scenarios also convey barriers
to ‘taking up the model’. Alignment of kaupapa Māori with activity theory and expansive
learning theory is seen throughout the project, though particularly so in the recognition
of the concepts of the model that relate to what are viewed as the practical application of
Māori systems of activity.
While this chapter provides strong glimpses that show alignment at a conceptual level,
other synergies between kaupapa Māori, activity theory and expansive learning theory
require further exploration. The claim of whanaungatanga as pedagogical leadership is
one such area of inquiry; while established as a theoretical argument in this research,
data generated from this project provides only a small part of the potential contribution of
Māori pedagogical leadership to understandings of pedagogical leadership more generally.
64
L Earning the M odel
CHAPTER 5:
Learning the model

Introduction: “Smooth seas don’t make a skilful sailor”
This chapter explores the ways in which participants across all three clusters engaged
with, made sense of, and took up the tool of third generation activity theory, a process
described by Ellis (2010) as “ingrowing” (p. 101). This word, which Ellis has borrowed from
Leont’ev (1997, cited in Ellis, 2010, p. 101), “describes the taking over and manipulation (the
appropriation) of the mediational means in coming to understand the object” (p. 101). In
this project, the object is third generation activity theory. The notion of ‘ingrowing’ is
graphically suggestive of the sociocultural commitment to the social realm as the primary
context for learning.
Early in the research and development programme, we began to identify patterns of
‘ingrowing’ or appropriation within participants’ talk. In the kaupapa Māori cluster, this
was coded as ‘taking up the model’ and that story as a progressive narrative was told
previously. This chapter is concerned with the ways in which participants across clusters
appropriated the tool of third generation activity theory. It focuses on the mediational
processes participants used as they learned the model. As they did so, they became
increasingly conscious of how activity theory can be used as a tool for understanding
the centre as a system; one collectively focused on the achievement of shared objects.
The broader goal of using activity theory as a tool for expanding pedagogical leadership
is discussed in the following chapter. The argument of this chapter is that pedagogical
leaders from a range of early childhood centres (varying in their organisational structure,
philosophical goals, purposes and outcomes) found that activity theory made sense, as
a tool for conceptualising the dynamics of their centres as “instantiations of collective
cultural practice rather than groups of educators with individual minds” (Nuttall, in
press-b, n.p). They also actively sought to internalise the tool of activity theory, and did so
within and against the socially inscribed and biographical self they brought to the project.
In this chapter we focus on how participants learned the tool of activity theory. Knowledge
within activity theory is considered not as an object to be handed or transferred to the
participants and used at will, but as both relational and embodied, “developed in joint work
on a potentially shared object of activity” (Ellis, 2010, p. 97). At these times, as explored
below, the knowledge of activity theory “meets people’s lives” (Kemmis, 2005, p. 413) as
they take up the tool. These lives are not just their centre-based ones, as people inhabit
multiple activity systems, and their learning in this project “cannot be fully explained within
the context of the system under study” (Wardekker, 2010, p. 242).
65
Our analysis of the data identified two predominant patterns (meditational means) of
engaging with the tool of activity theory as ‘an urgent or pressing need’, and : as ‘an
alignment with aspects of the model’. In each sense-making pattern, participants were
piecing together their existing frames of reference to the new knowledge, as it was
introduced through the workshops and revisited and reconstructed in the coaching and
mentoring sessions. Participants picked up the tool variously across the clusters. Some
grasped a sense of it relatively quickly, while others took longer. The data extracts we
share in this chapter are illustrative of the ways in which participants engaged with the
learning process. Each is analytically important in claiming that participants, to varying
degrees, learned the model. But they also allow us to see how engaging with the tool
of third generation activity theory is encountered by designated centre leaders within
local and current (although historically formed) contexts of early childhood education in
Aotearoa/New Zealand. We turn now to explore the ways in which participants orientated
to activity theory, and describe the two patterns that supported the uptake or ingrowing
(Ellis, 2010) of the tool.
Two patterns of engagement

We identified two ways of engaging with the model: participants having an urgent or
pressing need which provided the motivation to engage, and participants finding aspects
of the theory with which they felt that they were aligned. These are not mutually exclusive
categories, as examples of each were evident within the same participant data. We begin
with the pattern of ‘urgent/pressing need’. This is the idea that learning takes place in a
context and because of a felt need. Our participants mostly utilised their centre-based
context to learn the tool of activity theory.
Responding to an urgent/pressing need

We found many of our leaders were faced with situations at work that required them to
take the lead and respond in careful and considered ways. These situations provided a
spontaneous and often urgent affordance for engagement with and uptake of the model.
For some participants, while events of this nature posed challenges to their leadership
practices, they also provided very real contexts for appropriating the tool of activity
theory. We explore this situation first through an exemplar example of Louise, a younger
teacher in a large community based centre, who was a relatively new leader at the outset
of our programme.
Finding her feet

Louise was both excited and “daunted” [NA, p. 4] by becoming a leader, as she had “never
done anything like this before” [NA, p. 4]. She described her position as “running eight
teachers underneath me and students and having to put another [leader’s] hat on. I found
that quite challenging and it’s only been about six months now and I’m only just starting
to feel like I’ve found my feet” [NA, p. 7].
At the second coaching and mentoring session (which was largely focused on identifying
and working with contradictions), Louise talked about a situation that had very recently
taken place in the centre and which required her focused attention as a leader: “This
sounds terrible, but we had an accident happen in our bathroom during a nappy changing
process and a child slipped off our nappy changing mat” [CM2, p. 2].
66
Louise called a staff meeting to discuss and debrief the situation. As she worked through
it with the teaching team, she simultaneously mapped the situation, using a copy of the
activity system diagram supplied to participants.
Facilitator: Were you using the model in your mind or did you say “right, here’s a
model”?
Louise: They did have it and they showed them all and they went “oh my gosh”, so
I said “don’t worry but this is what I’m doing” [in the project]. And I had it in my
head so I could remember from, I was thinking about this as I was talking and then
we, I don’t have the one on me but we did fill in a little bit and then me and Letitia
[other head teacher/participant] talked about it too and put it onto [the activity
system diagram]. But I talked them through what I was [doing], the points of this
[the diagram] as I was filling it in and saying “well you know this is obviously what
happened is in here”.
Facilitator: Yeah? And the thing we want to talk about is changing nappies?
Louise: Here and this is what we want the outcome to be and it was the, I guess the
bits that affected it were the rules down here, so we talked about how this bit here
and potentially our artefacts, so our policy about nappy changing will direct how
we do this, the procedure that we do and then we’ve got the rules. And I guess for
us that was kind of the regulations around what has to happen and now what it has
to look like, but how we do it is up to us, but then obviously something didn’t work
and there was a gap somewhere.
In her description of the staff meeting (above), Louise is working with her colleagues to
keep them focused on the situation. Louise points to how the centre rules (policy) and
artefacts (internal and external policy documents) were integral to understanding the
situation. Her reference to ‘bits’ is to the nodes of the model (rules, tools, etc.).
Through mapping the situation, Louise and the team surfaced a contradiction which they
believed was at the centre of the incident: “And then I guess the contradiction came out
from our practice and our philosophy and what we believe in and how that transfers into
safety in the bathroom” [CM2, p. 3]. Louise more closely identifies the source of this
contradiction: “[it] came with our philosophy of not letting, not forcing children [to stay
still during nappy changing]”. Louise is referring here to practices that stem from a current
pedagogical approach known as R.I.E. or the Gerber approach (see Gonzalez-Mena � Eyer,
2012).
Louise found this way of addressing the situation through mapping significant, because
“in that very short time [of the staff meeting] were things that we needed to look at that
we might be able to change or fix” [CM2, p. 5]. She mentioned how using the model
“got us talking about what we believed in” [CM2, p. 6]. Of significance is how Louise was
able to use the staff meeting so productively. She not only facilitated the meeting so that
the situation was addressed as an opportunity for teacher learning, and helped her team
engage in constructive problem talk (Nelson, Deuel, Slavit, � Kennedy, 2010; Robinson,
Hohepa � Lloyd, 2009), but she also mentions how time was “short”. Time, or lack of, is a
motif that ran through our conversations with participants.
Louise noted how she “really nailed this one down” [CM2, p. 8]. She expressed a sense
of being pleased with herself and having achieved something significant: “It was one of
the first big things I ever really had to work through” [CM2, p. 8]. Using the model and
mapping the incident allowed Louise to be agentic in the face of a situation that required
67
a clear and considered process, and one that would help to preclude a similar event
happening again. Louise described herself as “I’m a process kind of person and so it gave
me something to work with …” [CM2, p. 8].
Situations of this type, whereby a participant had a very real and pressing issue to attend to
as leader, were commonplace in participants’ narratives. These situations provided them
with an urgency to engage with the model. For some, this sense of urgency appeared to
have the effect of focusing their mediational efforts with the tool. In this instance, what
is additionally significant about Louise’s story is that she was soon to become the overall
head teacher, due to the resignation of her colleague. We return to Louise in the next
chapter, as she engages with her developing understanding of activity theory.
“Otherwise you just live with stuff”

Not all examples of engaging with the model on the basis of an urgent or pressing need
stemmed from participants’ professional lives. A smaller and perhaps no less significant
example of coming to learn about activity theory was described by Tammy. Early in the
project, Tammy had a powerful experience of surfacing a contradiction and using it to
understand a longstanding tension between herself and her husband. She realised that
the source of tension was the result of “probably a contradiction in parenting styles and
knowledge of parenting styles… because of, I mean I have older children so those longer
years of being a parent and doing what I do for work” [CM2, p. 11]. Through invoking the
principle of contradiction, Tammy realised that the issue at stake between her husband
and herself would not be resolved unless this tension was addressed: “I just thought it
would really benefit him and give him more tools” [CM2, p. 11]. She saw the contradiction
as between his tools, the ideas he held about parenting, which she named as his ‘parenting
style’, and her own set of tools that mediated her parenting. Hers were garnered through
many years of parenting, compared with his three years of being a parent. Additionally,
Tammy recognised that she could draw on her knowledge as a teacher to help with
parenting. They agreed to go to a parenting course where they could get some shared
ideas (tools).
The importance of this example of a pressing need as the catalyst to engage with the tools
of activity theory related to how Tammy and her co-participant Lottie (the centre owner
and manager) struggled to identify any significant areas of contradiction in the centre.
Their engagement with the model was largely at an intellectual level for the duration of
the project. At the end of the project, however, Tammy recognised that her home-life
example had been useful, as “it has got me to see things differently, yeah, in a good way”
[CM5, p. 14]. She added that:
I’ve kind of applied it [the model] a little bit in my own personal life as we talked
about previously. It’s just been kind of a nice way of actually not looking, not
searching for problems but recognising when there’s a disturbance there because
sometimes you just live with stuff. … I don’t know, makes that little light bulb go off
and actually “there is something I could do about this”, yeah and just helping me to
guide me in a different way of approaching things. [CM5, p. 15]
This example is illustrative of how participants used their own experiences as springboards
to engage in an embodied and relational way (Ord, 2010) with knowledge of activity theory.
Activity theory afforded Tammy an alternative to layering over and possibly sedimenting
the tension between her husband and herself. Her comment that “sometimes you just live
with stuff” is important, as it is indicative of how Engeström (1987; 2001) considers the
68
surfacing and addressing of tensions or contradictions to be a strategy for productive or

expansive learning. Tammy arguably has had an insight into how she can choose whether
to ‘live with stuff’ or not.
Whilst an urgent or pressing need to address a situation was one pattern that propelled
many to begin their journey of engaging with the model, others experienced a connection
to or alignment with key concepts which also provided a starting point. In the next part
of the chapter, we describe how participants identified with various key concepts in ways
that appeared to have a strong bearing on how they took up the model, and supported its
‘ingrowing’ (Ellis, 2010).
Alignment with the concept of contradiction

Of all the concepts that constitute third generation activity theory, that of ‘contradiction’
received the most discussion and debate; indeed, participants were almost polarised
by it. The previous chapter gave an insight into this.. In this section we build on those
narratives. Participants very explicitly brought their socially located selves to the mediated
space as they grappled with the concept of contradiction, within and against the variety of
connotations the word generated for them and/or their lived material experiences. In this
section we highlight how alignment (or non-alignment) with this key concept was a key
feature of participants’ mediation processes, in terms of learning the model and taking up
the tool.
Generally, participants either felt a strong sense of alignment with the term ‘contradiction’,
or saw it as a concept that confused and unsettled them. Some were able to hold the
concept more tentatively until they came to understand it better. Others rejected it,
preferring to find a less confrontational word. At times, the concept of contradiction was
misunderstood as directly equating with conflict, thus detracting from the opportunity to
grasp the term in accordance with the sense it plays as a mediating tool within Engeström’s
third generation activity theory. The concept itself provided many opportunities for
dialogue within the coaching and mentoring sessions and in the workshops, where
people’s prior understandings of the term and related concepts were openly discussed.
Contradictions afford leaders an opportunity for reconfiguring the activity system of the
centre and addressing new developmental tasks (Engeström, 2001). Ultimately, most of
our leaders experienced the productive capacity of addressing contradictions.
Embracing the notion

Raiha, a participant from a Māori immersion centre, was drawn to this concept:
Here’s one I felt we could have really have had a good korero about –contradictions,
a key concept –and we missed that one and it wasn’t until after our hui I was like
‘oh, it would have been fabulous to talk about this’. [CM1, p. 4]
Raiha and her colleague Teina recognised contradictions in their centre. One they
discussed was a contradiction between tikanga practices for kai and a staff member’s
allegiance to child centredness; a key mediating tool associated with Western notions of
developmentalism:
I’m all about routines with our babies to a point, and then our other staff member
is into free play and I agree with that too. But there’s always a time and place and
tikanga tells you that there’s a time to sit at the table and have kai where you can’t
69
get up and wander off, where when you are called at the marae to the table you
don’t say “no, I’ll have it later”. That’s how I see it but it was okay for this other staff
member. I could understand both but through talking about it the night before [at
the centre], I just laughed when that came up, this is exactly the korero we had the
night before and it was a contradiction. [CM2, p. 16]
Raiha points out there is a contradiction between the notion of free play (a dominant
discourse within early childhood education) and what is expected in terms of the tikanga
associated with food/eating practices. Allowing children to make decisions for themselves
is at the heart of free play ideology; but in terms of rituals such as eating dinner, the freedom
to make individual decisions goes against cultural practice for Māori (Colburg, Glover, Rau,
� Ritchie, 2007). This is a pertinent example of a primary (rule/rule) contradiction, as it
exists within the same node. Raiha and Teina also identified other contradictory elements
related to the discourse of developmentalism:
Here’s a contradiction that was raised by our student teacher. She has issues around
the way she sees that children are forced to participate in tikanga where it’s obvious
they don’t want to and it is her view that they should be left to go free. [CM2, p. 16]
As a centre manager in a Māori immersion centre, Raiha was used to living with
contradiction. She and Teina talked about how the tikanga of the centre was at times at
odds with official (Ministry of Education) regulations:
It’s like, I don’t know, children aren’t allowed to lie so close to each other, but in
tikanga they’re very tata eh –those sorts of things … I like lying down on the floor by
the babies while they go to sleep, but you know they say [the regulations] you can’t
… but there are lots of contradictions here because we have to fit into two boxes.
[CM2, p. 16]
The metaphor of fitting into ‘two boxes’ gives a strong physical sense of very different
activity systems bumping up against each other. Engeström (2001) asserts that third
generation activity theory has the capacity to address “diversity and difference between
different traditions or perspectives” (p. 135), and that this is a significant challenge of our
times.
Structural contradictions stemming from the effects of colonisation are experienced on a
daily level for Raiha and Teina:
We’ve just had this realisation as a team. We are striving to be officially an immersion
centre but in practice we’re not the immersion centre we aspire to be, and the
barrier of course is the lack of the majority of our staff …they lack, even though
they are early childhood educators, they actually lack knowledge of te ao Māori and
their ability to deliver on a curriculum in a language first of all that none of them
have …our reo is limited. [CM2, p. 8]
Māori immersion centres, positioned as they are within the context of a colonial heritage
which has largely robbed Māori of their language and cultural identity, live through
the reality of structural contradiction and resultant tensions. Raiha and Teina’s strong
identification of contradiction is linked to this reality.
The next example is also from a Māori immersion setting. Three participants from this
setting, two experienced leaders and one emerging leader, took part in our programme.
70
Why don’t they like the word?

When participants from one of our centres missed a workshop, the facilitator met with
them to bring them up to date with the programme. During this session, she talked about
how the workshop participants had variable responses to the concept of contradiction:
Eva: They don’t like the word? Why?
Facilitator: Because ‘contradiction’ for some people has a really negative connotation.
Pine: I just don’t like…it’s a funny word. It’s not negative to me, ‘contradiction’, it’s
just a funny word. I would rather use…because it’s already saying someone’s already
contradicting. Yeah so it’s already saying there’s a conflict going on because when
you contradict you’re already saying you don’t agree. That’s what it says to me.
Facilitator: OK yeah, yeah because I think of contradiction between two things, I
don’t think of it as attached to people. So I don’t have the problem with it.
Eva: Neither.
Facilitator: See it depends totally on how you construct the word.
Eva: And also, just because you have a contradiction with something doesn’t mean
you don’t agree with it because you may not even, the person carrying out that
action may not even realise it’s a contradiction. [CM3, p. 14]
There are a range of perspectives and possible interpretations in the conversation above,
and these are representative of the range across the clusters. Pine equates contradictions
with conflict, whereas Eva highlights the subconscious and possibly unintended aspect
of contradictions. In relation to these later interpretations, it becomes the leader’s
responsibility, within third generation activity theory, to help surface these unconscious
or even silenced contradictions (Capper � Williams, 2004). Pine’s orientation to the word
is not unlike Lorna’s interpretation in the previous chapter, where she ties contradiction
to the person, saying “because the contradiction is the personal”. This particular grasp of
the term is understandable, given a focus on individuals and the “rampant subjectivity”
(Edwards, 2009b, p. 1) that is a hallmark of our time. An alternative understanding of
contradiction would focus on contradictions as largely a systems effect, and also as linked
to the notion of historically accumulating contradictions.
Eva (below) recognises how there are contradictions arising from living in two worlds
(systems); described by her as the “old world” and the “new world, or te ao Pākeha”:
Eva: Sometimes the contradiction comes because we’ve got a practice that might
date back to whenever, and it’s seen as un-Māori in this current context, and like the
birthday celebrations might be one where, I mean no one has said this but I’m just
thinking, it could be argued “well that’s not something that our tipuna practiced,
birthday cakes and birthdays, why are we doing it”, like no one’s saying that.
Pine: Remember we discussed it right down to that we’re going to have a birthday
for your child but can you bring the cake, whereas we should really provide that.
Eva: That’s our process at the moment and so I’m thinking everything’s sort of
relative to the moment in time, you know when you create stuff and some of the
practices here might have been developed out of a desire to, well you’re constantly
walking this line of what you’re going to take from the new world, or te ao Pākeha
and what you bring from that old world with you. It’s always a balancing sort of
act, in this setting you’re trying to be as Māori as you can, in terms of reviving the
culture and reviving the language, but yeah obviously you’re doing that in a modern
71
day context in what is, for most people outside of this, sort of mainstream Pākeha
daily lifestyle, so yeah I do think that. I don’t know if that was helpful. [CM2, p. 2]
This dialogue and the ones above bear witness to how conflict between world views is
a constant and explicit tension and struggle for those in kaupapa Māori settings. These
dialogues are examples of how contradictions are lived and experienced within day to day
practice as teachers. This was also reflected by participants working in Pasifika centres, as
in the following example.
We have to communicate in English

