How Transformational Leadership Theory and Complex Leadership Theory Complement the Introduction of Play-Based Learning: Teacher-Leader Identity in a Scottish Context.
CITATION: McCole, E.L. ‘How Transformational Leadership Theory and Complex Leadership Theory Complement the Introduction of Play-Based Learning: Teacher-Leader Identity in a Scottish Context. Journal of Social Science Student Research, Volume 2, DOI:
Abstract: This critical reflection explores the synergy between Transformational Leadership Theory (TLT) and Complex Leadership Theory (CLT) in the context of introducing play-based learning within Scottish educational settings. Recognizing the evolving landscape of education, this study investigates how the amalgamation of TLT and CLT contributes to the development of teacher-leader identity. The incorporation of play-based learning represents a paradigm shift in pedagogical approaches, demanding innovative leadership strategies. Transformational Leadership emphasizes inspiring and motivating followers, fostering a shared vision, and encouraging creativity—all integral components in navigating the complexities of play-based learning. Complex Leadership Theory, with its focus on adaptability and embracing uncertainty, complements Transformational Leadership by providing a framework for leaders to navigate the dynamic and multifaceted nature of educational change. Through an exploration of teacher-leader identity, this study sheds light on the nuanced ways in which leadership theories synergize to support the successful integration of play-based learning in the unique educational context of Scotland. The findings contribute to a deeper understanding of leadership dynamics essential for fostering a progressive and responsive educational environment.
Keywords: Transformational Leadership; Complex Leadership Theory; Complex Adaptive Systems
Introduction
Leading a play-based pedagogical approach to learning and teaching in a Scottish, local authority primary school signifies a departure from the traditional, hegemonic approach to education, which may be favoured by most Western societies (Clark, 2023; Serpell and Hatano, 1997). In this sense, it is pertinent to conceptualise the role that leadership theories can play when analysing my leadership experiences as a teacher-leader to support colleagues to enact a play-based approach to learning and teaching within an early primary setting (Beigi, 2021). Located in Central Scotland, my education establishment is governed by a nationalised Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) and managed by local government. CfE design seeks to provide Scottish children with the knowledge and skills required in modern society whilst offering teachers autonomy as agents of change (Priestley & Minty, 2013). Debates continue, however, regarding how effective a national curriculum is for improving an individual’s life chances (Zajda, 2020) and promoting lifelong learning alongside the teachers’ capacity to implement this. As a result, there has been a shift in perceptions within Scottish education when considering the educational experiences provided for children in Scottish schools. In 2013, The Scottish Government’s Play Strategy Action Plan stated their vision: “We want Scotland to be the best place to grow up. A nation which values play as a life-enhancing daily experience for all our children and young people…” (Scottish Government, 2013, pg15).
In my educational establishment, senior leaders, responsive to this policy implementation, have actively sought to integrate new approaches, including play-based learning. As an experienced early years teacher, I was afforded the opportunity to lead this transformational change in primary one and primary two, supporting and working collaboratively with a small team of colleagues. This opportunity aligns with my own positioning that teachers should feel empowered to enact change and not just for the benefit of their own classrooms but to the benefit of the whole school community. The vision was to create a play-based learning environment in the early years which would improve the overall wellbeing and level of academic attainment for children.
To provide a critical analysis of this leadership experience, I will first introduce the Scottish context including the recent paradigm shift in Scottish educational leadership from a traditional hierarchical environment to one where educators’ sense of agency and identity as a leader become more prominent since the publication of Teaching Scotland’s Future by Graham Donaldson in 2011. Aligning with my own leadership experience I will synthesis transformational leadership theory as highlighted by Hay (2006), Litz and Scott (2017) and Bass (1999) and complexity leadership theory utilising Uhl-Bien and Arena (2018), Uhl-Bien et al (2007) and Tourish (2019) to explain my approach and play-based implementation.
Play-based Learning
Play-based learning in Scottish schools has garnered significant attention in recent years, reflecting a broader educational trend towards embracing holistic and child-centred pedagogical approaches. Play-based learning, as conceptualized in contemporary educational discourse, is not merely about play as an activity but rather about integrating play as a core component of the learning process. This method aligns with constructivist theories, which posit that children construct knowledge through active engagement and social interaction.
