In this paper the authors argue that there are three modes of educational action research: emancipatory, practical, and knowledge generating. Furthermore, they suggest that much of action research, although predicated on notions of emancipatory research, is often not primarily emancipatory in nature. There are considerable risks involved when action research fails to adequately justify its truth claims because of a dependence on validities that primarily assess the emancipatory features of the research. Consequently, the authors propose that the various modes of action research require emphasis on different validities that are dependent on the purposes of the research. In doing this, they offer a reconceptualization of Anderson and Herr's (1999) influential approach to validity in action research.

No abstract

This article presents insights from a study into instructor professional learning in vocational and professional education (VPE) in Canada. While most studies on instructor learning focus on learning through formal professional development programmes, this study specifically focuses on professional learning as it happens in day-today practice. Analysis of 116 learning episodes reported by 27 instructors from various institutes for VPE shows that instructor learning is mainly focused on developing pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Learning episodes studied were often externally prompted, not self-directed and involved mostly action-oriented reflection. Ellström's theory of adaptive and developmental learning is used to further explain these findings. Because of the specialized nature of the content taught in VPE programmes, formal training in PCK is often not available; instructors rely on trial and error, student feedback and peer feedback to develop PCK. Educational leaders within institutes for VPE should consider encouraging professional development models that include collegial dialogue, such as mentoring and communities of practice, as well as the implementation and enactment of professional learning plans. Further research could focus on how existing workplace practices may be enhanced to further support instructor professional learning.

Background: To maintain relevance, institutes for vocational and professional education (VPE) need to be responsive to changes in society and industry. This requires leaders and educators in VPE to keep developing themselves and their practices. In institutes for VPE many decisions regarding program curriculum and teaching practices are made at the department level. Yet, the preparation of department chairs in postsecondary contexts rarely focuses on improving teaching and learning. A substantive knowledge base regarding leadership of teaching and learning in VPE is lacking. A model of leadership for learning in VPE is proposed as comprising three elements: (1) developing a shared vision and goals; (2) promoting instructor learning; and (3) leading the educational program. The study explores ways in which seven chairs and associate chairs from western Canadian VPE institutes conceive of and enact leadership for learning in their departments. The paper thus aims to contribute to the building of a knowledge base on leadership for learning in VPE.Methods: A multiple case study approach was used to explore chairs' conceptualization and enactment of their leadership for learning. Data collected included interviews with five chairs and two associate chairs from five departments across three institutes for VPE in western Canada. Observational data from department meetings and interviews with instructors were used to provide contextual information and corroborate our findings. In cross-case analysis, chairs' and associate chairs' conceptualizations and strategies were themed and categorized according to the three elements of leadership for learning as identified in the literature.

Sustainable development within educational institutions encompasses an array of objectives as outlined in Agenda 21 (United Nations [UN], 1992). We recognize in this paper that there are cognate terminologies in the field of sustainable development: Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), Education for Sustainability (EfS), Development Education (DE), and Sustainability Education (SE). As stated in the Education for Sustainable Development toolkit (McKeown, 2002), ESD is the terminology most often employed within UN documents; hence, we also employ ESD because it is the term utilized by UNESCO and at the international level. Thus, we avoid the many debates about these terminologies in this paper. The fundamental interest of this review is to assess the current status of school leadership for sustainable development in the K-12 context. With the help of a scoping review, three literature databases were combed to achieve this purpose. The findings reveal school leaders’ perceptions of sustainable development as well as their motives for engaging in ESD. Our analysis indicates that school leaders vaguely understand the term ‘sustainable development,’ and they interpret ESD from the lens of the environment and society. Thus, the economy component of ESD may be de-emphasized in implementation efforts.

Three decades ago, Willower (1975) argued that much of what we take to be theory in educational administration is in fact only theoretically oriented. If we accept Willower's assessment of the field as true, what implications does this statement hold for the academic study and practical application of the theoretically oriented aspects of our field being espoused as theory? In this article, the authors examine this question, and suggest that the theoretically oriented of Willower's assessment has been called models in other fields of study. Further, models are examined and characterized as conceptually distinct from theory and the application of models as a 'way of doing' educational administration is discussed.

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to report on the policy and practice contexts for school autonomy and twenty-first century learning in Canadian provinces. Design/methodology/approach This paper reports on an analysis of policies in Canadian provinces (particularly the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan). The authors review policies related to school autonomy and twenty-first century learning initiatives. Findings In this paper, the authors argue that autonomy is a complicated and multi-levelled phenomena with a measure of autonomy devolved from the state to local school divisions, and yet other elements of autonomy devolved to the school and to individual teachers. The link between autonomy and twenty-first century learning are unclear as yet. This paper attempts to establish the policy contexts for school autonomy and twenty-first century learning without making claims about a causal relation between the two. Originality/value The originality of this paper lies in its description of autonomy beyond the school level. Autonomy, as a construct, is rarely examined as a dynamic process among multiple layers of the educational system.