During the first coaching and mentoring session with Fane and Tuulaki, the facilitator/
coach was recapping on the different components of third generation activity theory when
the conversation turned to the rules around language in the centre. The coach recalled
how they were talking in the very first interview about the tensions when parents do not
speak the Pasifika language at the heart of the centre:
Facilitator: You were talking about the tension that you have when parents don’t
speak [your Pasifika language] and communicating with them.
Fane: We have to communicate in English.
Facilitator: Communicate in English but in fact communicating in English goes
against your core philosophy so that’s a tension, isn’t it?
Tuulaki: That’s right and even with children, because before when we were visited
from ERO we were encouraged to write our learning stories in [our language] even
if the children are Pākeha or Māori, we still write them in [our language] because it’s
a [language] centre. But we just talk amongst ourselves “what’s the point in writing
it in [our language]?” Parents won’t understand in [our] language so we therefore
go to writing them in English so it’s more like a communication, strategy between
us and parents.
Facilitator: So immediately, then, you’ve got some conflict between what the
Ministry says to do which is their set of rules, and what you know is really good for
families and probably a little bit of a contradiction about here, about being [Pasifika].
Mmm. Not an easy world to survive in, is it? Sometimes just mapping these things
out onto a piece of paper actually helps you understand what’s happening or where
the other people are coming from, but some of these big tensions are probably
ones that are not easily solved.
The coach sums up the situation for Fane and Tuulaki by noting that some tensions,
particularly ones between systems, are not easily solved and that mapping the situation
provides a tool for understanding tensions. In continuing to discuss the language tension,
they talked about how the local school wants the centre to “introduce basic words and
basic concepts in English before the children go off to school” [CM1, p. 6]. The notion of
preparing children for school is discussed as a systems-systems contradiction.
We have no one word

Fane and Tuulaki were keen to translate the components and associated concepts of
third generation activity theory “in order for all our staff to thoroughly understand the
concepts” [CM2, p. 1]. Their translation for ‘contradiction’ was not a single word: “it’s
a long sentence because …we have no one word that describes [it]”. In choosing their
wording carefully in order to retain the integrity of the term, and the work it does in third
72
generation activity theory, they looked for wording that avoided negative connotations.
In translating, Tuulaki said that “it’s a word that can stand for both sides and that can be,
you know when you use it it’s not in a negative way” [CM3, p. 3]. Having introduced the
concept of contradiction to their group, Tuulaki reported how:
Tuulaki: They’re more excited. They’re getting a solution for what they’ve…what
has been built up within them [and] not talking about it. It’s now out and …sharing,
it’s the sharing. And yeah, I use self-evaluation so it’s more like evaluating your own
[practice]. Don’t look at it…don’t point at someone else but looking at your own
stuff, from your own and then work towards how can others help you. [CM3, p. 3]
The embodied quality of contradiction is evident is Tuulaki’s discussion about the effect of
introducing the notion of contradiction to the teaching team: things had been “building up
within” teachers, but now “it’s out”.
Not all participants felt aligned or connected to the notion of contradiction. What sat
behind this lack of connection was the connotation of conflict that some brought to it.
Below is an example of how the concept of ‘contradiction’ was ultimately used to surface
a participant’s own feelings about conflict, and how this contradicted her strong belief
in ‘teamwork’ as being at the heart of leadership in early childhood education. In this
instance team work was the rule, i.e., “We operate as a team”.
The monster under the peace

In the fourth coaching and mentoring session, Jenny (manager), Cilla (assistant manager)
and the facilitator/coach were talking about how the key to good teamwork was “clear
communication” [CM4, p. 10], but dislike of conflict was possibly a barrier to achieving
this. What ensued was an epiphany (Denzin, 2001) for Jenny, who acknowledged that the
notion of contradiction was useful: “what it’s done for me is, seeing tension and conflict
as good, as a plus, because, yeah, I used to see it as a negative, and I wanted everything
smooth, smooth, smooth, don’t upset the water” [CM4, p. 13]. Cilla responded, in a teasing
but ironic tone: “the monster under the peace, the monster under the peace — waiting
to happen”. This analogy of a monster sitting under the peaceful water prompted Jenny to
insightfully and honestly add:
Yeah, I just want them to stay there, stay down under the water but this model
has made me re-see it as a conflict as being good and a chance for us to grow and
change and …learn, and …so that’s really helped, it’s helped to ease that fear that I
had of conflict, yeah. [CM4, p. 13]
Cilla and Jenny, both committed Christians, work in a centre under the umbrella of a
local church. When they entered the project, Cilla was “quite happy with the ways things
are going”, while Jenny noted that “there’s always room for improvement” [NA, p. 8].
They listed the “busyness” of the centre and “planning and prioritising” [NA, p. 10] as
challenges for their leadership. Both talked about actively promoting collaborative working
relationships: “I want a centre where people use initiative …it is all about working as a
whole team …and want them always to feel empowered” [NA, p. 9]; “aiming to have more
of a team environment where the whole centre work[s] together and we seem to have
that” [NA, p. 4]. Use of the word “team” was prevalent in Jenny and Cilla’s talk throughout
the project. Their emphasis on working as a team and making decisions by consensus,
however, had the potential to be undermined by a dislike of conflict:
73
I don’t like conflict much so …but at times if you really have to front up and have
some conversations, I mean I have done that …not without a lot of prayer and stuff.
I don’t know…children, doors or different things — like with doors — that was a
tension [CM 4, p. 11].
Here Cilla acknowledges her dislike of conflict. In this extract Cilla’s use of the word ‘doors’
is a shortcut for referring to a long standing tension in the centre where the door to the
kitchen was continually being left open by teachers; so much so that Jenny described
the situation as “a bomb, you know, just sitting there, like a grenade that hasn’t gone
off” [CM3, p. 19]. We have interpreted this description as Jenny feeling compromised and
worried by how members of her team appeared to be ambivalent about the centre rule
of keeping this door shut at all times. It is possible that Jenny’s dislike of conflict and
avoidance of it (Cardno � Reynolds, 2009) perpetuated this situation.
Cilla’s metaphor of the ‘monster under the peace’, is a powerful statement, given the
dyad’s commitment to ‘team work’. Arguably the concept of contradiction has provided
Cilla and Jenny with a way of working with the monster, of enabling a way to surface it and
to be seen for what it can offer in terms of a new form of team work, based on systematic
analysis of contradictions and “getting your team all involved in scenarios that help them
solve them” [CM5, p. 15]. Cilla and Jenny also became more aware of the analytic and
productive power of activity theory as a leadership strategy: “Just use the model and —
yeah — being totally aware of the model all the time …take it to the meeting and get more
shared ideas because it’s realising that 12 minds are better than one and there’s all these
other ideas out there that I am missing out on” [CM 5, p. 21].
Jenny now has a tool to marshal the resources of her ‘team’. Consciously or not, she is
drawing on one of Engeström’s (2001) five principles of expansive learning; that of multi-
voicedness of systems. Not only is this represented by the 12 minds in the group, but
through the notion of contradiction she has gained an insight into how the metaphor of
being a team might be able to work, and has arguably begun to reframe her teacher self
and her key mediating tools of ‘team work’ and ‘conflict’. The productive way forward for
Jenny would be for her to treat ‘team work’ as an object for a time and expand, with the
staff, what they actually mean by team work, i.e., what adaptations of rules, tools, etc.
they need to make in order to achieve the object of ‘team work’, so that it can become a
rule again.
In the last example of alignment with the notion of contradiction, we return to Tammy and
her co-participant Lottie.
Sailing as a metaphor for learning

For the duration of the project, Lottie and Tammy had difficulty identifying any
contradictions in their system, due in large part to their perception of how smoothly the
centre ran. This centre, like a number of others in the project, enjoyed taking part in our
project, but considered that they had only minor sources of conflict, disagreement or
practice problems. Their perceived need to engage experientially with the model was
considerably less than other centres.
Lottie (the owner/manager and teacher) was highly experienced both as a teacher and a
leader. She had opened this particular centre four years previously, and had ‘handpicked’
her team of teachers. The establishment teaching team was still in place at the centre
when we met Lottie and Tammy; the only movement in the team was due to parental
74
leave. Lottie described the centre by saying, “it works beautifully” [CM1, p. 6]. “I feel guilty
but I still can’t think of things that relate to here [contradiction] but there may, there
probably is, but …there doesn’t feel to be” [CM1, p. 13]. They were both adamant that if
an issue is raised,“It doesn’t become a conflict, it becomes just a question and then …” to
which Tammy interjected “ …a puzzlement over a way of doing something momentarily…”
Toward the end of the project, however, a woman with significant hearing impairment
approached the centre via email with the possibility of enrolling her child. Tammy and
Lottie, who had little experience of people with hearing impairment, saw this positively
as a potential disturbance (Capper � Williams, 2004) to which they could finally apply the
model. In the last coaching and mentoring session, Lottie explained:
So after talking with you last time we had this discussion that maybe we were
getting a parent who there might be a disturbance or, you know, a change to how
we operated who was hearing impaired. So we haven’t had a staff meeting since
we heard this person was going to come, but I still wrote a wee note there [on the
notice board] and had it as an opportunity for us to start to use that [model drawn
on the staff room white-board], but there’s not a lot of writing from other people
but it has prompted them to start putting some other little resources beside that,
some books we have about sign language and that sort of thing. [CM5, p. 13]
Lottie recognised the learning potential for herself and the teaching team inherent in this
situation. To prepare for it, she had drawn a copy of a third generation activity theory
model on the staff room white-board and invited teachers to progressively map the
existing centre system, with regard to the object of welcoming this new parent and child
to the centre.
After the end of the project, Lottie sent an email to the facilitator/coach confirming that
this parent had indeed decided to enrol her child:
…just thought I would share with you that the family with the mum who is hearing
impaired have decided to enrol, so we have a fabulous opportunity to use “triangle
land” to ensure a smooth transition and positive ongoing communication and
relationship. Also I saw this quote which I thought was quite apt at looking positively
at disturbances: “Smooth seas don’t make a skilful sailor.” Regards Lottie.
We have interpreted Lottie’s email and her inclusion of the quote about ‘smooth seas’ as
an indication that while the centre did run very smoothly, they were looking forward to
being a little ‘disturbed’, as they appreciated this as a tool that could support their ongoing
learning and an area for expanding the object. (Many of the participants used the term
‘triangle land’ to refer to the activity theory model. They appeared to use it themselves as
a double stimulation strategy.)
We make no judgement about Lottie and Tammy’s definition of the situation, except to
note that learning or taking up the model across the project appeared to work best for
those who could work actively on localised imperatives within their centre practices.
Lottie and Tammy’s efforts to adapt the culture of the centre to include the new parent
are an example of system expansion. Although fairly low-key, nevertheless they will have
developed a better definition of inclusion by the time the child and his or her parent has
enrolled.
Participants across all three clusters explored the usefulness of Engeström’s (2001)
principle of ‘contradiction’. The examples above show a variety of responses to the ways in
75
which this construct was mediated by participants. In the previous chapter, Amy and Jade’s
experience of not being able to identify a contradiction is not unlike Tammy and Lottie’s.
Each of these dyads interpreted this as an effect of working collaboratively within their
centres with little tension or disturbance. It is possible that such centres do not experience
contradictions, at least at a conscious level, but the consequence is that there is little
movement or potential for development. We return to the notion of contradiction in the
next chapter, as it is deemed to be central to participants’ understanding of pedagogical
leadership.
In the next section we look at another powerful idea inherent in third generation
activity theory that was enthusiastically appropriated by participants. This was a shift to
conceptualising their centre as an object orientated system, rather than as a collection of
individuals.
Alignment with the concept of playing the system, not the

person
One of the key messages in our programme was that a systems approach to working
on shared objects (tasks), via the tool of activity theory, promoted a systems analysis
or ‘playing the system’ approach to tension and challenge, rather than what we termed
‘playing the person’. Louise alluded to this previously when she said “not focussing on the
person”.
Playing the system and not the person is closely aligned with the notion of contradiction,
as playing the system is partly about recognising that tension and contradiction can
sometimes be a function of people’s creative and idiosyncratic ways, as opposed to an
overly rational and linear way of being (see Blackler, 1993). New ideas and the desire for
change can inadvertently result in unintended contradictions between parts of the system.
As can be seen in the earlier extracts from Pine, who initially equates contradiction with
conflict, and Lorna, where contradiction is seen crucially as personal, early engagements with
the notion of contradiction revealed a widespread allegiance to a person centred perspective.
These particular participants were in all likelihood speaking through the dominant discourse
of individualism. There was a cautious sense of freeing up that happened for participants
when they were presented with this feature of ‘playing the system, not the person’, but
particularly so the more they engaged with it.
Taking the pressure off

In the first coaching and mentoring session after Workshop 1, ‘playing the system, not the
person’ was mentioned by Felicity in response to the facilitator/coach’s question about
“some bits that you were particularly interested in” [CM1, p. 1]:
I guess the maps, the systems, I think was a really good concept and me and Alice
talked about it directly after …and we shared it at the staff meeting as well [and]
just how it was a good way to you know, take that pressure off individual people and
blaming each other and faulting, like, individuals and kind of taking the emotion out
of it a little bit. [CM1, p. 1]
The notion of depersonalising issues talk resonated for Felicity and her colleague Alice,
as it did for others in the project. The ‘blaming’ and ‘faulting’ Felicity talks about was a
pathway Louise chose in the nappy changing scenario, as previously highlighted. In Louise’s
scenario, not playing the person appeared to have substantial benefits for all involved.
76
Felicity returned to this source of alignment with the model in the last coaching and
mentoring session. When asked about ‘the most useful thing about the model’ she
mentioned:
…being able to use it within the team, like with there being scenarios where we’ve
all sort of used it together and we’ve each had a copy of it [diagram of model] and
written our own thoughts and our own kind of perceptions of an issue and then
shared them with each other, so it’s really clear what we think are the tensions and
how we feel about the issue or whatever is going on, and as well it takes that kind of
personal element out of it slightly … it’s actually because of the reasons when you
can plot it out it’s easier for someone to kind of explain …it’s just really objective.
[CM5, p. 5]
Taking the ‘personal element out’ (even slightly) made sense to Felicity, who found the
model particularly useful in working through tensions with her centre management
throughout the time of the project. When she talks about each person having a copy of
the diagram (above), Felicity is alluding to how, as a leader, she asks colleagues to give
some prior thinking to an issue in order to find a shared way forward. There are elements
of systematic thinking evident within her talk; this was prevalent across all three clusters,
as participants used the notion of mapping their issues to gain a broader perspective.
A broader perspective was also evidenced in May and Barbara’s talk. They, too, identified
with the notion of taking the personal out of working with tensions and contradictions. As
Barbara said:
I think the main thing for me, like what I feel it’s just taken the personal out of
it …I think I am careful like that anyway but I think it’s just reassured me like the
importance of realising there’s others, like all the background stuff [rules, tools etc.]
as well as that influence people’s behaviour and …yeah, sort of looking at the bigger
picture before you respond or react. [CM5, p. 4]
While already careful not to personalise issues, Barbara has been “reassured” about the
complexity of early childhood centres as systems — “the bigger picture”. Barbara does not
by nature want to focus on the person; there is a sense here that she finds the notion of
examining the system a very viable alternative, and activity theory explains this for her.
May (Barbara’s colleague) also found this aspect useful: “just having the strategy or tool
there to be able to look at what you want instead of looking at the people” [CM5, p. 5].
May’s response is linked to “being quite a new leader” and ‘playing the system’ helped her
to be “more confident in dealing with problems that come up because I have a strategy
that I can fall back on …not having to feel I am struggling to deal with the team” [CM5,
p. 5]. This perspective was evident in what Louise said earlier in the chapter. Also an
inexperienced leader, she revealed at the outset of the programme that she was “scared”
of adults. This adds weight to our assumption that most centre leaders are qualified to
teach children, but their knowledge of adult development is very limited.
There are numerous instances in the data of this type of understanding of playing the
system, not the person, signifying that (as stated earlier in this section) participants in our
project found this an interesting and useful way of framing their work. We pick this feature
up in the following chapter in relation to transformed leadership capacity.
77
Follow the system and become confident

Fane and Tuulaki worked on their assessment practices as a focus for expanding a task.
During a discussion after Workshop 2, they explained how they were trying to support
the older teachers to use computers creatively when recording children’s learning stories.
The conversation turned to how the younger teachers were teaching the older teachers
how to do this, and how this was due to the notion of finding a systems approach to the
problem to moving their assessment task on:
Fane: …I mean we talk about the …yeah, change the system not the…
Tuulaki: …Not the person, not the individual but when we change, that’s what we
found when we change the system the individual starts slowly to starting to come to
the system. … to follow the system and become confident. [CM2, p. 4]
Each of the examples above illustrate how participants learned to understand their centre
as an object orientated system rather than a collection of individuals. Fane and Tuulaki
clearly understand how a change to the system has the potential to change the person.
They set up their assessment procedures to involve computer literate teachers working
with those who are less so, not initially because it made sense in a type of ‘apprenticeship’
relationship, but because they were trying to get maximum gain from a systems approach.
They wanted everyone to be producing weekly learning stories, and those without
computer skills were less productive than those with them.
Nuttall (2013a) found in her study that some “participants view certain staff as objects
(i.e., tasks to be ‘worked on’ and resolved) rather than as one person amongst a collective
subject” (p. 6). Elsewhere, Nuttall, Wood, and Thomas (in press) explore the effects of
two decades of neo-liberal policy and a focus on the individual as contributing to undue
emphasis on the individual at the expense of the potential of collective zones of proximal
development for helping groups to work more productively. Given the strong base of
developmental psychology (Burman, 2008; Cannella, 1997) that shapes the discursive
landscape in early childhood education, with its focus on individualism, it is promising that
centre leaders appeared to positively align themselves strongly with the notion of playing
the system, not the person.
Conclusion
A key aim of the programme was to enable participants to rethink and therefore reframe
their ideas of how to lead and perform acts of pedagogical leadership. This was to be
achieved by supporting participants to picture the dynamics of their specific situations in
activity theory/system terms, and to act with the aid of the model (tool). This is known
as the double stimulation strategy (as described in Chapter 3). In this sense, the tool of
third generation activity theory was “donated to the participants to help them work on
problems of practice” (Ellis, 2010, p. 103). Like Ellis (2010) in his exploration of double-
stimulation, we were interested in how participants take up and use the tools, including
“the sense they make of them, the ways in which their activity is shaped by tool-use and,
potentially the ways in which subjects reshape the meaning of the tools — all of which is
studied in relation to how the subjects perceive and are motivated by the object” (Ellis,
p. 96).
The programme supported participants to locate the tool in practice situations determined
by them. Through the workshops and the coaching and mentoring sessions, participants
78
were encouraged to learn the model and become familiar with it, in terms of the
conceptual categories (nodes of the model — see Figure 3). They were also encouraged to
understand how these various components (including the principles of expansive learning
theory) ‘fitted together’ into a dynamic system, and could in turn be exploited by leaders
to bring about development in their localised community of practice.
At the beginning of this chapter, we drew on the saying that Lottie emailed us at the
conclusion of the programme: ‘smooth seas don’t make a skilful sailor’. We did so to signal
how use of activity theory required some ‘choppy water’ (and at times created it) in order
to learn and use activity theory as a tool to navigate changes in leadership practices. This
chapter has explored the ways in which participants engaged with and learned this tool.
Our next chapter addresses the question: ‘How does the tool of activity theory mediate
and shape pedagogical leadership?’
79
CHAPTER 6:
Expanding pedagogical leadership

Introduction
This chapter focuses on participants’ understandings of third generation activity theory
as a tool for expanding pedagogical leadership. It details ways in which participants used
third generation activity theory (as explored through our project) as a mediating tool
to expand their effectiveness as leaders, often resulting in a new sense of agency and a
subsequent change in identity as a leader.
Engeström (1987) states that expansive learning cycles begin with “individual subjects [in
our case the pedagogical leader/s] questioning the accepted practice [which] gradually
expands into a collective movement or institution” (p. 12). In the discussion below, we
have called this ‘moving from the individual to the collective’. This constitutes a common
thread in each of the examples presented in this chapter, supporting the notion that
participants come to understand their centre as a system and not as a group of individuals.
The majority of participants in our study used the model with their teaching teams, either
as a tool which gave them a framework to organise their thoughts and actions as leaders,
or more explicitly when they introduced the model to their teams as a tool for collaborative
leadership and action.
The chapter is structured around four significant key themes which were evident in the
transcripts of the coaching and mentoring sessions. Together these themes comprise what
the model of third generation activity theory gave leaders in this project, namely:
• A way of working more systematically;
• A framework for bringing contradictions to consciousness;
• A framework for redistributing knowledge and decision making across the collective;
and
• A tool for leading pedagogical dialogue (and change).
A way of working more systematically