One of the foundational aspects of play-based learning is its alignment with the Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) (2010) in Scotland, which emphasizes experiential and active learning. According to Pyle and Danniels (2017), play-based learning facilitates the development of cognitive, social, and emotional skills in a manner that traditional, didactic teaching methods may not. This approach is particularly effective in early childhood education, where the flexibility of play allows for the accommodation of diverse learner preferences and learning differences.
Research by Martlew et al. (2018) highlights that play-based learning supports language development, problem-solving abilities, and creativity. In their study of Scottish primary schools, they found that children engaged in play-based activities showed improved literacy and numeracy outcomes compared to their peers in more traditional settings. This aligns with Vygotsky’s theory of social constructivism, which emphasizes the importance of social interaction in cognitive development.
Moreover, Whitebread et al. (2019) argue that play-based learning contributes to emotional resilience and self-regulation. These skills are increasingly recognized as critical for long-term academic and life success. The playful context allows children to experiment with roles, rules, and strategies, fostering a sense of agency and competence.
In Scotland, the implementation of play-based learning has been supported by various policy initiatives and professional development programs. The Scottish Government’s Early Years Framework (2019) underscores the importance of high-quality early learning experiences, which include play as a fundamental component. This policy framework encourages educators to create environments where play can flourish, thereby supporting holistic child development.
In contrast, critics of play-based learning, such as Fisher et al. (2018), caution against the unstructured nature of play, which they argue can lead to inconsistencies in educational outcomes. However, proponents counter that structured play, guided by informed pedagogical strategies, can effectively balance freedom and guidance, leading to robust educational benefits.
Teacher-Leader Identity
Teacher-leaders in Scotland often find their roles defined by the dual expectations of pedagogical excellence and leadership. This duality is central to the identity of teacher-leaders, as noted by Smith (2019), who emphasizes that effective teacher-leaders balance classroom teaching with leadership tasks, influencing peers and contributing to school improvement strategies. This hybrid role necessitates a blend of teaching skills and leadership capabilities, challenging teachers to redefine their professional identities.
In the context of Scottish education, the Scottish College for Educational Leadership (SCEL) was instrumental in shaping teacher-leader identities. The introduction of the Into Headship and In Headship programs provides structured pathways for teachers aspiring to leadership roles. As highlighted by Kennedy (2020), these programs focus on developing leadership qualities while ensuring that participants retain a strong connection to classroom practice, thus fostering a cohesive teacher-leader identity.
A key theme in the literature is the importance of collaborative practices in the development of teacher-leader identity. According to Brown and Flood (2021), collaborative learning communities within schools serve as vital spaces for teachers to engage in professional dialogue, share best practices, and develop leadership skills organically. This collaborative approach aligns with Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence, which advocates for a participatory and inclusive educational environment.
Moreover, the role of mentorship and coaching in nurturing teacher-leaders is extensively discussed. Livingston and Hutchison (2018) argue that mentorship programs are critical in providing aspiring teacher-leaders with the necessary support and guidance to navigate their expanded roles. These programs not only enhance individual competencies but also contribute to a culture of continuous professional development within schools.
The impact of educational policy on teacher-leader identity cannot be understated. The 2018 Education (Scotland) Act, aimed at enhancing school governance and empowering headteachers, has significant implications for teacher-leaders. As Murray (2021) notes, this policy shift encourages a more distributed leadership model, where leadership responsibilities are shared among staff members, thus reinforcing the teacher-leader paradigm.
A critical analysis of context
In recent decades there has been a significant shift in macro level education policy within Scotland and elsewhere to move towards a culture which recognises the importance of teacher agency and their ability to make active contributions at local and national level (Priestley et al, 2019). Braun et al (2011) offers a set of four contexts in relation to school leadership which include “Situated”, “Professional”, “Material” and “External” contexts. The two most relevant of these contexts will be considered to understand the intention of encouraging higher achievement and increased pupil engagement (Briggs and Hansen, 2012).
