Early childhood teachers’ pedagogical assessment leadership practices and skills in Ghana

Abstract

An effective pedagogical leader requires a variety of knowledge and skills for assessment leadership. This study aimed to determine how Ghanaian early childhood teachers perceive pedagogical and assessment leadership and how assessment literacy, technology, school culture, and gender influence pedagogical leadership in relation to classroom assessment and its associated challenges. The study employed a pragmatic philosophical perspective underpinned by Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory in a distributed leadership orientation. The study utilised a concurrent triangulation design within the mixed-methods approach. It also employed a descriptive survey for the quantitative phase and a case study for the qualitative approach. The quantitative datasets were collected by administering a questionnaire to 700 randomly selected respondents. In addition, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with ten purposively selected participants for the qualitative approach. Descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, measurement model assessment, and structural equation modelling were used to analyse the quantitative data. Six significant themes of teachers’ pedagogical assessment leadership practices emerged from the qualitative thematic analysis after integrating both datasets as some convergence and divergence were discovered in the findings. The teachers accepted their roles as assessment and pedagogical leaders, assessors, and facilitators but have limited skills and knowledge. This unique scholarly finding led to the conceptualisation of pedagogical assessment leadership as the process of leading and teaching while collaboratively improving learning and assessment in the classroom and beyond. Male teachers were found to be more task-oriented and strict. In contrast, female teachers often relied on their lobbying skills to elicit support from their colleagues in classroom assessment practices. Lack of capacity and resources, resistance to change, frequent policy changes, and the fear of being perceived as all-knowing emerged as themes relating to the challenges teachers face as pedagogical assessment leaders. The results from the quantitative data also indicated that the teachers are literate in pedagogical leadership and assessment with an average score of M = 3.10 and SD = 0.74; M = 3.11 and SD = 0.76 respectively. Hypothesis testing revealed that teachers’ classroom assessment practices and literacy and technology use have a significant influence in relation to their pedagogical assessment leadership practices with (β = 0.510, p-value = 0.000) and (β = 0.089, p-value = 0.01) respectively, but not to that of the school culture which recorded insignificant positive influence of (β = 0.023, p-value = 0.514). Similarly, a significant influence was observed regarding teachers’ gender and their pedagogical assessment leadership practices with (β = 0.035, p-value = 0.306). The findings are discussed using literature on teachers’ leadership in pedagogy and classroom assessment practices in the early childhood setting. It is concluded that the teachers have limited pedagogical leadership skills in classroom assessment practices but felt a need to improve their practices. The study therefore identified a need for more training, communication, and encouragement to assist the teachers to attain the desired level of pedagogical assessment leadership skills and practices. The implications for educational policy formulation, research, practice, and teacher leadership development are also discussed.