One of the aims of this project was that designated pedagogical leaders would come
to understand their centre as a system rather than a group of individuals. This idea was
introduced in the first workshop, where participants were introduced to third generation
activity theory and the notion of their centre as an activity system, placing a focus on the
system rather than the individuals within it. Laszlo’s (2012) writing about evolutionary
80
E x panD ing pedagogical leadership
leadership posits “systems thinking” as a way of leading change, and notes that systems
thinking leads to new ways of “systems being”, i.e., “living a new consciousness” (p. 100).
She states that engaging in systems thinking “involves thinking in terms of processes rather
than structures, relationships rather than components, interconnections rather than
separation” (Laszlo, 2012, p. 100). Whilst Laszlo writes through the lens of sustainability,
this interpretation of a system is useful to the discussion that follows, as it hints at a change
in identity and action.
In the following section, three scenarios from the data are used to illuminate a view of the
centre as a system, as expressed by Eleazar (Pasifika context), Eva, Pine and Mac (kaupapa
Māori context) and Louise (education and care context). These illustrate some of the ways
in which participants demonstrated this understanding of their centres as activity systems.
Each of the scenarios reflects the role of the mediating tools (physical and conceptual) as a
key element of their activity system, and therefore the context and situation in which the
centres and their leaders operate.
Scenario one
In the first coaching and mentoring session, Eleazar — an emerging ECE leader, taking
responsibly for leadership of a newly established Pasifika centre — shows a clear
understanding of how her centre operates as a system, with an emphasis on collaboration.
I think it was a real eye-opener, more a deep understanding really of leadership…
What I really enjoyed was that framework…the CHAT and how it all lined in together
and to me, just to see a picture and how it actually linked made sense to me, yeah.
[CM1, p. 1]
Here Eleazar sees the links between the components of the activity system of her centre. As
she unpacks each node of the triangle in the subsequent coaching and mentoring session,
she relates the system to her vision (outcome), which she had described in the needs
analysis session as being: “to include or encourage the Pacific people in the [specified]
region … to participate, to get their children to participate more in early childhood” [NA,
p. 1]. As the facilitator coaches Eleazar and they jointly map the triangles, Eleazar identifies
a key concept (tool): “collaborative work…you know, that family gathering making it … a
small island in New Zealand” [CM1, p. 3]. She expands this further when she is asked about
who she envisages the collaboration as being between:
It goes in many directions. It goes from the staff to the parents, to the families, to
the children, and comes back, and bounces back, and I guess in a triangle form you
know, and not always going in one direction all the time…I guess just feeding each
other with that collaboration, that teamwork. [CM1, p. 3]
This suggests an awareness of multi-voicedness, and the operation of the (new) centre as
a community. The use of the metaphor “just feeding each other” aligns with the synergy
that comes from such collaboration. Prompted to describe the rules around ‘collaboration’,
Eleazar responds:
There are going to be rules…what makes it really tricky is that they [Tongan, Samoan
and Fijian] are three different islands…the rules is to probably…try and be respectful
towards those three different islands… ’cause in those three different islands there
are their own ways of doing things […] in order to meet as a team, so it may be ‘OK’
in a Samoan way but it won’t be ‘OK’ to do it in those [two], so I guess it’s finding a
more stable collaboration in order to feed in all of those three. [CM1, p. 4]
81
This shows her awareness of the complexity of this activity system, and the impact this
might have on her role in leading this team. As the coaching session progresses, Eleazar
begins to expose a number of contradictions focused on what she describes as “the
misunderstanding of cultural leadership” [NA, p. 5], adding yet another layer of complexity,
both personal and professional. Eleazar’s story continued across successive coaching and
mentoring sessions.
Scenario two
This example occurred in coaching and mentoring session 4, where three participants
were sharing back their progress with the facilitator, discussing a recurring issue — one
they thought had been already resolved. Mac, Eva and Pine reflect on how they used “the
system” to move the focus from the individual to a systems perspective; in doing so, they
also expand their notion of leadership as sharing power:
Eva begins the conversation by sharing a response to an email that had been sent out
previously to the staff explaining an issue and updating staff on the current state of things:
Eva: So she…well, the way Mac reported it to me was she [colleague] was red and
puffed and she was that emotional that…right?
Mac: I could see it was, yeah. She had taken it personally.
Eva: And so Mac, you said…
Mac: “Take, remove yourself,” yeah, “it’s not about you, your name’s not even in
there. It’s got nothing to do with you, you’ve got to look at what it’s about ...Take
yourself out and just look at what the thing is…”
Facilitator: So you were focussing back on the task or the purpose… [CM4, p. 11]
In this extract Mac frames the issue as a personal response, and redirects the teacher back
to looking at what the issue actually is. In doing so she applies a systems view, by moving
the focus away from a situation of blame to a position where the issue can be worked on.
In fact she invites the teacher, by implication, to: “just look at what the thing is”, to start
a process of reflection. Of note is Mac’s leadership skill and uptake of the model, as she
is a new leader (Kaiwhakaako/teacher of infants and toddlers) joining the more senior
leadership team specifically for this project.
The coaching and mentoring session continued with Eva recounting how Mac had come to
her and Pine, and the three of them had decided to take the model to the team. Of note
was Eva’s leadership in deciding that they would do this now, as this was “an issue that
they’re [the staff are involved] in” [CM4, p. 11]. Reflecting on the email that then gets sent,
Eva adds: “I wanted to explain the intent of my actions was not personal, I’m focused on
the issue and what we need to do to progress it” [CM4, p. 11].
Eva’s reflection explains her actions clearly in terms of this systems view, at the same time
recognising that the practical application of the theory is important to apply to an issue
the staff are involved in. As part of the preparation for the hui to share the model (and
discuss the particular issue), the key terms of the model are translated: “we found the
Māori terms for it so the staff would understand better” [CM 4, p. 12].
The extract below outlines the way the model was presented to whānau. Eva explains
their understanding of the model, and although the voice is Eva’s, neither Pine nor Mac
interrupt her, suggesting that this is a consensus view. The focus on the collective is
evident throughout through the language used, e.g. the use of the pronoun “we”, with
82
other collective concepts underlined. Each component of the system is discussed, with
a strong emphasis on “contradiction as a potential for change”. The notion of expanding
the object (in this case working collectively) is obvious, and this is recognised when Eva
says “within the contradiction is the potential for change … and therefore developing the
system” [CM 4, p. 13].
Eva: And so then we said what we, you know, what we’d learnt [in the workshops]
and then I stuck the whole mud play thing into the diagram [reference to mapping
their system on paper] [...] And then we did it in Māori [...] saying the tools, you
know, that we use — [centre name]’s….the way we launch new activities…that the
leaders, tikanga leaders (that’s not how we call them but) of [our centre] always
have an active role. The objectives of [this centre], Te Aho Matua [kura kaupapa
curriculum], you know the [early childhood] curriculum, Te Whāriki.
Facilitator: So those are your tools. Cool.
Eva: Yeah the ultimate goal was to launch a new play space that would raise the
quality of learning for children. And that the objects were those tasks that we had
agreed at the staff meeting were to be done by everyone, staff. The…the rules: that
every staff member had agreed to trial the dirt space, that we had to do a bit of
research about how we turn a garden into a play space, change the nature of it [...]
that we would research, investigate it together, prepare it together and launch it
together. That was one of our rules. [...] And then what does it look like? [inaudible]
What does…oh I can’t remember how the English goes but what does the nature
of our working together look like? in the system? [Eva translating for the facilitator]
Facilitator: So this is your division of labour, yeah.
Eva: Yeah the division of labour, that’s right. Yeah who does what. How will we
organise ourselves and what does … where’s the power sitting? So we had decided….
the reds [referring to the diagram they had drawn mapping their system visually] are
all our decisions. Every staff member ….oh at the staff meeting every staff member
agreed to carry a task and so the power lies with all the staff [...] And then the
contradictions were…oh no, no what I just said about the contradictions was that
contradictions are a good thing….you know, can be a barrier but they’re also a good
thing because within the contradiction is the potential for change, and therefore
further developing the system (italics added). [CM4, pp. 12–13]
Eva then summarises the discussion by quoting from one of the workshop slides:
It’s not about any one person but it’s more about the outcome. We’ve learnt at our
course that individuals come and go but systems don’t change ... It’s taken me a
while to get this model but I feel that if you are open to it, it will help you to view
and use conflict as potential for change. [CM 4, p. 13]
As an aside to the focus of this part of the chapter on working systematically, Eva’s
admission that it has taken her a while to understand the model supports the point made
in Chapter 2 about professional learning needing sufficient time for taking on board new
ideas and the centrality of dialogue in this process.
One of the key features of the excerpt above is the discussion about power residing in
the ‘division of labour’, and the notion that sharing power distributes responsibility and
accountability to everyone, as in the statement: “and so the power lies with the staff”.
This is often where it surfaces most obviously. But it actually permeates the whole system,
83
especially the relationship between rules and division of labour. Also of note is the strong
message about contradictions being a “good thing” as a potential for change.
Scenario three
This final example tracks the progress of Louise as she discovers the power of working
collectively and systematically with her colleagues. In response to the facilitator’s opening
question, ‘what’s on top?’ Louise explains that it is her staff, and how she is “looking
forward to the future about how to change this really big thing ... I’m thinking about the
culture between our staff...” [CM3, p. 1]. Louise reflects on how “it’s been a real eye opener
[because] there’s so many things I don’t understand...and no-one else really knows why
we do the things we do” [CM3, pp. 1–2]. Clearly this is an example of a sedimented system,
where the organisational culture has become so ingrained that the object of current
practice is to maintain the status quo, and staff are resistant to change that might upset
the current system. Louise goes on to say:
Louise: It’s a great question but it frustrates me ’cause I never have an answer...
Facilitator: And nobody’s got an answer?
Louise: No, nobody, whether they don’t feel they can say the answer or whether no
one actually knows what the answer is, the stock standard answer is “we’ve always
done it this way”.
Louise then identifies a contradiction, noting that “we’re not doing as good a job in that
area as we could be...and what we say we do and what we’re doing aren’t lining up either”
[CM3, p. 3]. The facilitator then introduces the model subtly and lets the story unfold:
Facilitator: And how did you, like you, I know you’ve identified yourself many times
as a process person?
Louise: Yeah.
Facilitator: And so you were thinking about having this discussion at a staff meeting?
[…] How did that work, like did it come up as a solution from your staff meeting?
Louise: It did and it was actually worked really, really well and I didn’t have to do
much talking.
Facilitator: Fantastic. [CM3, p. 5]
Louise’s admission that she didn’t have “to do much talking” is significant and demonstrates
how the model acts to mobilise the latent professionalism of staff (J. Nuttall, personal
communication, May 25, 2013). The narrative continues:
Louise: Which was the amazing part, it was all geared up [...] And then you know I
opened up the discussion and then everybody just took it and I just went oh okay
so just sat there taking notes. [...] And nobody took it personally and then you know
anything like that, that this was amazing [...] As I said they all just took ownership of
it. [...] And I really was just facilitating.
Facilitator: That it’s actually just inside the conversation [...] and the decision making
processes.
Louise: And that’s exactly it and so they teased out the things. So the [teachers of
the] two year olds shared their concerns about you know adding to stress of how
that was going to work and the three year olds’ [teachers] shared theirs about how
their routines were going to work and then the biggest learning curve for them
84
all has been communicating across a bigger group again now. And even though
we’ve had one licence for a year we’ve still very much been unders and overs. [CM3,
pp. 5–6]
Louise then describes the impact this shift has on centre practice in terms of pedagogy
and the goal she had stated at the beginning of the session. In doing so, she starts to
resolve the contradiction.
And it’s been very hard to shake that imaginary wall that we knew for like three
years we couldn’t cross ’cause we were two licenses. But and so the communication
between the two groups is evolving and just starting and they’re actually having,
you know they’re talking to each other all right so we don’t have two people in the
bathroom in two spaces and then you know. And I don’t have to direct anybody
which has been amazing, I’ve got teachers coming to me saying shall I go over here
because Lynette’s in the bathroom. [CM3, p. 6]
And I can see the benefits from it already and the children know where to go, they
can go back to that space which is their quiet space if they need to go and there’s
always one of those teachers they’re familiar with is always there. ..And yet they’re
getting interactions from other people and the teachers are having more time to sit
down for an, it’s only an hour and a half a day but in that hour and a half being able
to actually sit and engage with the children. [CM3, p. 8]
The coaching session continues as the facilitator and Louise deconstruct the conversation
and apply the model to the process, mapping each component in turn. Towards the
conclusion of this exercise Louise reflects on her effort to “get the team on board” [CM3,
p. 12], finally reaching the conclusion that she was perhaps “trying to change the world”,
but realising “I can’t change the world by myself” [CM3, p. 12]. This is an example of the
shift from the individual to the collective and becoming more systems focused. A little
later in the session, Louise attributes her progress to now having “more skills and tools”
[CM 3, p. 13]. The extracts reveal a potentiality for a change in identity and actions for
Louise.
These examples introduce the notion of working at a systems level. Participants worked
more or less explicitly in this way; however, every centre which mapped their system
(and this formed the basis of most workshops and many of the coaching and mentoring
sessions) was in fact learning about their centre as a system of cultural, historical and
social activity, rather than a group of individuals operating within the centre.
The next section gives examples where participants applied systems thinking to their
leadership practice as ways of becoming more efficient. A number of comments in the
needs analysis interviews related to the ‘busyness’ of centre life, and the multiple tasks
of leaders, which have been described as a balance between “getting the job done and
meeting people’s needs” (Rodd, 2006, p. 28). Some participants reported that third
generation activity theory allowed them to work more systematically and thus use time
more effectively.
Becoming more efficient

In coaching and mentoring session 2, the dyad of Raiha and Teina suddenly see the third
generation activity theory through a systems lens: “I’ve just had a massive realisation
sitting here, the way that we do things, […] we fly by the seat of our pants. […] “This [the
85
model] gives us an opportunity to do things systematically so we can predict and we can

analyse, and you know do all those things to establish systems, as a ropu” [CM2, p. 7].
In the final session their identification with a systems view deepens, affirming current
practice, with a link to goal setting and direction: “We do know what we’re doing but
we lack systematic organisation of that, and consistency. so what’s happening sometimes
we might hit the mark, but I feel that this model offers us a more deliberate systematic
approach, to landing where we want to land” [CM4, p. 6]. There is a sense expressed by
Raiha that she feels more effective and agentic in her leadership role, now that she has
been introduced to a systematic process for leading change in her setting.
Some dyads found looking at their centre through a systems lens allowed a deeper
exploration of the components of the system and the relationships between the
components. Raiha and Teina discuss “the exploration [implying learning] of deeply
examining each of those parts of the model”, [CM3, p. 2] also noting the quality of the
korero that this generated.
One participant commented specifically on being more organised as a leader. “It’s all
these, these personal changes. It’s [the model] taught me to be more effective with time,
meetings, goals, [and] avoiding distractions” [Pine, FN, p. 6]. It can be argued that at a
personal level, the individual acting as part of the collective has limited influence on the
system, and this would be true if that individual were to leave the system (or in fact forgets
or chooses not to use the model). However, as soon as the individual enters the system as
a social actor and applies the model, the potential for change and possible expansion of
the activity exists.
A number of the participants who used the model systematically and successfully found
the strategy of focusing on the object (task) and/or outcome (goal) to be a helpful strategy
in leading conversations about contradictions. These tended to be in situations where the
issue was complex and the dialogue became circular with no apparent end in sight. The
following excerpt illustrates how, in a time-poor situation, participants were able to reach
resolution that respected all members of the group. While this incident took place outside
the project, it involved participants from two of the centres in one cluster. Although the
story appears in both of the cluster transcripts of coaching and mentoring session 5, it is
Katarina’s version that is drawn on here.
Katarina told the story of working on a joint task, i.e., the printing of a booklet for a
conference, and how they applied the model. She began by describing how they were
trying to sort out the finances for the conference, and noted that something was happening
with the printing of the book, “and we were trying to work out what we are going to do.
This person wants this and this one wants that…” [CM5, p. 6]. They then tried different
strategies for looking at the issue: “We were talking about it as a process and Eva … [the
facilitator] would say ‘focus on the task!’” [CM5, p. 6]. In referring to what was taking place
as “a process”, Katrina makes reference to a systems analysis. Eva’s comment on the task
prompted the group to identify what the task was. They then deduced that “if we focus on
the task, the problem is not here or here” [CM5, p. 6], thus working through the location
of the contradiction in a systematic way.
Katarina reflected on the process, saying : “we were using it [the model] in that dilemma
because we were trying to tell someone that their idea wasn’t going to work and every
way we put it made it sound as though we didn’t appreciate what she’d done already […]
86
The focus here is about the printing of the books and time constraints” [CM5, p. 6]. Later
in the same coaching and mentoring session, Katarina reflected further on the situation:
“It really relieved the pressure from us because we were struggling with a way through,
like yeah, it’s about the task, which you’ve [the facilitator] always said, but I actually think
I’ve forgotten that” [CM5, p. 6].
Here is evidence that we were seeing glimpses in the data of learning the model through
externalisation. Importantly, in this scenario the principles that underpin the model
appear to be understood. Not only were participants thinking about the centre or process
they were engaged in as system, but there is also a renewed emphasis on object/task
orientation.
Bigger picture thinking

This section focuses on the possibility of systems theory to create ‘bigger picture’ thinking,
where multiple systems are acknowledged — both in terms of breadth and over time.
Ebbeck and Waniganayake (2003) argue for a more integrated and holistic perspective to
the study of leadership, in order to balance what they see as a lack of “systems thinking”.
At centre level this might be seen as expanding leaders’ views, or seeing their work in a
different way through a broader lens. The following discussion occurred in coaching and
mentoring session 3. It is a facilitated discussion about finding a focus to use in order to
practise mapping the centre system.
Lee brings up an example of a current contradiction — a child behaviour issue that “takes
up everybody’s time, attention and energy and [that has] been ongoing for a very long
time and [is] starting to come to a head now” [CM3, p. 2]. Julia suggests that they “try
and use the system [...] to work out the best possible outcome” [p. 2]. At first there is a
sense of powerlessness as they discuss how they have called in outside help, because the
situation is deemed “beyond [their] scope” [p. 2]. Eventually, as they are coached through
the community aspect of the model, they realise that they have been working on the
contradiction all along, when Julia says “and bringing in outside help is part of it isn’t it [...]
we’ve already begun this” [p. 3].
The story continues as Julia shares how she has written “about this boy on my thing” [her
copy of the model], noting “how obviously our outcome would be to have a calm and
happy centre [...] and the object would be to resolve the conflict that is going on with him”
[p. 4]. At this point Julia starts to focus on the outcome rather than the child; and then
acknowledges how they are beginning to “see it in a different way [...] than we have, which
[has been] just to do something about the child”. This she attributes to “looking at it [the
contradiction] in a more systematic way” [CM3, p. 5]. During the hour-long session, the
facilitator guides Lee and Julia through the process of mapping this activity system, and
the expansion of the object becomes more explicit, as they discuss the changes they have
been making (i.e., focusing on ourselves (staff), the environment, the wellbeing of other
children, and working from the child’s strengths and interests). It is at this point that they
decide to take the model and the contradiction to the next staff meeting, bringing with it
a shift from child-as-object to child-within-community.
In the above excerpt, Julia recognises that as a leader she needs to act, and she sees
an opportunity to use the model at the same time. In doing so, she realises that the
pedagogical strategies that the team are using as part of their self-review are in fact part
of the solution — using the tool has given her a sense of agency and insight. Like many of
87
the examples presented in this report, this is a mere glimpse of a possible change. Julia
and Lee did not get to take this to the staff meeting, and so at the closure of the project
we do not know if in fact the model was effective in advancing the problem; all we can say
is that the potential to see the contradiction in a new light might contribute to expanding
the system in ways that afford positive change.
The ability of the leader to articulate a clear vision and pathway to the future is another
aspect of leadership that participants were cognisant of. A number worked on their
philosophies using third generation activity theory, particularly as they became more
aware of philosophy as a mediating artefact. In terms of actual goals set, the data from the
final coaching and mentoring session where this was explored a little is inconclusive. As
expected in the centres in our kaupapa Māori cluster, cultural aspirations were considered
to be the desired outcome, and this was also expressed clearly in the Pasifika and kaupapa
Māori centres in the other two clusters.
There is some evidence that as the model was appropriated as a tool, participants became
more aware of its use in areas such as staff appraisal and job descriptions. Some participants
planned to use the model to guide the discussion around developing new staff appraisal
systems. This links with the data in the needs analysis set, where ‘staff dynamics’ was the
most frequently mentioned challenge of leaders in this project. Thus the shift here is from
‘staff’ to dynamics’. One of the more specific comments about the use of the model, in
terms of what might be seen as management aspects of pedagogical leadership, was Ria
talking about “having a new person on board within that role, it’s a job share role so it
was very timely in the sense that we can sit down together and have a korero about roles
and responsibilities, or rules and you know apply the model to those things, it’s sort of, it
excites me in the sense that we can get this done in a non-confrontational manner” [CM2,
p. 3]. Again, the emphasis on systems thinking and action is evident in this plan, which
focuses on bringing the new person into the community of learning (the stated leadership
model of this centre), where the focus is on the collective and not the individual as a
member of the group.
A framework for bringing contradictions to

