Talking About Pedagogy: Classroom Discourse and Citizenship Education

Talking About Pedagogy: Classroom Discourse and Citizenship Education (David L. Grossman – East West Center, Manoa-Honolulu)

As outlined the introduction, this book has sought to find out what citizenship education looks like in classrooms across Asia and how it is (or is not) facilitated by pedagogy. The case studies of citizenship education pedagogy in Asia-Pacific societies have the potential to contribute to an understanding of geographical and cultural variations in the preparation of future citizens at classrooms level. 

These case studies are firmly embedded in broader social and political contexts and it is clear not all of these can be considered “democratic.” The political contexts represented have reflect a continuum that includes mature democracies such as the Unites States Australia and New Zealand, democracies that have been labeled as “soft authoritarian” such as Singapore, post-World War II democracies such as Japan and Taiwan, non democratic countries such China, including Hong Kong and a country like Pakistan that has democratic institutions that in recent times have been severely tested in recent times by military dictatorship and theocratic commitments The presence of cases studies involving quasi-democratic or non democratic political systems is a reality in the region and their inclusion here does not represent an endorsement of these politics. It does mean, however, that we have allowed for the possibility of citizenship education in a non democratic or quasi-democratic context. Looking at the cases of citizenship education pedagogy across a spectrum of regimes serves the editors' long-range agenda of increased study and dialogue across traditional political and cultural boundaries.

The focus of this chapter, however, is focused on pedagogies hat will best facilitate democratic citizenship education. As pointed out in the introduction, this book started from the premise that pedagogies take a variety of forms, have multiple purposes, and very often, uncertain comes. School curricula subsume different types of learning that call for somewhat different types of teaching. In this view no single teaching method should be the choice for all learning occasions: “An optimal program will feature a mixture of instructional methods and learning activities” (Brophy, 2001, pp. 5-6)

What are the elements of an optimal program for democratic citizenship education? Can good teaching contribute to the education of democratic citizens? If so, what is good teaching? There is a considerable body of research literature, particularly in Western societies, that seeks to identify generic models of effective pedagogy. The American Psychological Association (APA), for example, has derived a set of learner-centered principles derived from more than a century of research on teaching and learning. There are 14 principles in all, divided among four categories: cognitive and metacognitive, motivational and affective, developmental and social, and individual differences. APA claims these principles are intended to apply to all learners: “from children,, to teachers, to administrators, to parents, and to community members involved in our educational system” 9American Psychological Association, 1997).

How universal these principles actually are is yet to be established by a comparable body of research outside the West. In fact, most examples of research on classroom pedagogy are based on studies in Western societies. Brophy's (1999) statement that most research on teaching has been conducted in the United States, Canada, Western Europe and Australia is still largely true today. While acknowledging this situation, Brophy goes on to argue that because schooling is now much more similar than different across countries and cultures, we can try to identify some generic principles that underlie effective teaching and learning. Based on this assumption, Brophy described 12 generic principles of effective teaching derived from a synthesis of research in classrooms:

1. A supportive classroom climate: student learn best within cohesive and caring learning communities
2. Opportunity to learn: students learn more when most the available time is allocated to curriculum-related activities and the classroom management system emphasizes maintaining their engagement in those activities
3. Curriculum alignment: All components of the curriculum are aligned to create a cohesive programme for accomplishing instructional purposes and goals
4. Establish learning orientations: Teachers can prepare students for learning by providing an initial structure to clarify intended outcomes and cue desire learning strategies
5. Coherent content: to facilitate meaningful learning and retention, content is explained clearly and developed with emphasis on its structure and connections
6. Thoughtful discourse: questions are planned to engage students in sustained discourse structured around powerful ideas (emphasis mine)
7. practice and application activities: students need sufficient opportunities to practice and apply what they are learning and to receive improvement-oriented feedback
8. Scaffolding students task engagement: the teacher provides whatever assistance students need to enable them to engage in learning activities productively
9. Strategy teaching: the teacher models and instructs students in learning self regulation strategies
10. Co-operative learning: students often benefit from working in pairs or small groups to construct understanding or help one another master skills
11. Goal-oriented assesment: the teacher uses a variety of formal and informal assesment methods to monitor progress towards learning goals
12. Achievement expectations: the teacher establishes and folows through on appropriate expectations for learning outcomes (Brophy, 1999)

These generic principles comprise a research-based tool that can provide an analytic framework for both understanding and improving pedagogy. To what extent, for example, are these elements are present in the case studies in this volume? In the context of citizenship education, it would be hard to argue againts any of these principles, either individually or holistically, especially if it is accepted that effective pedagogy is a necessary conditions for enhanced learning.