'n Doeltreffende pedagogiese leier moet oor ’n verskeidenheid kennis en vaardighede vir assesseringsleierskap beskik. Hierdie studie wil vasstel hoe Ghanese vroeekinderjareonderwysers pedagogiese en assesseringsleierskap beskou en hoe assesseringsgeletterdheid, tegnologie, skoolkultuur en geslag pedagogiese leierskap met betrekking tot klaskamerassessering en sy verwante uitdagings, beïnvloed. Die studie het ’n pragmaties-filosofiese perspektief gebruik wat deur Vygotsky se sosiokulturele teorie in ’n verspreide leierskaporientasie ondersteun word. Die studie het ’n samelopende triangulasie-ontwerp binne die gemengdemetodebenadering gebruik. Dit het ook ’n beskrywende ondersoek vir die kwantitatiewe fase en ’n gevallestudie vir die kwalitatiewe benadering gebruik. Die kwantitatiewe datastelle is ingesamel deur ’n vraelys aan 700 willekeuriggeselekteerde respondente te stuur. Vir die kwalitatiewe benadering is semigestruktureerde onderhoude bykomend onderneem met tien doelbewusgeselekteerde deelnemers. Beskrywende statistiek, verkenningsfaktorontleding, bevestigendefaktorontleding, metingsmodelassessering en strukturele gelykstellingsmodellering is gebruik om die kwantitatiewe data te ontleed. Ses betekenisvolle temas van onderwysers se pedagogiese assesseringsleierskappraktyke het uit die kwalitatiewe tematiese ontleding na vore gekom nadat beide datastelle geintegreer is en enkele konvergensie en divergensie in die bevindings opgespoor is. Die onderwysers het hulle rolle as assesserings- en pedagogiese leiers, assessore en fasiliteerders aanvaar, maar het oor beperkte vaardighede en kennis beskik. Hierdie unieke wetenskaplike bevinding het tot die konseptualisering van pedagogiese assesseringsleierskap gelei as die proses om te lei en te onderrig terwyl leer en assessering terselfdertyd in die klaskamer en verder verbeter word. Daar is bevind dat manlike onderwysers meer taakgeorienteerd en streng is. In teenstelling hiermee maak die vroulike onderwysers dikwels staat op hulle oortuigingsvaardighede om die ondersteuning van hulle kollegas in klaskamerassesseringspraktyke te kry. ’n Gebrek aan bevoegdheid en hulpbronne, teenstand teen verandering, gereelde beleidsveranderinge en ’n vrees om as alwetend gesien te word, het as temas wat met die uitdagings wat onderwysers as pedagogiese assesseringsleiers verband hou, na vore gekom. Die resultate van die kwantitatiewe data het ook aangetoon dat onderwysers geletterd is in pedagogiese leierskap en assessering met ’n gemiddelde puntetelling van onderskeidelik M = 3.10 en SD = 0.74; M = 3.11 en SD = 0.76. Hipotesetoetsing het aangetoon dat onderwysers se klaskamerassesseringspraktyke en geletterdheid en tegnologiegebruik ’n betekenisvolle invloed ten opsigte van hulle pedagogiese assesseringsleierskappraktyke het met onderskeidelik (β = 0.510, p-waarde = 0.000) en (β = 0.089, p-waarde = 0.01), maar nie ten opsigte van die skoolkultuur nie, wat ’n onbeduidende positiewe invloed van (β = 0.023, p-waarde = 0.514) getoon het. Op soortgelyke wyse is ’n betekenisvolle invloed waargeneem wat betref die onderwysers se geslag en hulle pedagogiese assesseringsleierskappraktyke met (β = 0.035, p-waarde = 0.306). Die bevindings word met behulp van literatuur oor onderwysers se leierskap in pedagogie en klaskamerassesseringspraktyke in die vroeekinderjare-omgewing bespreek. Die gevolgtrekking word gemaak dat die onderwysers beperkte pedagogieseleierskapsvaardighede in klaskamerassesseringspraktyke het, maar dat hulle die behoefte het om hulle praktyke te verbeter. Die studie het dus ’n behoefte aan verdere opleiding, kommunikasie en aanmoediging om die onderwysers te help om die verlangde vlak van pedagogiese assesseringsleierskapsvaardighede en -praktyke te bereik, geidentifiseer. Die implikasies vir opvoedkundige beleidsformulering, navorsing, praktyk en onderwyserleierskapontwikkeling word ook bespreek.

Moeteledipele yo o nonofileng mo mekgwathutong o tlhoka kitso le dikgono tse di farologaneng tsa go etelela pele tlhatlhobo ka tirisano le ba bangwe. Thutopatlisiso eno e ikaelela go tlhomamisa tsela e barutabana ba thuto ya go sale gale ba kwa Ghana ba bonang ka teng boeletedipele mo mokgweng o ba rutang ka one le go dira tlhatlhobo le gore kitso ya go diragatsa tlhatlhobo, thekenoloji, mokgwatsamaiso wa sekolo, le bong di tlhotlheletsa jang boeteledipele mo mokgwathutong malebana le tlhatlhobo ya mo phaposiborutelong le dikgwetlho tse di amanang le yone. Thutopatlisiso e dirisitse ntlhatebo ya filosofi ya tharabololo ya mathata mo maemong a a rileng e e tshegediwang ke tiori ya ga Vygotsky ya loago le setso mo mokgweng o o anameng wa