consciousness
This section reports on the value of the model as a framework that might help leaders
to be more mindful in their role of bringing to consciousness contradictions, which in
turn can be worked on as objects or tasks in ways that expand the system — that is, the
system learns from them. Capper and Williams (2004) give a useful definition of what
they describe as ‘the learning proposition’ (p. 9). They make the point that as long as
the tools, rules, community and organisation operate as expected, the people within the
activity system go about their tasks with predictable results — this might be thought of as
‘business as usual’. However, the system (in our case the childcare centre and its supporting
community) will often be interrupted by unanticipated events (described by Capper and
Williams as ‘disturbances’); or contradictions (tensions between the elements of the
system) will be surfaced. Unless the team can learn how to deal with these, the whole
system potentially becomes unstable. Alternatively, contradictions are simply suppressed
and people put up with the effort to keep them that way — expressed by Tammy earlier
as “you just live with them”.
88
Disturbances or contradictions also present an opportunity for learning about the ‘real
world’, and can be viewed as “springboards for learning, innovation and development”
(Capper � Williams, 2004). In this light, contradictions become the fulcrum for pedagogical
change, and are viewed positively as a means to drive pedagogical leadership. In terms of
the model, Engeström (1987) stated that the “process of expansive learning theory should
be understood as construction and resolution of successively evolving contradictions in
the activity system” (p. 12), and thus contradiction becomes a feature of any expansive
system.
While the notion of contradiction is present in each of the examples in the previous section
as an element in the centres’ systems, this next section gives some further examples of
how participants came to see contradiction/disturbance as a way of expanding the centre
as a system. Inherent in each of the excerpts is a move away from the individual as the
centre of attention, in favour of a focus on the group as a collective.
Some participants were proactive in seeking out contradictions and responded very
quickly to the “homework” from Workshop 1, which was to ‘try and identify one or more
contradictions at play in your centre/service’ and ‘to find out if anyone else notices
them’. Part of the purpose of this exercise was to reinforce the idea that the role of the
pedagogical leader is to identify and articulate the contradiction and to bring it to the
attention of the people concerned or to the group as an object or task to be worked
on collectively. The other purpose was to get participants to start to look more critically
at the centre system for examples of invisible or undiscussable contradictions. Invisible
contradictions are those that are embedded in everyday life and are part of the ‘taken-for-
granted’ organisational culture; undiscussable contradictions are those that most people
are aware of but which never get talked about, because it is too uncomfortable to do so
(Capper � Williams, 2004).
Barbara and May became very adept at locating contradictions very early on in the project,
and throughout the coaching sessions they continued to identify possible contradictions
within their centre system. As they noted in the final coaching and mentoring session
[CM5, p. 5], they found it useful “just having the strategy or the tool there to be able
to look at what you want, instead of looking at the people — and I think for me being
quite a new leader it’s sort of helped [me] probably be more confident in dealing with
problems that come up”. In coaching and mentoring session 3, they reflected on how they
introduced the model to their team:
We did sort of explain to them that if they come across things again just to, sort of,
you can think about it in your head and not sort of take it personally. You can take
that aspect out of it and just think “so what is it that we actually want?” and sort of
what’s getting in the way of achieving that? [CM3, p. 5]
Here the use of the pronoun “we” indicates a move away from the individual to a more
collective way of thinking. The emphasis on the task (objective), “what is it we want?”, and
the implied contradiction, “what’s getting in the way?” is an example of working with the
team (i.e., in the collective) to bring contradiction to consciousness.
As previously explored, a common theme around contradiction was participants’ use of
third generation activity theory in situations to “take the personal out of it”, i.e. to focus on
systems thinking rather than the individual. Nearly all of the examples already discussed
imply or show this explicitly. The next two excerpts illustrate this very clearly, and suggest
89
that for some participants, the model has become a key tool in dealing with interpersonal
situations (contradictions between subjects in the model):
Tammy talks about “an incident late last week with somebody, something happened
and I needed to pass on. […] I raised at our seminar about that personality clash
and things like that. And that was the first thing that went to my mind …“is this a
personality thing or is this just something that I can deal with in a different way?”
You know on using that model as in looking at the issue rather than the, you know,
the personalities and whatever else that comes with that. And so I guess it is starting
to become…[useful?]. [CM2, p. 7]
Ella describes an incident in coaching and mentoring session 2 where she felt things
between two teachers were getting out of hand:
I didn’t like that tension because it was getting quite frisky between the two of them
and then one says “oh, I can’t be bothered any more” and I thought “well, that’s not
the attitude” […] Then the other says, “Oh well I’m not going to be bothered any
more”. We were just going backwards here, not forwards. So [I decided] let’s use
the system and see if we can suss this out. [CM2, p. 5]
Ella’s decision to ‘use the system’ enabled her to explore the contradiction that was at the
heart of the tension between her colleagues, who appeared not to have the resources
themselves to work this situation through. This is an example that supports Cardno and
Reynolds’ (2009) claim that we require new theoretical models to support leaders to
shift leadership practices, so that they embrace dilemmas as sites productive of teacher
learning.
Centres with a focus on a business model or an umbrella organisation may have leadership
structures and organisational cultures that demand different roles and responsibilities
of pedagogical leaders (Thornton, 2009). At the time of the needs analysis interviews,
three participants (all in different centres) reported that they felt management structures
impacted negatively on their effectiveness as leaders. Nuttall (2013a) reported a similar
finding in her Melbourne project. All three participants were in centres focused on
building enrolments, and all three had ‘off-site’ managers who made decisions about
curriculum implementation and operational management to some degree. (Two of
these centres had been open less than one year.) All three participants used the model,
particularly the principle of contradiction, as a tool to help them work more effectively
with management over the research period. The motivation for doing so was different for
each of these participants, and all three gained a sense of agency and comfort that they
attributed to using the model. In this sequence we hear first from Katarina, who finds
that the model gives her a new understanding of the intersection between two systems
— that of management and her own centre system — so that she is able to reach a space
where she feels both manager and herself “are validated”. Then Eleazar’s story explores
contradictions arising out of two different cultures (cultural systems). In the third story,
Felicity prepares herself for a courageous conversation with management.
I feel like I’m being taught to suck eggs

Katarina, a very experienced leader taking responsibility for establishing a new centre in
what was an unfamiliar commercial structure for her, described one of her challenges
as being “agendas, our management agendas [...] the immediate people I answer to, so
the agendas, and some of them are fiscally driven” [NA 1, p 7]. Later in the same session
she describes her motivation and focus, the reason why she took the job: “it’s about
90
reinventing me as a leader” [NA, p. 19]. In response to the facilitator’s reminder about her
“fiscal idea”, she says that “I fight with it just being on the side and not totally on the front”
[NA, p. 21] — indicating that this is a new way of leading for her, having worked in positions
of sole responsibility previously.
In the second coaching and mentoring session there were two further discussions about
how management in her setting do not understand how “early childhood operates”, and
a further contradiction is uncovered about being “on the floor” and having to deal with
national office inquiries. During the session, the facilitator introduces the concept of
multiple systems of activity, each with their own ways of operating (rules, tools, division
of labour etc). Towards the end, Katarina makes a breakthrough:
Katarina: I feel a bit like that, I feel like I’m being taught to suck eggs a lot.
Facilitator: So instead of thinking about the people, think about how the system,
[how] you might change.
Katarina: Could we do it? Did you see [inaudible]? Did you hear the ‘we’ there? Can
it be different?
Facilitator: Can you internalise the model enough to raise some of this stuff in
discussion? [CM2, p. 24]
Katarina realises herself that her thinking has shifted to a much more inclusive stance, as
indicated by the change in the pronoun ‘we’. A short while later she says, “Okay, that’s
changed my perspective now. I’ve got to find a way to convince them and win their trust”
[CM2, p. 24]. At the very end of the session she says:
Being able to see other perspectives. I think that’s good, just nutting them out but
there’s something else in there, there’s something that I think the system and the
process — it validates, no matter what, it validates […]’s position. It validates me. I
think that’s pretty cool. [CM2, pp. 25–26]
Understanding the model and how it relates to Katarina’s situation gives Katarina a sense
of being “validated”. Arguably she no longer feels subjected to the collective power of the
umbrella organisation that she works under, but is now more empowered to acknowledge
this reality and work with this organisation.
Torn between culture and work

Eleazar, introduced in the section above, felt that she was in a situation where she was
being “torn between ... the culture and [her] work” [CM1, p. 4]. Having identified this
contradiction, she is coached towards taking her concerns to the manager. Coaching and
mentoring session 3 starts with a discussion where Eleazar updates the facilitator on her
progress to date, saying that she has had a word with the manager, and managed to get
some resolution. Eleazar outlines how she has talked with her team and collected their
views, reflecting that “I then became their voice as well” and also reflecting on the way
that third generation activity theory has enabled this:
At the same time I think the process really helped me, I guess it was that self-conflict
about my culture and my professionalism, and my personality really, [thinking] do
I really have to stand down as a person and just listen to that? That’s my culture
telling me just to wait there [to people] in authority, and everything might flow or
everything might not. But my professionalism saw that that’s a tension and if it’s not
dealt with it will just become a mountain […] and that really pushed in very hard and
is trying to push through my personality, and push through my culture where it was
91
giving me that contradiction. So yeah like I said, I had to sort of prepare myself, amp
myself up and I guess it was like preparing for an exam. [italics added]
Facilitator: She talked to you about practising didn’t she?
Eleazar: Yeah so I did that, that was awesome and did the whole process, that was
good but when I finished the whole thing, I was surprised how it all went.[…]what I
assumed might happen didn’t happen, and the response was different so that was
good, […] and maybe some of the things that had come from my past, you know
with authority or something like that, was kind of hindering my relationship to try
and connect with [the manager] her. I guess I was happy that I identified that, I
worked through it and also empowered my team. [CM3, p. 1]
In the above excerpt Eleazar uses the language of third generation activity theory,
highlighting the contradiction between her own cultural ways of being and the expectations
of leading her team in the Palangi world. This is a system to system contradiction. Having
identified the contradiction, she is able to articulate the tension more clearly. This is also a
clear example of how Eleazar acted to construct a shared object in her conversation with
her manager. Rather than treating it as an adversarial situation between two individuals or
one where Eleazar has to “stand down as a person”, she has a way of framing the situation
and becoming agentic. Although this enables action at a personal level, awareness of
the collective (Eleazar’s team and advocacy for the individual Pasifika culture(s) that
make up the centre system) also informs and drives this action. In the broader sense,
the wider contradiction that set off this chain of events was all about clashes between
different systems, and in particular a key conceptual tool of the collective. As noted in the
introduction to this section, this is also an example of Engeström’s successively evolving
cycles of contradiction.
I’m not sure I want to have the conversation

In the final coaching and mentoring session, Felicity reflects on the influence that third
generation activity theory has had on herself as a leader, and in particular the principle
of contradiction (Engeström, 2001). Engeström argues that this principle highlights
the “central role of contradictions as sources of change and development” (p. 137). In
the excerpt below, Felicity articulates very clearly the value of the model in raising
contradictions to consciousness. She says:
I definitely think it’s had quite a bit of influence over the last few months, like some
of the issues I’ve had to deal with and some of the conversations I’ve had, and
things like that, that perhaps I wouldn’t have or probably, potentially may have tried
to avoid for a bit longer […] I think that’s the biggest thing, really is, that it actually
helps you to tackle those tensions rather than… [to] actually confront them and
challenge them. [CM5, p. 7]
[…] where a lot of it was things that I was doing probably more subconsciously but
it just made me more aware of how I was doing it and why, and it’s a lot easier to
share with others rather than just trying to explain what’s inside your head. [CM5,
p. 6]
One of the recurring themes in the coaching and mentoring session with Felicity was
getting to grips with a system over which she felt she had relatively little control. This
was the first time that she had worked with a more hands-on manager who was located
off-site, but took responsibility for much of the day-to-day operational tasks, such as the
roster and allocation of staffing across the multiple sites in the group. The manager’s
92
perception of the combination of the centres as a single system was something that Felicity
understood and was empathetic towards, but this contrasted with her own expressed
desire to implement a primary caregiving system in the centre she was responsible for. At
times during the project ,Felicity found herself on the roster of the other centres as the
manager worked to allocate qualified staff across the group. She found this very difficult,
as her interest lay in leading her own team and supporting them through an upcoming
ERO review. Of her own team, she said:
We have really good relationships and discussions about what is going on but I think
I struggle in the opposite direction having those courageous conversations like, with
management and things above me…with my team it’s fine but…I’m not sure I want
to have that conversation… but it’s OK I just need to suck it up … this is part of your
job. [WFN4 ]
As in Eleazar’s story above, Felicity was aware of the responsibility of having to act, but
did not have a tool that would give her the confidence to do this. Eventually she does
initiate a “courageous conversation” with the manager, and with the upcoming ERO
review providing further possible disturbances to the system, she achieves her goal of
consistent staffing and additional non-contact time. In the final coaching and mentoring
session, Felicity spoke about the value of the model in structuring her thinking:
I think, like it was useful in thinking about, like kind of planning how I was going to
have that conversation. I think once I had it in my head, what I needed to say and
all that kind of stuff, I didn’t really think about it at the time. I think it was helpful
deciding in my head. [CM4, p. 3]
The next section focuses on describing some of the changes that participants made at the
systems level as they moved towards a more collective leadership.
A framework for redistributing knowledge and decision

making
From the needs analysis data, it was clear that many participants recognised the individual
strengths of team members and the contribution they make to pedagogical practice. A few
centres stated explicitly that they regarded all teachers as pedagogical leaders, and some
centres described themselves as communities of learning and/or communities of practice
where pedagogical leadership was already shared. Thus within each of three clusters,
there was an awareness of the practices inherent in distributed leadership.
As participants engaged with third generation activity theory, we expected there to be a
redistribution of knowledge and decision making, as the model requires new thinking about
tools, rules and division of labour. This may be thought of as a move towards distributed
leadership, where the role of all teachers and learners is recognised in implementing change
and “it is through collaboration and collectivity that expertise is developed” (Clarkin-Phillips,
2009). Edwards and D’Arcy (2004) suggest that successful transformation of the object of
activity involves the deployment of resources or tools, which may be other people. They
stress that change is more than mere collective action on an object: “rather it is a capacity to
recognise and use the support of others as resources to transform the object” (p. 149). Many
participants spoke about the necessity to “get everyone on board” so that there was shared
understanding about centre practice; some participants recognised that third generation
activity theory was useful as a mechanism for doing this.
93
The first examples discussed below show some of the ways in which knowledge and
decision making moved from a location in the individual to that of the collective. As
noted above, some participants were already working in situations where the principles
of distributed leadership were practised, so examples of moving from a collective to a
greater sense of collective follow.
Earlier in this chapter, Louise talked about wanting to bring the two teaching teams
together. Here the facilitator and Louise are discussing the development of a philosophy
statement, and the coaching is in preparation for Louise to lead the discussion at the next
team meeting. Louise is anxious about not putting her ideas directly into the group, but
wants “for people to feel like they can talk, and already I know that my team haven’t felt
they can make decisions, that they can have a voice” [CM3, p. 2].
In the final coaching and mentoring session, Lottie talked with the facilitator about the
changes she has made in her leadership through using third generation activity theory.
Lottie responded by saying that she has moved towards having her team contribute more:
You’re thinking ahead of a situation that might happen and getting the staff to
contribute and well hopefully they’re feeling that they all have a role to play and a…
what’s the word…a contribution to make — that doesn’t have to be me saying how
this will happen. I really want people to contribute. [CM5, p. 16]
When they entered the project, Fane and Tuulaki had already begun a process of changing
their centre leadership structure from one that had been more hierarchical to one of
distributed leadership They found a great deal of alignment between third generation
activity theory and the developments they were making, and were very quick to pick up
the model and engage their staff. By coaching and mentoring session 3 they had held a
workshop with staff to introduce the model and had asked the staff to bring contradictions
to the team meeting.
Tuulaki recounts their success: “We brought up the key things […] and explained how
we need to work towards being leaders, pedagogical leaders. […] we just suggested if
we could come back and report any issues of any tension or contradiction” [CM3, p. 1].
The staff apparently question “what will happen if” they do this. They are reassured by
Tuulaki: “I said when you report back then the rest of the team will have to decide the
solution for it. We won’t look at you, in a negative way but we will look at what you will
report back as a positive step for us to work on towards a solution […] and that leads up to
talking about being a critical reflector [CM3, p. 1].
In this short extract, Tuulaki gives a very clear explanation of contradiction as driving
curriculum, at the same time making it a new rule that staff will contribute. Tuulaki then
comments on how the staff, set up to work in pairs, are talking with each other about the
issue, and starting to solve the problem before the next staff meeting. A little further on in
the interview, Tuulaki says: “Yeah, I was scared that it might be a negative outcome, […] it
is a positive thing in a bigger picture” […] “it’s safe to talk about it…talking about it helps
them” [CM3, p. 3]. She goes on to say: “They’re more excited. They’re getting a solution
for what has been built up within them.” Thus the model is used to unpack discussable
contributions and possibly invisible contradictions through the reflection.
By using a metaphor to explain the notion of collectivity, Tuulaki illustrates how metaphors
operate as tools to mediate understandings.
I use the garden. There is a gardener…to the garden I use the flowers, beautiful
flowers and stuff and if there’s a part of your garden that is not growing it’s the
94
gardener will come and…and water it […] but if the gardener [laughs] I’m going to
get stuck in this one. And it’s beautiful for people to come and look at and stuff and
I was using the garden to explain the roles of the teachers, you know, as…garden
coconut plants that grow, we are there to nurture the children. The garden and the
shepherd and a builder. The laying the concrete to build the house. [CM3, p. 5]
Tuuaki continues: So I used the Pasifika house as a community of practice …we have
values, we have Pasifika values and cultural values that sometimes becomes, […]
will stop us from talking, you know, that will discourage us from sharing and stuff
but I also add on some other concepts that will help us unpack, you know, how to
become leaders, pedagogical leaders. [CM3, p. 6]
The facilitator and Tuulaki then discuss the impact that this new way of working is having.
Tuulaki: They’re working on…there’s three staff there and three are there and
they’re working closely now to identify… Sometimes they come to me and ask
questions and I will just come and talk with them.
Facilitator: So they’re now asking for help a lot more too.
Tuulaki: Asking for help a lot more. Yes. Yes. A lot more. And…and what makes me
happy is the supervisors. The two supervisors in each…the more they feel that they
have a leadership role to play, they’re more getting involved now and stuff and
they’re more approachable, the others approaching them more now than before.
Tuulaki finishes by saying: “That’s my hope, they will be confident as pedagogical
leaders, yes because they’ll be looking at themselves as leaders, may not be
positional leaders but leaders in all areas like children’s learning, delivery the
curriculum and stuff so they can be more confident.” [CM3, pp. 9–10]
Our last theme, related to expanding pedagogical leadership, illustrates how participants
found the model highly supportive in leading pedagogical dialogue.
Tool for leading pedagogical dialogue (and change)