Even if one accepts this generic principle of inquiry and discourse, howver, Brophy (2001) has explained that these principles need to be adapted to the local context, including the characteristics of the nation's school system and the students, culture. Moreover, these genric principles need to be supplemented with principles that address particular school subjects and content. In fact, ultimately what may be required is investigation of classroom pedagogy that addresses specific curriculum strands within subjects. This is the challenge for citizenship educators.

In this chapter I will focus on and make an argument for the centrality of thoughtful classroom discourse for effective democratic citizenship education. Research findings indicate that effective teachers structure a great deal of content-based discourse (Brophy, 2001, p13). They use questions to stimulate students to process and reflect on the content:

Thoughtful discourse features sustained examination of a small number of related topics, in which students are invited to develop explanations, make predictions, debate alternative approaches to problems, or otherwise consider the content's implications or applications. The teacher presses student to clarify or justify their assertions, rather than accpeting them indisciminately.

This emphasis on inquiry and discourse is consistent with and supported within the APA framework

of learning principles. According to the APA (1997,p.3):

Learning can be enhanced when the learner has an opportunity to interact and to collaborate with others on instructional tasks. Learning settings that allow for social interactions, and that respect diversity, encourage flexible thinking and social competence. In interactive and collaborative instructional contexts, individuals have an opportunity for perspective taking and reflective thinking that may lead to higher levels of cognitive, social, and moral development, as well as self-esteem.

To what extent does the generic principle of thoughtful discourse apply specifically to citizenship education? Torney Purta, Hahn, and Amadeo (2001) surveyed the reseacrh on instructional methods and learning activities related to effective instruction in education for citizenship. Among their findings, they reported that the large majority of the research they reviewed supported the value of Brophy's sixth principle, “thoughtful discourse.” One of their conclusions was that (Torney-Purta, Hahn, & Amadeo, 2001, p. 395)

In the area of citizenship education there is a particular value placed on inquiry and discourse about political issues on which there are differing opinions. To engage citizens in authentic use of knowledge and to help them develop needed skills and attitudes for participatory citizenship, classes should implement issues-centered instruction.

This emphasis on inquiry, discourse, and engagement is also supported by a systematic review that focused on the relationship between citizenship education and achievement. (Deakin Crick, Coates, Taylor, & Ritchie, 2004). Based on this review Deakin Crick (2008, p. 43) reported that the following learning processes were found to make a significant contribution to cognitive learning outcomes:

• Engagement
• Promoting discussion
• Learner-centred teaching
• Meaningful curricula
• Developing personally

In this chapter, therefore, I want to argue that the principle of thoughtful discourse has to be the central (though not the exclusive) feature of democratic citizenship education. It is arguably reductionist to focus on only one of Brophy's 12 teaching principles for the purposes of describing and defining effective citizenship education. Later in this volume (chapter 13) for example, Hahn makes the case that political discourse neds to be supported by an open and supportive classroom climate (Brophy's Principle #1), and certainly political discourse implies students have the opportunity for engagement in learning (Brophy's Principle #2). Still, it is my argument here that for effective citizenship education in a democracy, thoughtful discourse is the fundamental building block. For students to become good citizens in a democratic context, they need to learn how to engage in political discourse, i.e., collective dicision making about community and social issues (Johnson and Johnson, 2009). For democracies to thrive, citizens have to be taught to be democrats. Student need to have the ability to make a reasoned argument, as well as to co-operate with others, to appreciate their perspectives and experiences and to tolerate other points of view. In other words, “Talk is fundamental to active citizenship” (Enslin, Pendlebury, & Tjiattis, 2001)

Accepting the central role od discourse in citizenship educationis similar to Alexander's (2006, p.3) idea of the “dialogic imperative” of citizenship education:

...there is growing recognition that dialogic forms of pedagogy are potent tools for securing student engagement, learning and understanding. Squaring the circle, dialogue can empower both the lifelong learner and the future citizen – to whom the debates about education and pedagogy properly belong (Alexander, 2006, p.3).