boeteledipele. Thutopatlisiso e dirisitse mokgwa wa go kgobokanya deitha e e seng ka ga dipalo le deitha e e ka ga dipalo mo molebong wa mekgwa e e tswakantsweng. Gape e dirisitse patlisiso e e tlhalosang dipalopalo mo legatong la tshekatsheko ya deitha ya dipalo le tshekatsheko le patlisiso e e tseneletseng e e dirwang mo maemong a mmatota ya kgobokanyo le tshekatsheko ya deitha e e seng ka ga dipalo. Dideithasete tse di ka ga dipalo di kgobokantswe ka go neela lenaane la dipotso go baarabi ba le 700 ba ba tlhophilweng kwa ntle ga thulaganyo epe. Mo godimo ga moo, go dirilwe dipotsolotso tse go bodiwang dipotso tse di se nang dikarabo tse di rileng, mo batsayakarolong ba le lesome ba ba tlhophilweng ka maikaelelo mo kgobokanyong le tshekatsheko ya deitha e e seng ka ga dipalo. Go dirisitswe mekgwa ya go sobokanya le go tlhalosa dipalopalo, tshekatsheko e e utololang dintlha tsa botlhokwa, tshekatsheko e e tlhomamisang nepagalo ya kamano ya deitha, tlhatlhobo ya sekao sa tekanyetso, le mokgwa wa go lekanyetsa le go sekaseka kamano ya deitha go sekaseka deitha e e ka ga dipalo. Go tlhageletse dintlha di le thataro tsa botlhokwa tsa mekgwatiriso ya boeteledipele jwa tlhatlhobo ya thuto jwa barutabana go tswa mo tshekatshekong e e sekasekang le go tlhalosa deitha e e seng ka ga dipalo morago ga go kopanya dideithasete ka bobedi gonne go lemogilwe kopano le katogano go se kae mo diphitlhelelong. Barutabana ba amogetse ditiro tsa bone jaaka baeteledipele ba tlhatlhobo le mokgwathuto, batlhatlhobi, le bafatlhosi mme fela ba na le dikgono le kitso e e lekanyeditsweng. Phitlhelelo eno e e kgethegileng ya thuto e dirile gore go nne le ditlhaloso tsa dikakanyokgolo tsa boeteledipele jwa tlhatlhobo ya thuto jaaka tirego ya go etelela pele le go ruta ka go dirisana mmogo le ba bangwe go tokafatsa go ithuta le tlhatlhobo mo phaposiborutelong le kwa ntle. Go fitlhetswe fa barutabana ba banna ba tsepamisa thata mo go fitlheleleng maikaelelo a tiro e bile ba latela melao ka tsela e e gagametseng. Ka tsela e e farologaneng, barutabana ba basadi bone gantsi ba ne ba ikaegile ka dikgono tsa bone tsa go tlhotlheletsa badirammogo ba bone go bona tshegetso mo go bone ka mekgwatiriso ya tlhatlhobo ya mo phaposiborutelong. Tlhaelo ya bokgoni le ditlamelo, go gana phetogo, go fetolwa gangwe le gape ga pholisi, le poifo ya go bonwa jaaka maitsegotlhe di tlhageletse jaaka dintlha tse di amanang le dikgwetlho tse barutabana ba lebaneng natso jaaka baeteledipele ba tlhatlhobo ya thuto. Dipholo go tswa mo deitheng e e ka lekanyediwang ka dipalo le tsone di kaile gore barutabana ba na le kitso ya boeteledipele le tlhatlhobobo ya thuto ka maduo a palogare ya M = 3.10 le SD = 0.74; M = 3.11 le SD = 0.76 ka go latelana. Teko le papiso ya tshitsinyo e bontshitse gore mekgwatiriso ya tlhatlhobo mo diphaposiborutelong tsa barutabana le kitso ya go kwala le go buisa, le tiriso ya thekenoloji di na le tlhotlheletso e kgolo malebana le mekgwatiriso ya bone ya boeteledipele mo tlhatlhobong ya thuto ka (β = 0.510, p-value = 0.000) le (β = 0.089, p-value = 0.01) ka go latelana, mme e seng mo mokgwatsamaisong wa sekolo o o rekotileng tlhotlheletso e e siameng mme e se botlhokwa ya (β = 0.023, p-value = 0.514). Fela jalo, go bonwe tlhotlheletso e kgolo malebana le bong jwa barutabana le mekgwatiriso ya bone ya boeteledipele mo tlhatlhobong ya thuto ka (β = 0.035, p-value = 0.306). Go sekasekilwe diphitlhelelo ka go dirisa dikwalwa tse di ka ga boeteledipele jwa barutabana mo mekgwatirisong ya tlhatlhobo ya mo phaposiborutelong le mokgwathuto mo maemong a thuto ya go sale gale. Go nnile le tshwetso ya gore barutabana ba na le dikgono tse di lekanyeditsweng tsa boeteledipele jwa mokgwa wa go ruta mo mekgwatirisong ya tlhatlhobo ya mo phaposiborutelong mme go tsewa gore go na le tlhokego ya go tokafatsa mekgwatiriso ya bone. Ka jalo, thutopatlisiso e lemogile tlhokego ya katiso e ntsi, tlhaeletsano, le thotloetso go thusa barutabana go fitlhelela maemo a a eletsegang a dikgono le mekgwatiriso ya tlhatlhobo ya thuto. Go sekasekwa gape le dipoelo tsa tlhamo ya pholisi ya thuto, tlhotlhomiso, tiriso, le tokafatso ya boeteledipele jwa barutabana.