The Best Evidence Synthesis Interaction on School Leadership and Student Outcomes
(Robinson, Hohepa, � Lloyd, 2009) lists ‘engaging in constructive problem talk’ as one
of the leadership dimensions for raising student outcomes. They describe this dimension
as being “about the ability to name, describe and analyse problems in ways that reveal
possibilities for school-based change” (p. 43). This notion can be seen as similar to that
of raising contradiction in third generation activity theory. The role of the leader in such
‘problem talk’ is to engage their teams in dialogue that invites ownership and commitment
to change, as teams examine teaching and learning practices (Robinson, Hohepa, � Lloyd,
2009). As noted in the sections above, the dyads who used third generation activity theory
engaged in systems thinking. This afforded some new ways of leading team discussion,
based on the contractions the leader/s or collective brought to the group’s attention. In
most centres this happened at the staff meeting. The following excerpt describes one such
event and the impact this had on the designated pedagogical leaders.
During the needs analysis interview, both Ria and Lana described themselves in ways that
suggested they were reluctant leaders. Lana said: “It’s difficult for me to see myself as a
leader” [NA, p. 6]. Ria gave an explanation of leadership as being distributed and more
akin to leadership as an action than a position, saying:
95
“I could probably give you a different perspective on the leadership […] because I
see everyone has those different qualities so they might not have a title […] but they
lead the team in [different] ways […] I see the value and we all see the value in each
other […] we really try to work as a collective.” [NA, p. 6]
Thus Ria and Lana were already focused on the team as a collective at the outset of
the project. In fact Ria stated: “our strength is in our people that make up our learning
community” [NA, p. 18].
At the final coaching and mentoring session, what Ria and Lana say illustrates how they use
third generation activity theory to structure the discussion. They celebrate their success
with the facilitator. Lana comments on how the model has given her “a lot of confidence
to address that too, in probably a non-threatening way”. Ria adds, “even though it seemed
like a lot it was manageable”. (This refers to the teacher feedback telling them that it
had been a lot to take on board, but had been effective in terms of getting the teachers
thinking more deeply.)
The task they chose to work on to introduce the model was the duties and roles of the
inside/outside teachers — something that involved everyone directly. This took place at
a teacher only day, which possibly gave a period of focused time for the dialogue. Both
participants state that they found the experience really positive, and were amazed by
the response of the teachers to engage with the model, while at the same time exploring
the topic: “It was very intense I think […] but it got everybody on board, really thinking
about what the procedure involves” and “we were able to nut out and unpack a little bit
more, and reflect on it which I think was really, really good, without making anybody feel
threatened or anything like that” [CM5, p. 2]. (Several other participant groups in the
research also talked about a desire to engage in what they called “meaty” or substantial
dialogue.)
Ria and Lana discuss the participation of the team: “I felt like everybody contributed […]
and felt like they could contribute […] which is always a very big positive when you’ve got
a reasonably big group” [CM5, p. 4]. Later in the coaching and mentoring session, this is
expanded when Lana says: “and because it wasn’t personal they didn’t feel […] too shy to
say something about that, […] like they were having a dig at that person. None of that was
there; it was about the outcome that we wanted for the children at the end of the day…”
This is an important statement, because it depicts the outcome orientation. Ria adds, “we
ended up with four or five totally, like radically […] rewritten duties that are absolutely child
focused” [CM5, p. 5]. This conversation suggests that the ‘duties’ might have been an issue
causing some friction within the team; although not stated openly, it seems possible that
some of this falls into the category of undiscussable contradictions, i.e., those that no-one
is prepared to voice, in the interests of maintaining respectful relationships. Conversely
one might argue that not talking about problems is not respectful.
The focus on the desired outcome — quality for children — describes a strategy for keeping
the group on task, and is a feature of activity theory. The words ‘totally’ and ‘radically’
reinforce the depth of the change being discussed. Together with the number of duties
rewritten to include a child focus, they suggest that this system has been expanded at the
practice level.
Ria and Lana’s reflection on the process of leading the group, using third generation activity
theory, suggests that the activity system of leadership also has been expanded — Ria and
Lana have appropriated a new tool that makes their leadership more effective. As they
96
continue the conversation with the facilitator, they reflect on how the tool has “enabled”
the teachers and given them “a voice”. Because the teachers have been part of something
“done as a collective”, they become “accountable” for implementing the change [CM5,
p. 6]. This suggests a redistribution of power — moving away from the individual towards
a collective responsibility. It also brings the leadership strategy into alignment with their
embodied philosophy of shared responsibility. Struggling with the lack of this alignment is
possibly what leads to lack of leadership confidence.
Some participants used third generation activity theory as a conceptual tool that enabled
them to begin a more difficult conversation. Letitia, a leader who had 20 years’ experience
but had never been on a leadership course, went to a workshop on ‘courageous
conversations’ during the project. In coaching and mentoring session 2, she discusses the
impact of the conceptual tools from the other course, and how third generation activity
theory becomes another tool that she can use to frame up the conversation: “When you
come up to a situation where something’s happened, an altercation’s happened and you
have to have a courageous conversation, it’s still quite difficult how you’re going to word
that, where triangle land gives you the way, this is how you get it... [CM2, p. 3].
Many of the participants became aware that their role was to raise the contradiction,
but also to bring it to the group for solution. Coaching and mentoring session 2 helped
to unpack the notion of the outcome. Julia says “… and remembering that we don’t have
to have all the answers, and the more we can just get ideas from everybody [...] that’s
involved, the more likely you are to have a good outcome”, to which Lee responds “you
often think that as the leader it’s up to you isn’t it, to come up with all the ideas and
the answers” [CM2, p. 9]. Of relevance to this study is the way that activity theory goes
further than simply stimulating discussion, by supporting leaders to ask different sorts of
questions. This is crucial to redistributing leadership.
Conclusion
In the findings we have evidence of changes in leadership actions that can be attributed to
the appropriation and externalisation of third generation activity theory. In this chapter,
we have discussed four ways in which participants, as pedagogical leaders in their centres,
expanded their understanding and practice of leadership. In some instances, these may
constitute flickers of understanding that represent moments of struggle and breakthrough
within and against the pervasiveness of existing beliefs. But in others, participants
demonstrated deeply embedded and consistent practice that indicates deep change
toward mastery of the model.
As noted previously, the challenge for leaders most often mentioned in the needs analysis
data was staff dynamics, managing ‘personalities’ and working with diversity within teams.
As the emphasis changed from the challenges they mentioned in the needs analysis
interviews, it is no surprise that participants who engaged with third generation activity
theory found it to be a useful model for dealing with contradiction and tension within
teams.
In the next chapter we further explore the findings set out across all three chapters above,
by linking these to the research questions of the study and the objectives we set ourselves.
97
CHAPTER 7:
Discussion and conclusions:

Working in the shared zone
Introduction
This chapter begins by revisiting the coaching and mentoring methodology, before
discussing the findings of this study in relation to the research questions and objectives of
the project. We conclude with considering some of the implications of the study.
The focus of this research and development project has been pedagogical leadership.
It is centrally concerned with learning a model (third generation activity theory) and
appropriating this as a tool with the potential to transform leadership practices. The model
is premised on the methodology of expansive learning (and its theoretical foundations
and assumptions). At the outset of the project, we saw this model as having considerable
potential for reconceptualising and supporting effective leadership practice in early
childhood settings. The methodology was actively taught to participants as a tool that
allows for both continual change and shared understandings of social practices such as
teaching and learning.
A major assumption underpinning the project was related to the knowledge of those
who assume designated leadership positions in early childhood settings in Aotearoa/
New Zealand. We assumed that while they are knowledgeable about theories of child
development, they are unlikely to have an explicit theory of adult development. Our
approach to leadership is similar to that of Hard (2006), who writes “perhaps the essence of
the term leadership revolves around the notion of creating positive change in organisations”
(p. 40). Leaders in this project were, in effect, taught a methodology of change, through
supporting the teaching team to collectively solve problems (contradictions), or to move
them along through a collective zone of proximal development. The focus was on the group
and not the individual (as explored in previous chapters). The model enables pedagogical
leaders to identify factors that afford and constrain effective pedagogical leadership. We
chose to work with designated leaders, as this is currently the usual structural way of
carrying out leadership associated with the division of labour in early childhood settings.
Two key research questions and five objectives guided this project:
1. How can pedagogical leadership in early childhood settings in Aotearoa/New
learning theory?
98
D iscussion and Conclusions : Working in the shared zone
2. How can kaupapa Māori pedagogy and leadership be informed and enhanced by
expansive learning theory?
These research questions arose from the four aims identified in the introductory chapter,
which were operationalised through the following objectives:
1. To trial a methodology that has the potential to support and extend pedagogical
leadership in early childhood centres/services
2. To explore possible alignment between pedagogical leadership in kaupapa Māori
settings, kaupapa Māori research and expansive learning theory.
The project’s objectives for the participants were that they would:
3. learn a framework for identifying factors that afford and constrain pedagogical
leadership in their early childhood centre/service
4. develop strategies to lead and develop the pedagogical practice of their teams in
systematic and focused ways
5. develop confidence and a sense of self efficacy as pedagogical leaders.
In this chapter we return to the research questions and objectives of the project and discuss
these in the light of our findings and interpretations. Before doing so, however, we revisit
third generation activity theory as our tool for mediating leadership at both a conceptual
and an activity level, and describe how our project attempted to work a shared space
between participants and ourselves as facilitators/coaches to create a “jointly constructed
object” (Engeström, 2001, p. 136).
Third generation activity theory as a mediating tool for

leadership
The first principle of third generation activity theory described by Engeström (2001) makes
the prime unit of analysis “[the] collective, artefact mediated and object-oriented activity
system, seen in its network relations to other activity systems” (p. 136). In terms of our
project, this can be expressed as the intersection between the coaching and mentoring
workshops as a system of activity and the participant’s centre as another system, as
illustrated in Figure 5 below. Each of these systems has complementary components
(rules, tools, division of labour, etc.) specific to each context and situation. Engeström
(2001) notes that there are multiple systems and interactions that impact on any one
system.
At a very basic systems level, the coaching and mentoring sessions/workshops can be
thought of as one system; and the education and care centre as another. In terms of
leadership, both systems share the joint outcome of quality leadership in early childhood
education. It is at this point, where the two systems attempt to create a boundary zone,
that shared meaning and purpose is negotiated. The facilitator used the model of third
generation activity theory as a tool to structure and mentor the leader-participants from
the centre system. Her task or object was to support pedagogical leaders to use the model
of third generation activity theory. The object/task of the subjects in the centre system
(i.e., our leader participants) was to surface or expose contractions to bring to the coaching
and mentoring sessions for discussion. Thus each system was working on a common task,
but from a different context.
99
The introduction of third generation activity theory became a disturbance (Capper �

Williams, 2004) in the centre system, and this in turn exposed contradictions for the
leaders to work on, becoming the joint objective or task in the coaching and mentoring
sessions. Figure 5 is a model of the centre after intervention by the pedagogical leader.
Mediating
artifacts: Centre
situation and context.
Existing leadership tools
 new tools which
include third generation
activity theory
Subject:
Pedagogical leaders Object: Outcome:
as leaders of groups Transforming Effective
of teachers  pedagogical pedagogical
Pedagogical leaders leadership using the leadership
as part of model
this system
Division
Rules: of Labour:
‘I’  ‘we’. Community:
Traditional status and
Thinking and acting Parents, whānau,
roles  Everyone is a
from individual  wider ECE community
leader, power and
the collective and beyond
decision making
is shared
Figure 5. The education and care centre after intervention
Holding the notion of a shared space and a shared or jointly constructed object, we
move on to discuss our findings as presented in the previous three chapters. We begin by
addressing our second research question, that of the alignments between kaupapa Māori
and expansive learning theory.
How can kaupapa Māori pedagogy, leadership and

expansive learning theory inform and enhance each
other?
Kua mārama: Do you understand?
Nuku had lain on her belly facedown for so long, she knew not of what had become
of her after the darkness had become light. In her deep sleep she heard chanting,
the spirit world calling her, inciting her to awaken. Lips quivering, body cold, she felt
100
alone, but knew that she was not. Wondering if she was alive, she could hear voices
talking but not to her, their language foreign. Did they know she was there amongst
them, did they see her, know her?
The light blinded her senses with a constant throbbing pain throughout her body
dulling them further, falling in and out of consciousness; she had a vague sense of
crossing between worlds. Light faded into darkness, back to light. Nuku resisted the
light seeking the comfort of the dark, she felt safe there. Something stirred deep in
her gut, heaving, she rolled onto her back. For a long while she lay with her face
turned upward to the sky. After what seemed forever, she woke to the kiss of light
rain. A new born child squirmed at her side, the blood colour of red earth dry on his
skin, on her. They had entered the world of light.
This excerpt draws from the analogy of Te Ao Mārama. It will have aspects of familiarity
for some, less so for others. It speaks of new beginnings to an ancient legacy. The writing
expresses a sense of comfort in the world as we know it, and a sense of apprehension in
facing new experiences, of crossing into other worlds. Sometimes the learning may give a
sense of being foreign, but at the same time be recognised as familiar, thus resonating for
the participants as they grappled with new concepts associated with activity theory. Their
experience is consistent with the struggle of learning inherent in any meaningful learning
process; as explored by Vygotsky through the use of the term perezhivanie (Edwards,
2010).
From a Māori view of the world, whanaungatanga is the basis of all things. Everything is
based on our relationships with each other and with the world, everything is connected.
Whanaungatanga is central to our knowing of the world as it creates our place in the
world. As we are born from the darkness of the whare tangata into the world of light,
we constantly seek understanding of how we interact and connect with others. Just as
third generation activity theory provides a tool in which to continually move forward
as a system, aspects of Māori ‘ways of being and doing’ in working as a collective hold
similarities.
The central theme here is the relationship of kaupapa Māori to pedagogical leadership.
Within this context, kaupapa Māori is defined as the principle of whanaungatanga. The
project’s findings have established that there are some clear synergies between kaupapa
Māori, leadership and expansive learning theory, in that there is alignment between
the foundational concepts of each, and the notion of systems of activity. Basically, it is
the notion of the collective and collective ways of ‘being’ and ‘doing’ that provide the
foundation for this claim. As suggested in the data, Māori cultural practices and ways of
working as a collective (marae) align with activity theory’s view of systems as substantially
mediating consciousness within groups.
Although marae3 are given as the example of collective ways of being as drawn from the
data, the roles and responsibilities exemplified within kaupapa Māori driven initiatives
in education also support this claim. Similarities around ‘collective being’ were also
experienced within the Pasifika centres in the project.
3 Māori who live in communities situated around marae will be familiar with at least two of the key nodule points in the
model, the division of labour and the rules. The division of labour considers who does what, but is also considered
within the concept of ‘mahitahi’ interpreted as ‘working as one’. As discussed earlier, the division of labour relates to
the roles and responsibilities involved with marae activity; everyone has a role and responsibility in how the marae
functions, from performing the rituals of cultural protocols to washing the dishes. While the roles are quite distinct
in the different areas of whare hui and whare kai, both roles require ongoing and continuous systems of activity. This
requires a high level of commitment and responsibility on everyone’s part.
101
Although there has been a sense of ‘knowingness’ from the beginning of the project
that there is a specific link between kaupapa Māori/Te Ao Māori/Māori leadership
and pedagogical leadership, the project provides tangible examples of this. The basis
of pedagogical leadership is about collective strength and ways of working, shared
responsibilities, advancement and positive outcomes, thus connecting clearly with
kaupapa Māori.
In Te Ao Māori, the importance of relationships is held in high regard (Mane, 2009). While
whanaungatanga is traditionally concerned with genealogical links of kinship, in current
times it is also used in describing other relationships (Durie, 1997; Ritchie � Rau, 2006),
such as those held by groupings of people working together to support a common goal
or purpose. Whanaungatanga is also drawn from the notion of collective being. Implicit
within this notion are the concepts of manaaki (care/share) and tautoko (support/
encourage/stand by). Essentially the practical action of whanaungatanga is committed to
shared responsibilities and working in collective ways.
We argue that a strong base of whanaungatanga sets the conditions for pedagogical
leadership. This in turn makes the tool of third generation activity theory so promising
for enacting pedagogical leadership, because when the model can be woven into existing
conceptual worlds to help unpack how whanaungatanga ‘works’ (or should work) in a
centre setting, where it operationalises the concept of whanaungatanga.
How can pedagogical leadership in early childhood

settings in Aotearoa/New Zealand be transformed
through knowledge and understanding of expansive
learning theory?
We have suggested (in Chapter 6) that through this project, pedagogical leaders made
sense of themselves within and against their developing understanding of expansive
learning theory in four ways: by working more systematically; by gaining a framework
for bringing contradictions to consciousness; by redistributing knowledge and decision
making across the collective; and by having a tool for leading pedagogical dialogue in their
centres. Underpinning each of these is how all participants were able to make sense of
activity theory as a tool for understanding the centre as a system collectively focused on
the achievement of shared objects.
Our analysis suggests that this understanding was achieved by participants at different
points in the research and development project, and was due to a range of motivations
and opportunities. For some it was more noticeable and recurring than for others. For
example (see Chapter 5), when participants faced a pressing situation in their centre, this
appeared to propel them toward use of the model. We note that such examples were
mostly recounted by leaders who were less experienced than those with many years of
leadership ‘under their belts’. Letitia, an experienced leader as defined by number of years,
was looking forward to enacting the model, but her opportunity to do so was removed due
to her resignation from the centre. At the end of the programme, Lottie, another highly
experienced leader, was keenly looking forward to a ‘disturbance’ (in the form of a new
parent who is hearing impaired) which would provide an authentic challenge to her as a
leader and to the collective. These examples underscore the complexity of professional
102
learning and its context dependent and situated nature (Edwards, 2000, 2009), coupled
with the motivation to change. No judgement is made here; as Derrida (in Biesta � Egeá-
Kuehne, 2001) reminds us, understanding is elusive and misunderstanding is undervalued
as a way of knowing in Western views of knowledge.
The stories told in previous chapters are strongly suggestive of transformations having
taken place both in participants’ understandings of pedagogical leadership, and practices
and within their centres as systems of activity. While questions might be asked about the
extent of this transformation, we are wary of highlighting one dyad’s achievement over
another, given the relationship between personal and contextual factors in learning and
thus development. Each of the centres involved (as represented through their participants)
were in various places developmentally and were working on a range of developmental
tasks as a collective, always within broader contexts and systems that might impact
synchronously with their outcomes and shared tasks, or discontinuously with them. For
example, one of the centres involved in our project had recently restructured and had two
relatively inexperienced leaders at the helm. Due to illness in the centre over the winter
period and some financial difficulties related to recent government changes in funding,
this centre had difficulty enabling both leaders to attend all workshops and coaching
sessions. This situation appeared to impact negatively on their engagement in the project.
At the conclusion of the previous chapter we suggested that many of our participants
achieved ‘flickers’ of understanding, as externalised through the stories they recounted
in coaching and mentoring sessions (a number of which are illustrated within this report).
It was not the purpose of this project to deduce whether these ‘flickers’ translated into
deeply embedded, consistent change or transformation. What we discuss here is how
these constitute significant indications of transformations in the developing consciousness
of leaders as active agents in their centres. We do this within the framework provided by
the objectives for this project.
Objective 1: Trialling a methodology

In replicating the Melbourne project (Nuttall, 2013a) as an intervention-based research
study, we hypothesised that pedagogical leadership could be enhanced through the
appropriation of knowledge and theoretical tools associated with expansive learning
theory (which itself sits within the theoretical perspective of cultural historical activity
theory or CHAT). In turn, it was suggested, this would support leaders to engage with
colleagues in ‘change conversations’ in order to improve teaching and learning in their
centres. Within the model of third generation activity theory, these conversations are
structured so that the focus is on the object (or task) at hand, through a systematic
analysis of the components of the activity system. Tasks are not static but dynamic, and
have the potential for being expanded through a shared and collective process. Central
to this process is the identification of contradictions which are potentially “generative —
provided they are brought to consciousness and actively worked on” (Nuttall, in press-b,
n.p.).
Professional conversations are therefore not simply a descriptive event in terms of ‘what
happened,’ but ‘how’ it was that it happened. They are structured around the methodology
of activity theory, providing participants with a systematic and focused way to enact
leadership practice, while drawing on the intellectual and cultural capital of the collective.
103
We saw this in Felicity’s excerpt in the previous chapter, where she had become more
proactive in having conversations on topics that she revealed she “may have tried to avoid
for a bit longer” in the past. She talks about being able to confront tensions and challenge
them as an effect of being in our programme. Felicity’s experience was widespread in our
data. This resonates with the studies undertaken by Cardno and Reynolds (2009), where
they found that leadership dilemmas were difficult to recognise and/or acknowledge
or articulate, and that the ability to confront these was often obscured by a host of
avoidance strategies on the part of managers and leaders. We have ample evidence for
how participants at various stages across the project, furnished with their developing
knowledge of third generation activity theory, carried out change conversations at times
when they may have not previously known how to proceed effectively. Louise in Chapter
5 provides one such example, as she uses the framework of activity theory to confidently
focus her colleagues on the situation (task).
One of the keys to our programme was the way in which participants themselves brought
to the learning process the situations they desired to confront and challenge. With the
exception of a few early examples generated in the Melbourne project (Nuttall, 2013a) as
starting points, all other examples derived from the lived experiences of the participants.
Korthagen (2001) argues that “teachers’ professional development is not so much grounded
in knowing more, but in perceiving more in the practical contexts in which one has to
teach” (p. 71). Our data suggests that participants have expressed ‘perceiving more’ with
the mediated support of the tool. From this perspective, coming to understand activity
theory and to enact it as leaders was encountered as a relational endeavour inextricably
linked to the practices of teachers and to the ‘messy’ lived world of participants.
Objective 2: Exploring possible alignments