According to Alexander (2005a), we now know that children need to talk, to experience a rich diet of spoken languange, in order to think and to learn. As Johnson and Johnson (2009) argued, the methods we use to teach leave an imprint on students. If instructors primarily use recitation, students are imprinted with pattern of listening, waiting to be called upon and giving answers that the instructor wants. However, if instructors use group discussion, students are imprinted with a pattern of active participation, the exchange of ideas, and consideration of others opinions. While literacy and numeracy may be considered the basics of schooling, talk is arguably the true foundation of learning (Alexander, 2005, p.9), and by extension the true foundation of democratic citizenship education.

This attention to talk/discussion/discourse as a learning tool has been given added weight by recent work in the field of cognitive science and the development of the concept of “distributed cognition.” According to Hutchins (2000), while sociologiest have long noted that most of our knowledge is the result of a social construction rather than of individual observation (e.g., Berger & Luckmann, 1967), it was not until the insights of the psychologists Vygotsky emerged in the 1980s that a similar notion emerged in cognitive psychology under the name of “distributed cognition.” traditionally human cognition had been seen and studied as existingly solely “inside” a person, irrelevant to the social, physical and material context in which the cognition takes place. In contrast, Vygotsky argued that the true direction of thinking is from the social to the individual and not from the individual to the social.

Building on this and similar ideas, advocates of distributed cognition argue that a better understanding of human cognition can be achieved if it is conceptualized and studied as distributed among individuals. According to this concetualization, knowledge is socially constructed through collaborative efforts toward shared objectiveswithin cultural surroundings, and that information is processed among individuals and the tools and artifacts provided by culture. Cognitive distribution thus emphasizes the social aspects of cognition: “It does not seem possible to account for the cognitive accomplishment of our species by reference to what is inside our heads alone. One must also consider the cognitive roles of the social and material world” (Hutchins, 2000, p.9).

According to Hutchins (2000), cognitive processes may be distributed in at least three interesting ways: across members of a social group, between internal and external structures (material or environmental), or between earlier or later events. In the context of this chapter we focus on the fact that classroom discussion in turn can be seen as conversations (distributions) across members of these social groups. According to Heylighen, Heat, and Van Overwalle (2004), “groups often can be more intelligent than individuals, integrating information from a variety of sources, and overcoming the individual biases, errors and limitations.” in the simplest case, this occurs through the accumulation of layers of individual contributions. Heylighen, Heat, and Van Overwalle further elaborate that an idea that is recurrently communicated will undergo a shift in meaning each time it is assimilated by a new agent, who adds his/her own, unique interpretation and experience to it. After several exchanges among a diverse group of agents, the communication may result in a new configuration of ideas or possibly a consensus around a shared concept, thus providing a basic mechanism for the social construction of knowledge.

The emergence of this conceptual framework of distributed cognition offers a powerful argument for the use of classroom discussion as one (but not the sole) tool for learning. According to Brown, Ash, Rutherford, Nagakawa, Gordon, and Campione (1993),, a cognitively-based model of instruction emphasizing socially-distributed expertise in the classroom will foster a community of learners where the ethos is one of individual responsibility coupled with communal sharing. In this model discourse, constructive, discussion, questioning and criticism would represent the prevailing mode rather than the exeption in calssroom. The classroom would become in Lave and Wenger's (1991) conceptualization, “a community of practice.” a primary focus would be on learning as social participation, that is, an individual as an active participant in the practices of social communities, and in the construction of his or her identity through these communities. I would furthe argue that this of classroom would provide the founfation for learning to be a democratic citizen.

The relationship between classroom talk and citizenship education has been a focus of research for at least several decades. In 1991 Wilen and White reviewed more than 25 years of research on forms of discourse in social studies classroom in the U.S., even citing studies of classroom questioning from 1912 and 1935. According to Hahn (1991), p470), social studies educators have long asserted that studying and disscusing issues is important to democracy, and that this is supported by research: “Empirical evidence gathered over the past 25 years, although meager and often coming from representative samples, consistently supports the position that positive outcomes are associated with giving students opportunities to explore controversial issues in an open, supportive atmosphere”.

This purported relationship between classroom talk and citizenship education has been strengthened by large-scale research studies in the 1990s. In 1999 the International Association for the Evaluation of Education (IEA) studied the civic knowledge of 90,000 fourteen year old in 28 countries, and found a significant positive correlation between civic knowledge and discussion of current issues in class (Torney-Purta, 2002). “The perception of an open climate for discussion in the classroom was a positive predictor of both civic knowledge and the likelihood of voting in about three-quarters of the countries” (Torney-Purta, Lehman, Oswald, & Schulz, 2001, p. 146). In 1998 in the U.S. The National Assesment of Educational Progress completed a national assesment of civic knowledge that found positive correlations between civic knowledge and interest and discussion of issues in class. (Niemi & Junn, 1998, p, 148).

However, the definition of classroom discussion or dialogue remains somewhat problematic. Burbules and Bruce (2001) consider dialogue to be one form of pedagogical communicative relation used in teaching and note that dialogue can take many forms and that not all of these imply egalitarian, open-ended modes of inquiry. Wilen and White (1991, p.483) identified and the two major forms of discourse in social studies classrooms as recitation and discussion. They noted that “discussion” is a term that is often used indiscriminately, and sometimes is used (they feel incorrectly) to label any teacher-student interaction. Wilen (1990, cited in Wilen & White, 1991, p. 489) distinguished discussion from recitation by defining discussion as “an educative and structured group conversation between teacher and students about subject matter at the higher cognitive levels.” Bridges (1979) noted that the distinctive and peculiar contribution of discussion to one's knowledge or understanding is that it sets differing perceptions of a matter under discussion, thus challenging our own view of things.

Elaborating on Bridges' ideas, Parker (2003, p.129) noted that the basic circumstance of discussion is that it is a shared situation with a purpose to encourage participants to consider others' interpretations of that matter under discussion: “Discussion is a kind of shared inquiry the desired outcomes of which rely on the expression and consideration of diverse views...Discussion results in what could be called shared understanding. Discussion widens the scope of each participant's understanding of the object of discussion by building into that understanding the interpretation and life experiences of other discussants” (p. 129).

A large body of work has explored the relationship between forms of discussion/dialogue and classroom learning (see, e.g., the review of research on teaching and dialogue, Burbules & Bruce, 2001), but here the focus is on the work of two researchers who explicitly link classroom discussion/discourse to the citizenship education: Robin Alexander working in the U.K. And internationally and Walter Parker whose primary research focus has been on the U.S. Both Alexander and Parker attempt to further delinate the nature of classroom discussion so as to specify its purposes and thus to distinguish it from less precise models in the literature. Drawing on the work of the Russian philosopher Bakhtin as well as psychologist, sociologists, and neuroscientists, Alexander explores the theme of dialogue as an educative process.

Based on his cross-national research, Alexander (2000, pp. 526-527) charted the reccurent use of three kinds of classroom talk:

• Rote: or drilling of facts, ideas and routines through constant repetition;
• Ricitation or the accumulation of knowledge and understanding through question designed to test or stimulate recall of what has previously been encountered, or to cue students to work out answers from clues provided in the question; and
• Eexpository instruction, or imparting information and/or explaining facts, principles or procedures.

However, although found much less than rote, recitation or exposition, Alexander identifies two other forms of pedagogical interaction “which have greater power to provoke cognitive engagement and understanding:”

• Discussion, or open exchanges between teacher and student, or student and student, with a view to sharing information, exploring ideas or solving problems; and
• Dialogue, or using authentic questioning, discussion and exposition to guide and prompt, minimise risk and error, and expedite the “uptake” or “handover” of concepts and principals.

Alexander (2005b, pp 31-32) made an explicit link between dialogic teaching and being a citizen. He argued that “the interactive skills which children develop through effective dialogic teaching-listening attentively and responsively to others, framing and asking questions, presenting and evaluating ideas, arguing and justifying points of view are among the core skills of citizenship. While the application of these generic skills is not confined to citizenship education, Alexander argued that the ability to use them represents a condition of both the educated person and the active and responsible citizen.

From a related perspective Parker (2006) argued that competent classroom discussion is a fundamentally democratic practice and that it is useful for both learning and governing. He distinguished between two purposes of classroom discussion and their relevance to citizen formation. The two classroom structures are called seminar deliberation. Parker identified these as “purposeful discussions that enlighten and engage students to separate from them general talk that has no instructional purpose . He summarized the two kinds of discussion as shown in table 1:

Table 1

Dimensin	Seminar	Deliberation
Purpose	To reach an enlarged understanding of a powerful text	To reach a decision on what a we should do about a shared problem
Subject matter	Ideas, issues, and values in a text	Alternatives related to a shared problem
Opening question (heurestics)	What does this mean? What is happening?	What should we do? What is the best alternative?