Kaupapa Māori is defined within the project from the principle of whanaungatanga.
Specifically, alignment to activity theory and expansive learning theory is essentially
concerned with the collective mechanism and power of relationships and the roles and
responsibilities held within this. As the kaupapa Māori centre (outside the kaupapa Māori
cluster) makes the connection that the division of labour is where the power sits, this
highlights that the power is in itself the division of labour, as it represents the collective.
From a Māori view, the division of labour is the strength of the collective; a viewpoint also
shared by Leont’ev (in Engeström, 2001). This recognition is further raised by participants
in the kaupapa Māori cluster as they make sense of how the model works as a system
and the roles and responsibilities involved in the workings of the collective. The division
of labour is the immediate point of recognition for Māori participants, in that it reflects
the collective responsibilities akin to living as part of Māori communities. These concepts
also have familiarity for non-Māori in the cluster, as they live and work in highly populated
Māori communities. While the claim of whanaungatanga as pedagogical leadership,
made earlier, is upheld in this argument as a fundamental aspect of Māori pedagogical
leadership, we suggest that this needs to be further explored.
The case study provides different levels of understanding of activity theory through use of
Engeström’s model throughout the programme; as it also shows different examples of how
participants have taken up the model. Some of these scenarios also relay barriers to ‘taking
up the model’. Issues of resistance and breakthrough are a strong thread throughout the
findings chapters, particularly for the kaupapa Māori cluster. At a theoretical level, when
104
centres resist appropriating the model, analysis based on the model itself suggests that
their object is to maintain the status quo. However, not liking the model does not mean
that the model cannot be used to analyse their system. There is some evidence that the
kaupapa Māori cluster were hoping for a distinctively Māori model, but clearly some of the
pedagogical leaders broke through this resistance by adapting the given tool for a better
cultural ‘fit’. This is a classic example of double stimulation: they did not simply take on
the model unproblematically, but rather grappled with it, adapted it, and gave it a go. This
means they are likely to have strong appropriation of its principles. Thus, the current study
confirmed alignment of kaupapa Māori to activity theory and expansive learning theory,
especially in recognition of how concepts of the model relate to the practical application
of Māori systems of activity.
Objective 3: Learn a framework

Blackler (1993) suggests that “activity theory offers a powerful package of ideas” (p. 875).
While he is suggesting these are useful for expanding understanding of organisation theory,
participants found (as did we) that the package of ideas contained within activity theory
and its relationship with expansive learning theory was similarly powerful for expanding
understanding of pedagogical leadership. For example, in Cilla and Jenny’s story in Chapter
5, each gets an insight into how their discomfort with conflict works in a contradictory
way with their desire for team work (as the dominant mediating tool for enactment of
their leadership practices). In another example, Tuulaki and Fane, in wanting to shift their
centre leadership structure towards a distributed one, surfaced their colleagues’ anxiety
about what might happen if they raised tensions or contradictions (see Chapter 6).
These examples are each linked to one of the key principles of activity theory: the central
role that contradictions play as potential sources of change and development (Engeström,
2001). As discussed in Chapter 5, participants responded to this principle in a range of
ways. However, all came to understand that for them as pedagogical leaders, a wealth of
potential learning exists within this feature, and their ability (and willingness) to surface
and work with contradiction (or tension, disturbance, dilemma) in their centres. In Chapter
6 we explored how participants frequently mentioned that gaining an understanding
of bringing contradictions to consciousness was a significant outcome of their learning
in this project. This feature may well be one of the most significant pieces of learning
for participants, given that ‘staff dynamics’ was the most frequently cited challenge to
leadership mentioned by them at the outset of this project. This is consistent with others’
findings (Reynolds � Cardno, 2008). Pedagogical leaders now have a systematic way to
address tension (dynamics) in their centre. Staff dynamics was said to be at the centre
of the situation described in Chapter 6 by Ella, where a tension building between two
teachers was addressed systematically by her.
The package of ideas (tools) that activity theory offers participants constitutes a set of
affordances that appeared to enhance aspects of their pedagogical leadership. Jenny’s
story of how she had patiently but unsuccessfully waited for members of her teaching
team to stop leaving the door to the kitchen open is an example of how pedagogical
leadership was not able to address this tension effectively before applying the tools of
activity theory.
Conversely, participants also began to understand factors that constrain pedagogical
leadership. The principle of seeing the centre as a “collective, artefact-mediated and
105
object orientated activity system” (Engeström, 2001, p. 136) shifted the locus of control
from the individual to the collective, both in terms of where (most) problems of practice
lie, and where solutions are to be found. As discussed in Chapters 5 and 6, this notion
resonated strongly with participants. The reasons were not explored with them, but we
have hypothesised it is possibly related to their comments about staff dynamics, and
how interpersonal relationships may be a constant source of tension in early childhood
education. Hard’s (2006) work on leadership surfaced a “lingering discourse of niceness”
(p. 44) as an effect of notions of ‘team work’ shaping leaders’ views of themselves.
Robinson’s (2007) study of early childhood teachers’ discourses of teaching found that
they reflect the physically and emotionally intense nature of the work of early childhood
teaching,: “The relentless responsiveness and the intense nature of the relationships put
immense demands on the psychological and emotional resources of teachers” (p. 89).
Robinson is critical of what she terms “the team player discourse [as it] serves to keep the
teacher doing the work, responding to others” (p. 89). A focus on individuals came to be
understood by many participants to be unproductive and a potential source of constraint
on the work of the ‘team’ or the collective.
Other evidence suggests that participants have begun to understand how holding
systematic, focused conversations is central to their pedagogical leadership, because
staying task focused allows objects to be more thoughtfully appraised and understood by
the collective. These conversations need to be carefully facilitated, but leaders have begun
to see that they are not required to have all the answers, and to understand the benefit of
drawing on the collective consciousness of the group.
Objective 4: Developing strategies to lead

This objective is linked to our aim of empowering leaders to build positive teaching and
learning cultures in their settings, based on collective actions, by adapting the model in the
professional learning programme. In Chapter 6 we discuss how participant data strongly
suggests that participants experienced a systematic process for leading pedagogical
discussions and for addressing persistent problems of practice. This began in the early
stages of the project, by showing participants how to map their centres as systems of
activity, identify contradictions, and plan for and carry out changes in their settings. All
of these are done within the framework of an activity theory approach to the centre
as a system, rather than as a collection of individuals. Louise’s example in Chapter 5 is
pertinent here: she could have made the baby slipping off the changing table an issue of
one person’s ineptitude, but instead recognised it for its potential to expand everyone’s
understanding of the task. In doing so, she surfaced a contradiction between the tools
and rules. As she says, this situation exercised her leadership capabilities and she derived
satisfaction from “nailing it”. What is not highlighted in that piece is how she also had to
talk with the baby’s mother. This potentially difficult conversation was made clearer for
Louise through her systematic way of addressing the event previously with the teachers.
We also coached participants to expand objects (tasks) through facilitating dialogue
and drawing on the multi-voicedness (Engeström, 2001) of the immediate group and
of their community. Eleazar’s narrative in Chapter 6 shows how this became part of her
foundational framework for leadership, as does Julia’s comment about getting “ideas from
everybody”. As for Lana and Ria’s teacher-only day addressing job descriptions (Chapter
4), it is very likely that this may well turn out to expand the system, given the significantly
changed job descriptions that came about as a collective shared task.
106
Objective 5: Develop confidence and self efficacy

We predicted that developing leaders’ confidence and sense of self efficacy would be
related to our intervention based professional learning programme, built largely around
the double stimulation strategy. In essence, we taught participants to map their centres as
systems of activity in relation to specific tasks, which they identified, and then to identify
contradictions that were obstructing the achievement of those tasks. This was the subject
of early coaching and mentoring sessions, as we supported participants on how to do this.
Through this process, participants identified with components of the model and used it
as a new conceptual tool to aid their ability to foster pedagogical change in their settings.
Eleazar’s story of how she addressed her own culturally-based feelings and her emerging
identity as a pedagogical leader (Chapter 6) is powerfully illustrative of her having developed
a sense of confidence and self-efficacy through appropriating the tool of activity theory.
This initially takes place through the shared space of the coaching and mentoring session,
but is followed up by Eleazar, with her manager, acting on her new knowledge (tool).
Tones of confidence and increased self-efficacy can be detected within many of the
narratives recounted in this report. We conclude that the tool of third generation activity
theory, coupled with the principles of expansive learning theory, while at times difficult
to appropriate (as evidenced by stories of resistance and breakthrough), significantly
contributed to providing participants with a new, potentially powerful way to frame their
practice as pedagogical leaders. However, we also attribute this outcome to the structure
of the professional learning programme, which supported and enabled participants to be
empowered and agentic within it and to actively engage as learners. We turn now to a
brief discussion of the key elements of the professional learning programme as they relate
to participants’ narratives of confidence, before identifying some implications arising from
the study.
The professional learning model

Four key features of our professional learning model stand out as significant in how
participants engaged with the model and took up the tool. These are: (1) using teachers’
thinking as a starting point; (2) the importance of understanding teachers’ contexts
including their real issues; (3) the importance of a trusting and caring environment; and
(4) challenging normative notions of development.
Using teachers’ thinking as a starting point

This feature highlights the importance of working with teachers’ theories and beliefs,
rather than seeing teachers as having a gap needing to be filled — an approach which can
result in new ideas ‘sliding away’. Over ten years ago, Wood and Bennett (2000) noted
that there is “an extensive stock of empirical data which attests to the effectiveness of
achieving meaningful change by addressing teachers’ existing knowledge, beliefs and
practices” (p. 636). This shift reflects changes in the sociology of knowledge, together with
shifts to a more socially constructed view of knowledge (Blackler, 1993). More recently,
Suzie Edwards (2007) has discussed the importance of teachers’ existing cultural capital
as an essential ingredient for professional learning, as well as opportunities for reflexivity;
both of these enable teachers to be actively present and engaged with the learning and
change process. This reflexivity is seen throughout the data shared in this report.
107
In this project there were understandably struggles and points of resistance as participants
wrestled with new ideas, problematizing existing beliefs around, for example, the notion
of contradiction. A back and forth motion, with a sense of disequilibrium, was part of the
process.
Cilla is able to express her existing beliefs and attitudes to conflict in the vivid phrase, “the
monster under the peace” (see Chapter 5). In this scenario, both she and Jenny are able to
reflect on their existing views of conflict, alongside an alternate view. Each problematises
their existing beliefs and begins to reconceptualise them. It is important that professional
learning initiatives provide opportunities for leaders to explain their ideas/thoughts and
to have them acknowledged and respected.
Wood and Bennett (2000) talk about teachers moving through three stages of professional
learning. First, they bring their personal and informal theories to awareness; second,
they problematise their practice; and lastly, they reconceptualise practice. This sequence
allows tacit knowledge to be surfaced as a basis for investigating professional practice
and changing or improving it. While this pattern was experienced by participants and was
thus able to be identified within the data, it is not a ‘smooth’ process. The length of the
programme (spread over six months) enabled this sequence to be experienced across
multiple opportunities.
The importance of understanding teachers’ contexts, including their real issues

This is supported in the professional learning literature on how change is generated when
teachers have opportunities to work with real issues. This feature is aligned to the notion of
knowledge as socially constructed and, importantly, as situated. The professional learning
initiative appreciated the context of the participants’ work, and sought to understand their
practice in that context. The project foregrounded teachers’ practice and created space
for teachers to share stories about practice in both the workshops and the coaching and
mentoring sessions. Furthermore, participants chose their own issues to work on. This
enabled each participant’s own issues to drive the learning process. As stated in Chapter
5, we found that many of our leaders were faced with urgent and demanding situations at
work which required them to take the lead. These were the very situations whereby take
up of the model appeared to have more resonance for some than for others. In Chapter
6, Eva, for example, is clearly focused and motivated to address a real issue: “I’m focused
on the issue and what we need to progress it”. Furthermore, take up of the model was
speeded by the urgency of real issues, i.e., ‘felt need’.
For Edwards (2009), “[b]roadly speaking the focus is on understanding his/her practice”.
Ord (2010) argues that knowledge is not something applied to practice, but rather is
located in practices in a dynamic way. Teachers (in her case student teachers) want to
situate new knowledge in the context of practice, as this allows an interpretive context in
which to try new knowledge. Similarly Edwards (2000, pp. 16–17, cited in Edwards, 2009a,
p. 84) argues that “research needs to be embedded in the practical-knowledge of the
community of practitioners and [to] inform practitioners’ ways of seeing and being” as
they carry out their work. Tammy’s personal example of finding a contradiction (Chapter
5) is illustrative here, as she sought to access a ‘real’ context for understanding this term.
108
The importance of a trusting and caring environment

Recently Grey (2011) has written about the importance of a trusting and caring environment
as a condition for critical inquiry and dialogue about teaching practice. This takes account
of the subjective or interpretive nature of practice, which accords with the notion of
mediation, whereby participants must actively construct understandings that are initially
accessed in the social realm. In reference to her study of professional dialogue, Grey talks
about how sharing ideas can arouse anxiety for participants. She gives a number of reasons
for this, e.g., feeling that others are more experienced, feeling anxious that their practice
may be found wanting, feeling anxious that others may be upset, or feeling anxious that
their ideas may be misinterpreted and judged negatively. Grey says that “for teachers to
be motivated to participate, they must be able to perceive that the gain of participating
outweighs any initial discomfort and anxiety” (p. 25).
Participants in this study seemed to trust that they could express their ideas and feelings
safely. The recruitment of two participants from each centre was a deviation from the
Melbourne project (Nuttall, 2013a); while it was mostly conceived to overcome a sense of
loneliness (as discussed in Chapter 3) and to foster the ability to work jointly on the project
with a colleague, it may well have played a part in participants’ feelings of trust. Tammy’s
example (Chapter 5) of linking the model to her personal life and her relationship with her
partner, thus bringing affective elements into the learning, conveys how the project took
a holistic view of participants that included an acknowledgement of their ‘other’ lives
outside the centres. Elsewhere Jenny talks about being a “solo mum” [CM 5, p. 20] and
how this makes her very “independent and self-sufficient” [CM 5, p. 21]. She believes that
this has a bearing on how she is as a leader. Participants are able to be honest in other
ways too: “I feel guilty but I still can’t think of things that relate to [contradiction] (Chapter
5).
The tensions and breakthroughs experienced by leaders in each cluster support the
notion that professional learning initiatives respond to the “emotional and intellectual
development” (Fleet � Patterson, 2001, p. 3) of teachers. Authenticity was upheld through
this programme, and participants appeared to feel able to tackle problems of practice.
One dyad was worried that it was “a bit like hanging their dirty washing out”, but this did
not appear to be widespread.
Arguably this idea of trust is also paramount in relation to surfacing tensions/contradictions
for Māori and Pasifika leaders in the project. Similarly, Tuulaki in her role as pedagogical
leader reassures her team they will not be seen in a negative light if they report tensions/
contradictions (Chapter 5). Across our clusters, we applied the principle of manaakitanga
and accordingly each Workshop provided refreshments as suitable to the time of day.
Appropriate cultural protocols were observed in order to be inclusive.
Challenging normative notions of development

The last feature of professional learning that appears to have had a positive impact on
participants’ sense of confidence and self-efficacy is related to challenging normative
assumptions of (adult) development, and foregrounding social and cultural diversity. The
normative view of adult development is challenged by this professional learning initiative.
The project’s perspective reflects professional learning as acknowledging diversity and
difference. The kaupapa Māori cluster specifically set out to recruit Māori, while the other
clusters had provisions in the selection criteria to recruit a diverse range of participants.
When professional learning initiatives take such an approach, space is created for differing
109
viewpoints. Whilst the content and sequence of workshops was similar across clusters, each
cluster and each centre participant negotiated their responses in their own idiosyncratic
ways. The selection and use of data at times specifically aimed to highlight this diversity.
We conclude from the data that a culturally diverse group of pedagogical leaders found
that third generation activity theory has potential to transform their leadership practices
through take up of the model. In particular it affords the surfacing of contradictions and
tensions, including tensions of colonisation, language, identity and culture.
Implications of the study

In this section we raise five implications arising from this study:
1. NZCA procedures for researching with Māori
2. Opportunities for early childhood centres to participate/engage in research/PD
3. Future research by NZCA as a follow up study to evaluate sustainability
4. Collaborative research projects
5. Professional learning opportunities
1. NZCA procedures for researching with Māori

The alignment between kaupapa Māori, activity theory and expansive learning theory
is highlighted in this study, based firmly from the position of the collective. As discussed
in different areas of this report, the place of Māori needs to be integral to any initiative
that considers its role in upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi relationships and responsibilities.
Several recommendations are made here to ensure that the aspirations of tangata
whenua are explicit within future research endeavours. The involvement of the Māori
Research Advisory Group is a key learning from this project. Retaining the role of a Māori
Research Advisory Group is one way of ensuring the future direction of research within
the organisation, as it adds rigour to the overall quality of the projects.
The specific task of creating a kaupapa Māori research space within future Flagship research
projects is further recommended. As key aspects of this project focus on transformational
change in which to create the conditions for pedagogical leadership based on the
understanding of systems as collectives, the positioning of kaupapa Māori within early
childhood research is critical to reflecting the realities of Māori as tangata whenua. While
there has been considerable research undertaken in the sector (such as this current study)
that is positioned as bicultural or alternatively based within treaty relationships, we need
to ensure the distinct voice of Māori is heard on their/our own terms and in their/our own
ways. Other than the few examples drawn on in the literature review, where is this voice,
the authentic, indigenous voice of Māori to be heard across early childhood education?
While only briefly noted in the report, the roles of expansive learning theory and activity
theory as decolonising artefacts require further exploration. The specific role of research
as a decolonising artefact is important to future research undertaken within Te Tari Puna
Ora o Aotearoa/New Zealand Childcare Association and the early childhood sector more
generally. As discussed in different areas of this report, kaupapa Māori needs to be integral
to any initiative that considers its role in upholding te Tiriti responsibilities. Retaining the
Māori Research Advisory Group for all research is important to the future direction of Te
110
Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa, as is the specific task of creating a Māori research space within
future research developments.
2. Opportunities for early childhood centres to participate/

engage in research/professional learning
A common theme expressed by participants within our project was the lack of leadership
development opportunities they had experienced as leaders. This suggests that the
situation discussed by Thornton et al. (2009) has not since significantly improved.
Advocating for leadership development programmes needs to be an important feature of
NZCA’s advocacy role.
3. Future research by NZCA as a follow up study to evaluate

sustainability
The aim of the research was to trial a methodology with the potential to empower
participants to implement a sustainable programme of pedagogical leadership in their
centres. A future research project focused on ascertaining the longer term sustainability
and development of the model is proposed. This follow-up evaluative research study
needs to take an ethnographic approach, to ensure that it extends beyond interpretive
and phenomenological accounts within self-report.
4. Collaborative research projects

Our project is congruent with research that explores distributed leadership or focuses
on dilemmas of leadership. Collaborating with researchers in each of these research
platforms has the potential to build research partnerships.
5. Professional learning opportunities

The six-month time-scale and intensive nature of the research and development project
appeared to act favourably in terms of providing the time and relationship development
needed to engage in new learning. An exciting implication for NZCA is the potential to
offer this intervention-based professional learning programme to other pedagogical
leaders within the early childhood sector. It is doubtful, however, that all centres have
the resources to fund this form of professional learning, in the current climate of reduced
central funding of early childhood centres/services. Given the link between leadership
and quality early childhood education (Thornton, et al., 2009), this situation requires the
political will to address it.
Conclusion
Findings indicate that expansive learning theory, incorporating third generation activity
theory, offered a package of tools and affordances that participants were able to
appropriate to enhance aspects of their pedagogical leadership. The pedagogical leaders
in this study made sense of themselves within and against their developing understanding
of expansive learning theory by: (1) working more systematically; (2) gaining a framework
for bringing contradictions to consciousness; (3) redistributing knowledge and decision
making across the collective; and (4) having a tool for leading pedagogical dialogue in their
centre.
111
This intervention-based professional learning project confirms the potential of third

generation activity theory as a tool to go further than simply stimulating discussion —
it supported the leaders in this project to ask different sorts of questions. Changes in
leadership actions were directly attributed to the appropriation and externalisation of
third generation activity theory. These leaders came to understand their centres as a
system and not as a group of individuals and actively aligned themselves with the notion
of ‘playing the system, not the person’. This, in turn, provided an affordance to draw on
the professionalism and synergies of the collective.
The study found clear evidence of alignments between pedagogical leadership in kaupapa
Māori settings, kaupapa Māori research and the theory of expansive learning. In particular,
the concept of whanaungatanga provides the context for pedagogical leadership. When
pedagogical leaders ‘operationalise’ whanaungatanga in league with third generation
activity theory, the ‘triangle model’ can be woven into their existing conceptual worlds as
another useful tool to help leaders to unpack how whanaungatanga ‘works’ in a centre.
This has the potential to become pedagogical leadership at its best in this time and place.
112
R eferences
References
Anae, M., Coxon, E., Mara, D., Wendt-Samu, � Development in Education, 1-16. Retrieved from:
Finau, C. (2001). Pasifika Education Research http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2011.637225
Guidelines. Report to the Ministry of Education. Biesta, G � Egeá-Kuehne, D. (2001). Opening:
Wellington: Ministry of Education. Derrida and education. In G. Biesta � D. Egeá-
Backhurst, D. (2009). Reflections on activity theory. Kuehne (Eds.), Derrida � education (pp. 1–12).
Educational Review. 61(2), 197-210. London: Routledge.
Baptiste, I. (2001). Qualitative data analysis: Bishop, R. (1996). Collaborative research stories:
Common phases, Strategic Differences Forum Whakawhanaungatanga. Palmerston North:
Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Dunmore.
Social Research, 2(3), Art. 22, Retrieved from Bishop, R. (1999). Kaupapa Māori research: An
http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114- indigenous approach to creating knowledge.
fqs0103226. In N. Robertson. (Ed.), Māori and psychology:
Barnes, H. (2000). Kaupapa Māori-explaining the Research and practice (pp. 1–7). Hamilton: Māori
ordinary. Auckland: Whariki Research Group, and Psychology Research Unit.
University of Auckland. Bishop, R. � Glynn, T. (1999). Culture counts:
Baron, W., Moir, E., � Gless, J. (2005). A Support Changing power relations in education.
Program with Heart: The Santa Cruz Project. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Santa Cruz: New Teacher Support Center/ Blackler, F. (1993). Knowledge and the theory of
Alexandria, VA: ASCD. organizations: Organizations as activity systems
Bary, R., Deans, C., Charlton, M., Hullett, H., Martin, and the reframing of management. Journal of
F., � Martin, L. (2008). Ako Ngatahi: Teaching Management Studies, 30(6), 863-884.
and learning together as one: From leadership Blaise, M. (2009). Revolutionising practice by doing
to enquiry: Teachers’ work in an infants’ and early childhood politically settings. In S. Edwards
toddlers’ centre. Centre of Innovation report � J. Nuttall (Eds.), Professional learning in early
to the Ministry of Education. Wellington, childhood settings (pp. 27–48). Rotterdam: Sense
New Zealand. Retrieved from http://www. Publishers.
educationcounts.govt.nz/data/assets/pdf_
Brennan, M. (2005). “They just want to be with
file/0011/22601/Massey_Childcare_Centre_COI.
us”. Young children: Learning to live the
Final_Report.pdf
culture. A post-Vygotskian analysis of young
Bell, N. (2011, December). Growing leadership children’s enculturation into a childcare setting.
in Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa/NZ Childcare (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Victoria
Association. Wellington: NZCA. University of Wellington, Wellington, New
Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P. A., � Harvey, J. A. Zealand.
(2003, Spring) Distributed leadership: A review of Boyd, S. (2009). Spotlight on leadership. An
literature. Full report. Nottingham, UK: National interview with Professor Viviane Robinson. Early
College for School Leadership. Retrieved from Childhood Folio, 13, 37-38.
http://www.ncsl.org.uk
Burr, V. (2003). Social constuctivionism (2nd ed.).
Bevan-Brown, J., Bourke, R., Butler, P., Carroll-Lind, London, UK: Routledge.
J., Kearney, A., � Mentis, M. (2011). Essential
Burman, E. (2001). Beyond the baby and the bath
elements in a professional learning and
water: Post-dualistic psychologies for diverse
development programme: A New Zealand case
childhoods. European Early Childhood Education
study of autism professional development to
Research Journal, 9, 5-22.
promote collaborative practices. Professional
113
Burman, E. (2008). Deconstructing developmental Dalli, C., White, E. J., Rockel, J., Duhn, I., with
psychology (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge. Buchan, E., Davidosn, S., Ganly, S., Kus, L.,
Buysse, V., Winton, P., � Rous, B. (2004). Reaching � Wang, B. (2011). Quality early childhood
consensus on a definition of professional education for under-two-year-olds: What should
development for the early childhood field. Topics it look like? A literature review. Report to the
in Early Childhood Special Education, 28(4), 235- Ministry of Education. Wellington, New Zealand:
243. Ministry of Education.
Cannella, S. G. (1997). Deconstructing early Daniels, H., � Edwards, A. (2010). Introduction. In H.
childhood education: Social justice and Daniels, A. Edwards, Y. Engeström, T. Gallagher, �
revolution. NY: Peter Lang. S. R. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Activity theory in practice:
Promoting learning across boundaries and
Capper, P., � Williams, B. (2004). Cultural-historical
agencies (pp. 1–24). London: Routledge.
activity theory: Enhancing evaluation using
systems concepts. Enhancing evaluation using Day, P. (1994). Radio Years: A History of Broadcasting
systems concepts. Washington, DC: American in New Zealand. Auckland: University Press in
Evaluation Association. Retrieved from: http:// association with the Broadcasting History Trust,
users.actrix.co.nz/bobwill/activity.doc New Zealand.
Cardno, C., � Reynolds, B. (2009). Resolving Denzin, N. K. (2001). Interpretive interactionism (2nd
leadership dilemmas in New Zealand ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
kindergartens: an action research study. Journal Dunlop, A.W. (2008). A literature review on
of Educational Administration, 47(2), 206-226. leadership in the early years. Retrieved from:
Carter, M., � Curtis, D. (2010). The visionary director. educationscotland.gov.uk
St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press. Durie, M. H. (1997). Whānau, whanaungatanga and
Chilvers, D. (2011). Improving the quality of social healthy Māori development. In P. Te Whāiti, M.
work field education: The efficacy of an analysis McCarthy, � A. Durie (Eds.), Mai i rangiātea.
using cultural-historical activity theory. Aotearoa Māori wellbeing and development (pp. 1–24).
New Zealand Social Work Review, 23(4), 76-86. Auckland: Auckland University Press with Bridget
Williams Books.
Clarkin-Phillips. J. (2007). Distributing the
leadership: A case study of professional Durie, M. (1998a). Te mana, te Kawantanga: The
development. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Politics of Māori self-determination. Melbourne:
University of Waikato, Hamilton, NZ. Oxford University Press.
Clarkin-Phillips. J. (2009). Distributed leadership. Durie, M. (1998b). Whaiora, Māori Health
Utilising everyone’s strengths. Early Childhood Development. (2nd ed.). Auckland, NZ: Oxford
Folio, 13, 22-26. University Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., � Fries, K. (2005). Researching Durie, M. (2012). Interview. Kaupapa Māori: Shifting
teacher education in changing times: Politics and the social. New Zealand Journal of Educational
paradigms. In M. Cochran-Smith � K. Zeichner Studies. He Hautaki Mātai Mātauranga o
(Eds.), Studying teacher education. The report Aotearoa. Special Issue: He aha te kaupapa?
of the AERA panel on research and teacher Critical conversations in kaupapa Māori, 47(2),
education. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence 21-29.
Erlbaum Associates. Ebbeck, M. A., � Waniganayake, M. (2003). Early
Colburg, M., Glover, A., Rau, C., � Ritchie, J. (2007). childhood professionals: Leading today and
Indigenous peoples and perspectives in early tomorrow. Sydney, NSW: MacLennan � Petty.
childhood education. In L. Keesing-Styles � ECE Taskforce. (2011). An agenda for amazing
H. Hedges (Eds.), Theorising early childhood children. Final report of the ECE Taskforce.
practice: Emerging dialogue (pp. 137–161). Castle Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Hill, Australia: Pademelon Press. Education Review Office. (2008). Māori children
Colmer, K. (2008). Leading a learning organisation: in early childhood: Pilot study July 2008.
Australian early years centres as learning Wellington, New Zealand: Author.
networks. European Early Childhood Education Education Review Office. (2010, August). Quality in
Research Journal, 16(1), 107-115. early childhood services. Wellington: Author.
Cullen, J. (2009). Adults co-constructing professional Edwards, A. (2000). Looking at action research
knowledge. In A. Anning, J. Cullen, � M. Fleer through the lenses of sociocultural research and
(Eds.), Early childhood education (pp. 80–90). activity theory. Educational Action Research, 8,
London: Sage. 195-204.
114
R eferences
Edwards, A. (2004). Understanding context, Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning

understanding practice in early education. at Work: Toward an activity theoretical
European Early Childhood Education Research reconceptualization. Journal of Education and
Journal, 12(1), 85-101. Work, 14(1), 134-155.
Edwards, S. (2007). From developmental- Engeström, Y. (2009). The future of activity theory:
constructivism to socio-cultural theory and A rough draft. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, � K. D.
practice: an expansive analysis of teachers’ Gutierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with
professional learning in early childhood. Journal activity theory.(pp. 303–328). Cambridge, UK:
of Early Childhood Research, 5(83), 83-106. Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, S. (2009a). Beyond developmentalism. Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., � Sunito, A. (2002).
In S. Edwards � J. Nuttall (Eds.), Professional Can a school community learn to master its own
learning in early childhood settings (pp. 81–95). future? An activity-theoretical study of expansive
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. learning among middle school teachers. In G.
Edwards, A. (2009b). Agency and activity theory: Wells � G. Claxton. Learning for life in the 21st
From the systemic to the relational: relational century: Sociocultural perspectives on the future
agency and activity theory. In A. Sannino, of education. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
H. Daniels, � K. D. Gutierrez (Eds.), Learning and Engeström, Y., � Keosuo (2007). From workplace
expanding with activity theory. (pp. 197–211). learning to inter-organizational learning and
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. back: the contribution of activity theory. Journal
Edwards, A. (2010). How can Vygotsky and his legacy of Workplace Learning, 19(6), 336-342.
help us to understand and develop teacher Eun, B. (2008). Making connections: Grounding
education. In V. Ellis, A. Edwards, P. Smagorinsky professional development in the developmental
(Eds.), Cultural-historical perspectives on teacher theories of Vygotsky. The Teacher Educator, 43,
education and development. Learning teaching. 134-155.
(pp. 63–77). Hoboken, NJ: Taylor � Francis. Feiman-Nemser, S., � Norman, P. J. (2000).
Edwards, A., � Collison, J. (1996). Mentoring Teacher education: From initial preparation
and developing practice in primary schools. to continuing professional development. In
Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. B. Moon, M. Ben-Peretz, � S. Brown (Eds.),
Edwards, A., � D’Arcy, C. (2004). Relational agency Routledge international companion to education
and disposition in sociocultural accounts of (pp. 732–755). London: Routledge Taylor and
learning to teach. Educational Review, 56(2), Francis Group.
147–155. Fleer, M. (2001). Early childhood education as an
Edwards, S., � Nuttall, J. (2009). Professional evolving ‘community of practice’ or as lived
learning in early childhood settings. In S. ‘social reproduction?’ Researching the ‘taken-
Edwards � J. Nuttall (Eds.), Professional learning for-granted.’ Contemporary Issues in Early
in early childhood settings (pp. 1–8). Rotterdam: Childhood, 4(1), 64-79.
Sense Publishers. Fleet, A., � Patterson, C. (2001). Professional growth
Ellis, J. (2010). Studying the process of change. The reconceptualised: Early childhood staff searching
double stimulation strategy in teacher education for meaning. Early Childhood Research and
research. In V. Ellis, A. Edwards, � P. Smagorinsky Practice, 3(2), 1-13.
(Eds.), Cultural-historical perspectives on teacher Fleet, A., � Patterson, C. (2009). A timescape. In S.
education and development. Learning teaching. Edwards � J. Nuttall (Eds.), Professional learning
(pp. 95–114). Hoboken, NJ: Taylor � Francis. in early childhood settings (pp. 9–25). Rotterdam;
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An Sense Publishers.
activity theoretical approach to dev elopmental Formosinho, J., � Oliveira-Formosinho, J. (2005).
research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit. National Professional Qualification in Integrated
Engeström, Y. (1993). Engeström, Y. (1993). Centre leadership (NPQICL) pilot programme: An
Developmental studies of work as a testbench evaluative research study. Corby, UK: Pen Green
of activity theory: The case of primary care Research Centre.
medical practice. In S. Chaiklin � J. Lave (Eds.), Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed.
Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity Middlesex, UK: Penguin Books.
and context (pp. 64–103). Cambridge, UK: Freire, P. (1972). Cultural action for freedom.
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: Harvard Educational Review.
115
Georgeson, J. (2009). The professionalisation of the Hohepa, M., � Jenkins, K. (2004). The Evaluation
early years force. In S. Edwards � J. Nuttall (Eds.), of Te Putahitanga Matauranga. Wellington, NZ:
Professional learning in early childhood settings Ministry of Education.
(pp. 115–130). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Hoskins, T. K. (2012). A fine risk: Ethics in kaupapa
Goble, C., � Horn, D. (2010). Take charge. Young Māori politics. New Zealand Journal of
Children, 65, 86-91. Educational Studies, 47(2), 86-99.
Gonzalez-Mena, J., � Eyer, D. W. (2012). Infants, Hoskins, T. K. (2013, 21 Feb). Faculty academics
toddlers and caregivers. A curriculum of launch a new era for New Zealands’s top
respectful, responsive, relationship-based care educational journal. He aha te kaupapa.
and education. New York: McGraw-Hill. Retrieved from http://www.education.auckland.
Grey, A. (2011). Professional dialogue as professional ac.nz/uoa/home/news/template/news_item.
learning. New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work, jsp?cid=549181
8(1), 21-32. Howe, N., Jacobs, E., Vukelich, G., � Recchia, H.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership. In (2012). In-service professional development
K. Leithwood, P. Hallinger, K. Seashore-Louis, and constructivist curriculum: Effects of quality
G. Furman-Brown, P. Gronn, W. Mulford, � K. of child care, teacher beliefs and interactions.
Riley. (Eds.), Second International Handbook Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 57(4),
of Educational Leadership and Administration. 353-378.
Dordrecht:Kluwer. Irwin, K. (1988). Māori, Feminist, Academic. Sites, 17,
Guskey, T. (2000). Evaluating professional 30-38.
development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Isaac, P., � Trodd, L. (2008). Sustaining leadership
Guskey, T. (2002). Professional development and learning: the tutor and mentor voice on NPQICL.
teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory European Early Childhood Education Research
and Practice, 8(3), 381-391. Journal, 16(1), 39-52.
Hard, L. (2006). Horizontal violence in early Janesick, V. J. (2000). The choreography of
childhood education and care: implications for qualitative research design: Minuets,
leadership enactment. Australian Journal of Early improvisations, and crystallization. Handbook of
Childhood, 31(3), pp. 40–48. Qualitative Research, 2, 379-399.
Hashim, N., H. � Jones, M. (2007, September). John, K. (2008). Sustaining the leaders of children’s
Activity theory: A framework for qualitative centres: The role of leadership mentoring.
analysis. Paper presented at the 4th European Early Childhood Education Research
International Qualitative Research Convention Journal, 16(1), 53-66.
(QRC). Malaysia. Jones, A. (2012). Dangerous liaisons: Pākehā,
Hedges, H. (2010). Blurring the boundaries: kaupapa Māori, and educational research. New
Connecting research, practice and professional Zealand Journal of Educational Studies. He
learning. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(3), Hautaki Mātai Mātauranga o Aotearoa. Special
299-314. Issue: He aha te kaupapa? Critical conversations
in kaupapa Māori, 47(2), 100-120.
Heikka, J., � Waniganayeke, M. (2011). Pedagogical
leadership from a distributed perspective Jones, A., McCulloch, G., Marshall, J., Smith G. H., �
within the context of early childhood education. Smith, L. T. (1990). Myths and realities: Schooling
International Journal of leadership in Education: in New Zealand. Palmerston North: Dunmore
Theory and Practice, 14(4), 499-512. Press.
Helterbran, V., � Fennimore, B. (2004). Lambert, L. (2002). A Framework for shared
Collaborative early childhood professional leadership. Educational Leadership. 59(8), pages
development: Building from a base of teacher 37-40.
investigation. Early Childhood Education Journal, Laszlo, C. K. (2012). ‘From systems thinking to
31(4), 267-271. systems being: The embodiment of evolutionary
Henare-Solomona, R. (2011). Whakaaro rua . leadership’, Journal of Organizational
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University Transformation � Social Change, 9(2), 95–108,
of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia. doi: 10.1386/otsc.9.2.95_1
Hohepa, M. K. (1999). Hei tautoko i te reo, Māori Lee, W. (2008). ELP: Empowering the leadership
language regeneration and whānau book- in professional development communities.
reading practices. (Unpublished doctoral European Early Childhood Research Journal,
dissertation). University of Auckland, Auckland, 16(1), 95-106.
New Zealand.
116
R eferences
Luke, A., Luke, C., � Mayer, D. (2000). Redesigning Ministry of Education. (2002). Pathways to the
teacher education. Teaching Education, 11 (1), future: Ngā huarahi arataki. A 10-year strategic
5-11. plan for early childhood education 2002-2012.
Ka’ai, T., Moorfield, J., Reilly, M., � Mosley, S. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Government.
(2004). Ki te whai ao: An introduction to Māori Ministry of Education. (2009). Ka Hikitia: Managing
culture and society. Auckland, New Zealand: for Success/Māori Education Strategy 2008-
Pearson Education. 2012. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Government.
Kaptelinin, V. (2005). The Object of Activity: Making Mitchell, L., � Cubey, P. (2003). Best evidence
Sense of the Sense-Maker. Mind, Culture and synthesis: Characteristics of professional
Activity, 12(1), 4-18. development linked to enhanced pedagogy and
Kemmis, S. (2005). Knowing practice: Searching for children’s learning in early childhood settings.
saliences. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 13(3), Wellington: Ministry of Education.
391-426. Moir, E., Barlin, D, Gless, J., � Miles, J. (2009).
King, M. (1977). Te Ao Hurihuri — The World Moves New teacher mentoring. Hope and promise for
on: Aspects of Māoritanga. Wellington, New improving teacher effectiveness. Cambridge, MA:
Zealand: Hicks Smith and Sons. Harvard Education Press.
Korthagen, F. (2001). Linking practice and theory: Muijs, D., Aubrey, C., Harris, A., � Briggs, M. (2004).
The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. How do they manage? A review of the research
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. on leadership in early childhood. Journal of Early
Childhood Research, 2(2), 157-169.
Lind, P. (2009). New Zealand’s early childhood
education needs cohesive leadership. Media Nelson, T. H., Deuel, A., Slavit, D., � Kennedy,
release, 10 July. Retrieved from http:// A. (2010). Leading deep conversations in
archive.teacherscouncil.govt.nz/news/media/ collaborative inquiry groups. The Clearing House,
eceleadership.stm 83, 175-179.
Mane, J. (2009). Pāho Māori: The impact of Māori Nepe, T. (1991). E hao nei tenei reanga, Te Toi
language broadcasting on Māori language Huarewa Tipuna. (Unpublished master’s thesis).
survival. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. Nivala, V. (2002). Leadership in general, leadership
Mane, J. (2010). Kaupapa Māori: A community in theory. In V. Nivala � E. Hujala. Leadership
approach. Mai Review, 3, 1-9. Retrieved from: in early childhood education. Cross-cultural
http://review.mai.ac.nz perspectives (pp. 13–23). Oulu, Finland: Oulu
University Press.
Mane, J., Armstrong-Read, A., � Brown-Cooper, P.
(in press). Te whakapakari kaiārahi āhuatanga Northedge, A. (2002). Organizing excursions into
ako kōhungahunga: The dynamics of kaupapa specialist discourse communities: A sociocultural
Māori in developing pedagogical leadership account of university teaching. In G. Wells �
in early childhood settings. Occasional Paper. G. Claxton. Learning for life in the 21st century.
Wellington, NZ: NZCA. Sociocultural perspectives on the future of
education. (pp. 252–264).Oxford, UK: Blackwell
Marsden, M. (2003). The Woven Universe. Mauriora
Publishing Ltd.
ki-te-Ao. Masterton: Living Universe Ltd,
Printcraft. Nuttall, J. (2003). Weaving Te Whariki. Aotearoa
New Zealand’s early childhood curriculum in
McLachlan, C. (2011). An analysis of New Zealand’s
practice. Wellington, NZ: NZCER Press.
changing history, policies and approaches to
early childhood education. Australasian Journal Nuttall, J. (2012, October). Third generation
of Early Childhood, 36(3), 36-44. activity theory as a tool to foster the leadership
of professional learning in early childhood
Meade, A., Kirikiri, R., Paratene, D., � Allan, J-F.
education. Presentation to Te Tari Puna ora/NZ
(2011). Te Heru: A framework for Māori success
Childcare Association, Wellington, New Zealand.
within an initial teacher education programme.
Wellington, NZ: NZCA. Nuttall, J. (2013a). City of Knox Children’s Centre
Coordinator Pedagogical Mentoring and
Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whāriki. He whāriki
Coaching Program Development Project: Final
mātauranga mō ngā mokopuna o Aotearoa:
Report. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Catholic
Early childhood curriculum. Wellington, NZ:
University.
Learning Media.
Nuttall, J. (2013b, April). Affordances and constraints
facing ‘educational leaders’ in Australian early
childhood centres. Presentation to the Annual
117
Meeting of the American Educational Research Podmore, V., with Wells, C. (2011). Induction and
Association, San Francisco, California. mentoring pilot programme: Early childhood
Nuttall, J. (2013c). (Ed.).Weaving Te Whāriki. education by teachers for teachers. Wellington:
Aotearoa New Zealand’s early childhood New Zealand Teachers Council.
curriculum document in theory and practice. Pohatu, T. (2005). Principles of kaupapa Māori.
(2nd ed.). Wellington: NZCER Press. Retrieved from http://www.rangahau.co.nz/
Nuttall, J. (in press-a). Challenges, opportunities, research-idea/27
and capacity building in early childhood teacher Rameka, L. (2012). Te whatu kākahu: Assessment
education research in Australia and New in kaupapa Māori early childhood practice.
Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Educational (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University
Studies. of Waikato, Hamilton, NZ.
Nuttall, J. (in press-b). The potential of Rata, E. (1991). Māori survival and structural
Developmental Work Research as a professional separateness. (Unpublished master’s thesis).
learning methodology in early childhood University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
education. Contemporary Issues in Early Rata, E. (2004, July). Ethnic ideologies in New
Childhood, 14(3). Zealand. What’s wrong with Kaupapa Māori?
Nuttall, J. (nd). Institutional learning and teacher Paper presented at the Teacher Education Forum
identity in early childhood education: Some of Aotearoa New Zealand Conference, Auckland
findings from the Lady Gowrie project. College of Education.
Melbourne: Monash University. Reynolds, B. (2011). Between a rock and a hard
Nuttall, J., Wood, E., � Thomas, L. (2013, in press). place: Leadership dilemmas in Tasmanian early
Travelling policy reforms re-configuring the childhood education and care centres. Journal
work of early childhood educators in Australia. of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice.
Globalisation, Societies and Education. [Accepted 26(2), pp. 26–34.
4 April 2013]. Reynolds, B., � Cardno, C. (2008). Leadership
Nuttall, J., � Thomas, L. (2013, in press). Time and dilemma in New Zealand early childhood
temporality in early childhood educators’ work. education and care centres. New Zealand Journal
European Early Childhood Education Research of Educational Leadership, 32(1), 18-29.
Journal. [Accepted 15 March 2013]. Ritchie, J. (2002). “It’s becoming part of their
Nuttall, J., Coxon, L., � Read, S. (2009). Structure, knowing”: A study of bicultural development in
agency and artefacts: Mediating professional an early childhood teacher education setting in
learning in early childhood education. In Aotearoa/New Zealand. (Unpublished doctoral
S. Edwards � J. Nuttall (Eds.), Professional dissertation). University of Waikato, Hamilton,
learning in early childhood settings (pp. 97–114). New Zealand.
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Ritchie, J., � Rau, C. (2006) Whanaungatanga:
Nuttall, J., � Edwards, S. (2009). Future directions Partnerships in bicultural development in early
in researching professional learning in early childhood care and education. Final Report.
childhood settings. In S. Edwards � J. Nuttall Teaching and Learning Research Initiative.
(Eds.), Professional learning in early childhood Wellington: NZCER.
settings (pp. 131–137). Rotterdam: Sense Roberts, S., Crawford, P., � Hickman, R. (2010).
Publishers. Teacher research as a robust and reflective path
Ord, K. (2010). Bodies of knowledge: Early to professional development. Journal of Early
childhood teachers’ experiences of their initial Childhood Teacher Education, 31, 258-275.
teacher education programme and sense Robertson, J. (2004). Leadership learning through
of preparedness for teaching. (Unpublished coaching. SET, 3, 44-48.
doctoral dissertation). Massey University,
Robertson, J. (2005). Coaching leadership. Building
Palmerston North, New Zealand.
educational leadership capacity through
Pihama, L. (2001). Tihei Mauriora, Honouring coaching partnerships. Wellington: NZCER Press.
Our Voices, Manawahine as a Kaupapa Māori
Robertson, J. (2011). Partnership in leadership and
Theoretical Framework. (Unpublished doctoral
learning. In J. Robertson � H. Timperley (Eds.),
dissertation). University of Auckland, Auckland,
Leadership and learning (pp. 213–226). London:
New Zealand.
SAGE Publications.
118
R eferences
Robinson, L. (2007). Discourses of teaching in Smith, G. H. (1990/1992). Research Issues Related