Findings from recent research support the pivotal nature that classroom discussion plays in citizenship education. After a stringent review of studies in the field, the EPPI Review of the impact

of Citizenship Education on the Provision of Schooling cited the following findings:

1. the quality of dialogue and discourse is central to learning citizenship education
2. transformative, dialogical and participatory pedagogies complement and sustain achievement rather than divert attenttion from it
3. students should be empowered to voice their views and name and make meaning from their life experiences (Deaking Crick et al., 204, p2).

Even if enthusiastically endorse these findings, a problem that emerged is that the conditions for transformative, dialogical and participatory pedagogies,, as well as giving voice to students, are evidently not in place in most schools. In a now classic study Goodland (1984) sought to compare the educational goals (one of which was citizenship) of U.S. Schools with the daily realities of teaching and learning. Goodland and a team of 20 trained data collectors visited over 1,016 classrooms representative of all grade levels across elementary, middle, and secondary schools, observing what happened on a minute by minute recording basis. In the course of a 5-hour secondary scool day, they found that about 2,5 hours were teacher talk and that teachers outtalked all students put together by a ratio of 3:1. Student-initiated discussion represented less then 1% of the instructional time. Working from a list of 15 instructional techniques, Goodland and his colleagues found that 85-95% of what went on in classrooms was teacher talk and student answers to teacher directed questions. There was so little variation in instructional technique that the researchers could not use it as an independent variable to account for variations in educational outcomes. The study concluded that student passivity, individual performance and teacher control were emphasized in classrooms, while student participation, cooperation and peer-learning were de-emphasized. If time is the currency of classroom teaching, discussion had relatively low value in most classrooms in the Goodland study.

Unfortunately this may be no less true today (or at least not dramatically different), even in U.S. Social studies classes. Parker (2006, p. 16) has pointed out that in the U.S. “A planned classroom discussion in a K-12 setting is an extraordinary event. Recitation is the norm: discussion is the exeption.” Hess (2004) reported that even when they do occur in U.S. social studies classrooms, discussions often fail to meet the standards of thoughtful discourse because there are tendencies (a) for teachers to talk too much; (b) for teachers to ask inauthentic questions; (c) for lack of focus and depth in students' contributions, and (d) for enequal participation of students.

Based on data from 28 countries in the IEA Civic Education Study, Losito and Mintrop (2001, p. 158) reported that teacher centered methods predominated in civic education classrooms across many countries and the use of textbooks and recitation are especially prominent. Civic education was reported to be a matter of knowledge transmission in most of the countries whereas critical thinking and political engagement were said to receive less attention (p. 172), Drawing on the U.S. data from the same study, Hahn (2001, p.87) reported that classes and schools differs widely on how much variation there is in instructional activity: According to Hahn, “Some teachers provide much variety; others very little. Most students seem to be in classes that fall between the two extremes, with frequent teacher talk and student recitation related to the textbook and periodically, a simulation, written project, or discussion of a current issue.” Hahn hypothesized that students in classes that emphasize basic skills (such as reading comprehension) may have less experience of engaging instructional activities. If this were true, it could indicate that meaningful classroom discussion is correlated with factors such as economic status as well as ability tracking. In a study of 26 New York teachers in a range of socio economic settings, Dull and Murrow (2008) found that sustained interpretative questioning (as opposed to information gathering questioning) occured only in classes that served students in the highest SES schools that were not characterized by diverse student bodies. In an analysis of the U.S. data from the IEA Civic Education Study, Torney-Purta, Barber and Wilkenfeld (2007) found that immigrant and Hispanic students were less likely to be encouraged to voice opinions during discussions in their classrooms.

In a recent qualitative study of six 11^th and 12^th grade U.S. History and Government classes in the U.S., Niemi and Niemi (2007) found that teachers often expressed their opinions about political processes (but not as much about current controversial issues). However, student opinions were often suppressed in formal classroom interactions, and discussion of political participation was limited and couched with cynicism about political processes on the part of teachers. There was little discussion of contemporary controversial issues. The researchers were worried that increased civic teaching without more meaningful and nuanced classroom discussions will only contribute to the political cynicism and indifference of students.