selected childcare centres. (Unpublished master’s to Māori Education. Paper presented to NZARE
thesis). Massey University, Palmerston North, Special Interest Conference, Massey University,
New Zealand reprinted in 1992, The Issue of Research and
Robinson, V. � Hohepa, M. (2010). Tu Rangatira: Māori, Research Unit for Māori Education, The
Māori Medium Educational Leadership. Ministry University of Auckland, New Zealand.
of Education. Wellington: New Zealand. Smith, G. (1997). The development of Kaupapa
Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., � Lloyd, C. (2009). School Māori: Theory and praxis. (Unpublished doctoral
leadership and student outcomes: Identifying dissertation). University of Auckland, Auckland,
what works and why. Best evidence synthesis New Zealand.
iteration [BES]. Wellington, New Zealand: Smith, G. (2012). Kaupapa Māori: The Dangers
Ministry of Education. of Domestication. New Zealand Journal
Rodd, J. (2006). Leadership in early childhood (3rd of Educational Studies. He Hautaki Mātai
ed.). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen � Unwin. Mātauranga o Aotearoa. Special Issue: He aha
te kaupapa? Critical conversations in kaupapa
Scrivens, C. (2003a). Educational leadership. What
Māori, 47(2), 10-20.
might we learn from research in schools?
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonising methodologies,
Early Education, 31, 29-35.
research and indigenous peoples. Dunedin:
Scrivens, C. (2003b). What decisions? Whose University of Otago Press/London: Zed Books.
decisions? Issues for professional leaders in
Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonising methodologies,
decision-making in New Zealand childcare
research and indigenous peoples. (2nd ed.).
centres. Early Education, 33, 29-37.
Dunedin, NZ: University of Otago Press/Zed
Scrivens, C. (2006, August). Distributed leadership Books.
within a community of practice in a New
Smith, L. T., � Reid, P. (2000). Māori research
Zealand/Aotearoa context. Paper presented at
development: Kaupapa Māori principles
the 16th annual conference of the European
and practices: A literature review. Auckland:
Early Childhood Education Research Association,
International Research Institute for Māori and
Iceland.
Indigenous Education and Te Puni Kokiri.
Scrivens, C., Jordan, B., Bary, R., Deans, C., Charlton,
Soutar, B., with Te Whānau o Mana Tamariki (2010).
M., Hullett, H., Martin, F., Martin, L., Moana,
Growing raukura. In A. Meade (Ed.), Dispersing
P., � Waugh, O. (2007). Distributing leadership.
waves: Innovation in early childhood education.
Action research at Massey Childcare Centre, 20-
Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER Press.
23.
Spoonley, P. and Hirsh, W. (1990). Between the lines,
Sheridan, S., Edwards, C., Marvin, C. � Knoche,
racism and the New Zealand media. Auckland:
L. (2009). Professional development in early
Typocrafters Ltd.
childhood programs: Process issues and research
needs. Early Education and Development, 20(3), Stoll, L. (2011). Leading professional learning
377-401. communities. In J. Robertson � H. Timperley
(Eds.). Leadership and learning (pp. 103–117).
Shore, R. (2012). Professional Development for early
London: SAGE Publications.
childhood education: A national perspective,
NHSA Dialog: A Research-to-Practice. Journal for Tamati, A., Hond-Flavell, E., Korewha, H., �
the Early Childhood Field, 15(1), 1-7. whānau of Te Kōpae Piripono. (2008) Centre of
innovation research report of Te Kōpae Piripono.
Simons, J., � Smith, L. T. 2001. A civilising mission,
Wellington: MoE. Available from: http://www.
Perceptions and reflections of the New Zealand
educationcounts.govt.nz
Native Schools system. Auckland: Auckland
University Press. Taylor, C. (2012): Learning in Australian early
childhood education and care settings:
Skerrett, M. (2010). A Critique of the Best Evidence
Changing professional practice. Education 3-13.
Synthesis with relevance for Māori leadership
International Journal of Primary, Elementary and
in education. Christchurch: University of
Early Years Education, 40(1), 7-18.
Canterbury, NZ.
Te Kopae Piripono. (2006). Ngā takohanga e
Smagorinsky, P. (2010). A Vygotskian analysis of
wha. The four responsibilities Retrieved
the construction of setting in learning to teach.
from: http://www.lead.ece.govt.nz/
In V. Ellis, A. Edwards, � P. Smagonisky (Eds.),
CentresOfInnovation/COIDocsAndResources/
Cultural-historical perspectives on teacher
SrvcSpecificDocsAndResources/
education and development: Learning teaching
NgaTakohangaeWhaTheFourResponsibilities.htm
(pp. 13–29). Hoboken, NJ: Taylor � Francis.
119
Thornton, K. (2009). Blended action learning: Wardekker, W. (2010). Afterward. CHAT and good
Supporting leadership learning in the New teacher education. In V. Ellis, A. Edwards,
Zealand ECE sector. (Unpublished doctoral � P. Smargorinsky (Eds.), Cultural-historical
dissertation). Victoria University of Wellington, perspectives on teacher education and
Wellington, New Zealand. development: Learning teaching (pp. 241–248).
Thornton, K. (2003). Teacher refresher courses and Hobeken, NJ: Taylor � Francis.
effective professional development for teachers. Weisz-Koves, T. (2011). Developing teacher
New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 12 leadership in early childhood education in
75-94. Aotearoa through a potentials-based approach.
Thornton, K. (2010). Leadership development in Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and
the New Zealand ECE sector: past, present and Practice, 26(2), pp. 35–47.
future. The Space, 20, 6-7. Wells, G., � Claxton, G. (2002). Learning for Life
Thornton, K. (2011). Editorial. Journal of Educational in the 21st Century. Oxford, UK: Blackwell
Leadership, Policy and Practice, 26(2), 1-2. Publishing Ltd.
Thornton, K., Wansbrough, D., Clarkin-Phillips, Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice:
Aitken, H., � Tamati, A. (2009). Conceptualising Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: UK:
leadership in early childhood education in Cambridge University Press.
Aotearoa New Zealand. Occasional paper. Williams, N. M. with Broadley, M-L, � Lawson Te
Number 2. Wellington: New Zealand Teachers Aho, K. (2012). Research Report: Ngā taonga
Council. whakaako: Bicultural competence in early
Timperley, H. (2011). Leading teachers’ professional childhood education. Wellington: Ako Aotearoa.
learning. In In J. Robertson � H. Timperley (Eds.), Wood, E. (2009). Foreword. In S. Edwards �
Leadership and learning (pp. 118–130). London, J. Nuttall (Eds.), Professional learning in early
UK: SAGE Publications. childhood settings (pp. vii–viii). Rotterdam: Sense
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, Publishers.
MA: Harvard University Press. Wood, E., � Bennett, N. (2000). Changing theories,
Walker, S. (1996). Kia tau te rangimarie, Kaupapa changing practice: Exploring early childhood
Māori theory as a resistance against the teachers’ professional learning. Teaching and
construction of Māori as the other. (Unpublished Teacher Education, 16, 635–647.
master’s thesis). University of Auckland, Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Activity systems
Auckland, New Zealand. analysis methods: understanding complex
learning environments. New York: Springer.
120
G lossary
Glossary
Aotearoa — New Zealand Mātauranga — knowledge
Ehara taku toa, he toa takitahi, engari he toa takitini Ngā hua — result, outcome
— my strength is not that of one, but that of Ngā mahi — the work/task/object
many
Ngākau — heart
Hapū — sub tribe
Ngā taputapu — tools
He aha te mea nui o te ao? he tangata, he tangata,
Reo — language
he tangata — what is the important thing in the
world? It is people, it is people, it is people Take a roopu — issue identified by group
Hui — meeting Tamariki — children
Iwi — tribe, taken from the word koiwi — bones Tangata Whenua — people of the land
Kaiako — teacher Taputapu — gear, equipment
Kaitiaki — guardian Tauiwi — foreign people
Kaiwhakaako — teacher Tautoko — support
Kanohi-ki-kanohi — face to face Te Ao Māori — The Māori World
Karakia — prayer Te Tiriti o Waitangi — The Treaty of Waitangi
— Māori version holds authority under
Kaupapa Māori — Māori foundation, purpose/
international law
Māori-led
Te reo Māori me ōna tikanga — The language and
Kōhanga Reo — language nest
protocols of Māori people
Kōrero — discussion, talk
Tikanga/ture — cultural protocols or rules
Kua mārama — be clear, understand
Tikanga Māori — Māori cultural protocols
Kura — school
Tino rangatiratanga — self-determination
Kura Kaupapa Māori — Māori language education
Tiriti — treaty
setting
Ture — to make laws, law
Mā wai e mahi — who will do the work
Tū Rangatira — Stand chiefly
Mahia te mahi — do the work
Whakapapa — genealogy
Manaaki — sharing, caring for
Whakataukī — proverbial saying
Mana motūhake Māori — Māori identity
Whānaungatanga — relationships
Marae — meeting place for cultural activities, Māori
community hub Whānau — family
Māramatanga — insight, understanding
121
Te Whakapakari Kaiārahi Āhuatanga Ako Kōhungahunga
Developing Pedagogical Leadership
in Early Childhood Education
Kate Ord, Jo Mane, Sue Smorti, Janis Carroll-Lind, Lesley Robinson, Arvay Armstrong-Read,

Established in 1963, Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa/New Zealand Childcare

Association (NZCA) is an incorporated society, representing around 600 early
childhood education (ECE) services that provide education and care to thousands
of infants, toddlers and young children. Governed by a Council comprised of
elected and appointed members, NZCA is a bicultural organisation promoting
high quality ECE through initial teacher education, professional development,
advocacy and membership services. Registered by the New Zealand
Qualifications Authority (NZQA) as a Private Tertiary Education (PTE) provider,
NZCA is today one of New Zealand’s largest providers of early childhood initial
teacher education (ITE) with, at the time of this report, over 80 academic staff
based at 15 sites throughout the country. NZCA has a long history of improving
standards of practice within the early childhood sector. In addition to its centre-
based Bachelor of Teaching (ECE) degree, it delivers Ministry of Education (MoE)
funded professional development to hundreds of ECE services.
This publication reports the third of a series of Flagship research studies
undertaken by NZCA. These projects facilitate our goal to generate new, credible,
and useful research knowledge related to early childhood education or teacher
education in the Aotearoa context. Typically collaborations between staff, ECE
communities and experienced researchers, these projects also expand and
develop our staff research capability.
The focus of this third Flagship research project is effective pedagogical
leadership in early childhood services. Pedagogical leadership is an emerging
discourse in early childhood. It refers to the way in which the central task of
improving teaching and learning takes place in educational settings. This
report investigates the implementation of a research and development project
designed to enhance pedagogical leadership practice in early childhood centres.
By learning to understand the centre as a social (activity) system, leaders who
New Zealand Childcare Association
Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa
participated in the study learned to ‘play the system’ rather than the person as
they engaged in change conversations within their workplace settings.

978-0-473-25327-1 (online PDF)

Developing Pedagogical Leadership in Early Childhood Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Developing Pedagogical Leadership in Early Childhood Education

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Developing Pedagogical Leadership in Early Childhood Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Te Whakapakari Kaiārahi Āhuatanga Ako Kōhungahunga

Developing Pedagogical Leadership

Developing Pedagogical Leadership in Early Childhood Education

Established in 1963, Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa/New Zealand Childcare

ISBN 978-0-473-25326-4 (print version)

Kate Ord, Jo Mane, Sue Smorti, Janis Carroll-Lind, Lesley Robinson,

Te Whakapakari Kaiārahi Āhuatanga Ako Kōhungahunga:

© Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa/NZ Childcare Association, 2013

PO Box 12 725, Wellington 6144

ISBN 978-0-473-25326-4 (print version)

Edited by Anne Else

Ehara taku toa i te toa takitahi, engari he toa takitini

CHAPTER 2: Background to the study and literature review............................. 10

CHAPTER 4: Kaupapa Māori findings.................................................................. 49

CHAPTER 5: Learning the model......................................................................... 65

CHAPTER 6: Expanding pedagogical leadership ................................................80

CHAPTER 7: Discussion and conclusions: Working in the shared zone............... 98

Rationale for the study

The project takes shape

Introduction to the research study

The purpose of the study

Aims and objectives of the research project

Objectives of the project

The research team

education. In this project, as previously indicated, we were advised by Associate Professor

Leadership in early childhood education

The interface between Māori leadership and pedagogical

• He Kanohi Matāra — visionary

Te Kōhanga Reo o Mana Tamariki

Professional learning and its importance in early

Principles of effective professional learning

Key issues in professional learning

Reconceptualising of professional learning

Centrality of teachers’ beliefs

The individual and collaborative nature of learning

How do teachers construct and reconstruct their practice?

importance of positioning teachers as empowered learners who “build their working

Intervention-based professional learning programmes

Coaching and mentoring within intervention-based professional

Early childhood coaching and mentoring programmes on

Kaupapa Māori theoretical framework

Kaupapa Māori research methodology

Tino Rangatiratanga — the principle of self-determination

Taonga Tuku Iho — the principle of cultural aspiration

Ako Māori — the principle of culturally preferred pedagogy

Whānau — the principle of extended family structure

Kaupapa — The principle of collective philosophy

Te Tiriti o Waitangi — the principle of the Treaty of Waitangi

Ata — the principle of growing respectful relationships

Kaupapa Māori principles in action

Expansive learning theory and third generation activity

Tools and signs (mediating

Figure 1. The basic mediation triangle

Second generation activity theory

Subject Mediating Object Sense,

Rules Community Division of labour

Figure 2. The structure of a human activity system

Third generation activity theory

Mediating artifacts Mediating artifacts

Subject Object1 Object2 Object2 Object1 Subject