Alexander (2006, p. 15-16) reported that from his own others' research (Galton, Simon, & Croll, 1980; Galton, Hargreaves, Comber, Pell, & Wall, 1999; Nystrand, Gamoran, Kachur, & Predergast, 1997) that the interaction which students experience is largely confined to the first three items in his typology of teacher talk, rote, recitation and expository instruction. He cited a UK study that found low levels of both student interaction and cognitive engagement. Open questions made up 10% of questioning exchange and most questions asked where designed to funnel student responses toward a correct answer (Smith, Hardman. Wall, & Mroz, 2004, p. 408). Broadly speaking this genre of classroom discourse is frequently referred to as the IRE/F (Initiation-Response-Evaluation/Follow-up) sequence and, in several studies, it has been found to be the default option, to which the teacher always returns (Wells, 2001).

Burbles and bruce (2001, pp. 8-9) termed the predominant pedagogical model in the U.S. to be the teacher/student (or T/S) model. The T/S model assumes that (1) the roles of the teacher and student are given, distinct, and relatively stable; (2) discourse in the classroom is mainly for expressing information; (3) teaching is centrally a matter of intentionally communicating contenct knowledge; and (4) that education is an activity of instrumental practices directed intentionally directed toward

specific ends. The ideal, albeit the most limiting, type of T/S is IRE: “The teacher questions, the student replies, the teacher praises or corects the response.” While the IRE cycle may have it use (e.g., review of information), the problem, according to Burbles and Bruce, is that it often tends to colonize pedagogy, driving out alternative perspectives on teaching and learning (p. 8) However, as they point out, IRE and other forms of the T/S model are confronting numerous contemporary challenges. For example, we can no longer regard the roles of teachers and students in classroom discourse to be distinct, stable, or without a cultural context.

Given the literature on the dominance of the IRE model of pedagogy, what are the obstacles to introducing more dialogic forms of classroom discussion to support citizenship education? What are the chances of increasing the opportunities for discussion and dialogue as defined by Alexander, or the seminars and deliberation as defined by Parker? The EPPI review of the impact of citizenship education on the provision of schooling cited earlier also listed the following findings:

• a facilitative, conversational pedagogy may challenge existing power/authority structures.
• Such pedagogies require a quality of teacher-pupil relationships that are inclusive and respectful. It may require many teachers to let go of control.
• Listening to the voice of the student leads to positive relationships, an atmosphere of trust, and increases participation (Deakin Crick et al. 2004, pp. 2-4)

Based on the above discussion, the sizeable gap between “facilitative, conversational pedagogy” and predominant pedagogical model in most classrooms (IRE) should be noted. Levinson and Brantmeier (2006), in an informative effort to link civic education to the concept of communities of practice and situated leaning, identified two broad challenges that are also pertinent here: the challenge of authority and the challenge of authenticity. In regard to authority, how can the teacher's exercise of authority be constructed so as to most closely approximate the kinds of authority that students are likely to encounter in a democracy? And what are the limits of student power in a school? In the case of authenticity, how authentic can classroom discussions be in the world of civic practice that are the discussions reference points and how fully can teachers negotiate the syllabus with students? An Ofsted report (Garner, 2006) argued that pupils should be encouraged to challenge authority in the new compulsory secondary school citizenship lessons. The report rejected the notion that citizenship education should be about teaching “compliance, good behaviour and the acceptance of values” and argued that the best practice instead focused on challenging and promoting a critical democracy.

As indicated above, however, this kind of dialogic teaching is at odds with the traditional transmission model. Parker (2006) has reminded us that the prevailing model has strong support from those (on the right) who are skeptical of anything that takes time from curriculum coverage and direct instruction by the teacher, as well as those (on the left) who fear discussion can become just another form of domination when marginalized voices of resistance, educators need to decide whether to withdraw from the dialogic project or enter the fray (p. 15).

As EPPI review (Deakin Crick et al., 2004) suggested, entering the fray will require supporting teachers to develop appropriate professional skills to engage in discourse and dialogue to facilitate citizenship education. Moreover, the report added that participative and democratic processes in school leadership require particular attitudes and skills on the part of teachers and students: “Linked to this is the important of enabling teachers to trust their own professional judgement, working within a culture of professional responsibility” (p. 6).