Situated Contexts
Braun et al (2011) describe “situated contexts” as, ‘…a school’s locale, its history and intake and its setting’ (pg. 588). My establishment is a local authority primary school, situated in Scotland where an attempt to re-define leadership within the teaching profession (Torrance and Hume, 2015) has now been regarded as inherent in the role of every teacher (Priestley et al, 2019). This is a departure from the traditional hierarchical “top-down” management. Donaldson (2011) agrees that Scottish society needs to change its narrow interpretations of the teacher’s role and move towards a new egalitarian vision where all teachers, regardless of their remit can be viewed as leaders. The Educational Institute for Scotland (EIS) supported Donaldson’s (2010) notion: ‘Leadership is not merely a function associated with a specific post or with school management…every teacher…has, by definition, a leadership role to play in schools’ (EIS, 2010, pg. 5).
This realignment has afforded me the opportunity to challenge my preconceptions of what I am able to accomplish within my current role. Support from my head teacher and her commitment to empowerment includes discussing educational beliefs and values to consider a comprehensive level of change (Litz and Scott, 2017). This “distributive leadership” approach has gained increasing leverage within the Scottish context, referred to within inspectorate publications (HMiE, 2007) and authority planning. “Teacher leadership” as noted by Torrance and Hume (2015) forms an integral part of the distributed leadership paradigm supporting democratic nurturing and professional agency (Hargreaves and Fullan, 2012). Muijs and Harris (2003, pg. 11) share this positive perspective: ‘through stepping out of the confines of the classroom, teacher leaders form a new identity in the school and create ways of engaging others in development work’. Torrance and Hume (2015) counter this, arguing that teacher leadership is facilitated and constrained by many factors. Furthermore, for the head teacher to have an effective and sustained influence, they are dependent on teacher leadership.
Furthermore, the role of teacher leaders is partly legitimatised by the authority and capacity of the head teacher. As a class teacher, being granted permission by my head teacher to lead on the development of play-based learning legitimises the authority to implement and manage change. However, Hofstede et al (2010), warn that Scotland’s recent attempts to reframe educational leadership relate partly to the cultural dimension of “power distance”, which describes the way in which members of a society approach authority and leadership. It can be argued that my school, as part of Scottish society strives to achieve low power distance by embracing a horizontal, egalitarian approach to authority. In contrast, Torrance and Hume (2015) argue that despite the rhetoric and emphasis placed on leadership at all levels of Scottish education, there is a lack of coherence and detail to how this is maintained. Hartley (2010, pg. 282) provides further explanation suggesting that: ‘whilst traditional school structures remain, it may be that the hierarchy of distributed leadership resides uneasily within the formal bureaucracy of schools.’ While Scotland is making attempts to redefine the nature of educational leadership within its establishments, it can be argued that for leadership to be embodied at all levels and for my own identify as a professional leader, a fundamental shift needs to take place at a bureaucratic level (Hargreaves and Fullan, 2012).
Professional Contexts
Braun et al (2011, pg. 591) defines “professional contexts” as encompassing the dimensions of values, teacher commitments and experiences and policy management. As a Scottish educator I adhere to professional framework stipulated by the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s (GTCS) Standard for Career-Long Professional Development. Within recent years, Scotland’s professional standards for teaching professionals have evolved from a set of actions or behaviours which must be followed to be a competent educator to a set of professional values interconnected and evolutionary (Forde et al, 2016, pg. 27). This national context of macro-level, values-based professional frameworks has afforded me the opportunity and motivation to develop as an educational leader in which to consider leading new initiatives. In other words, this Scottish policy framework allows me to imagine and develop my leader identity which Priest and Middleton (2016, pg. 37) define as, ‘the extent to which an individual self-defines as a leader and considers the leader role as a central part of who he or she is.’ As such, leader identities serve to motivate an individual.
This accords with my own experience as I seek development opportunities which foster confidence and knowledge as a leader to improve. As a result, I linked with initial teacher education providers to support my play-based introduction through collaboration and professional research (Beigi, 2021). Whilst Cooper (2023) adopts a more nuanced interpretation of identity and argues for a distinction between “actual” leader identities and “designated” identities, my real-life experiences were co-constructed by third parties bringing me to new beginnings and focused outcome. Wenner and Campbell (2018) support Cooper’s (2023) distinction between different leader identities by offering “thick” leader identity and “thin” leader identity. Thick leader identity is characterised as allowing the teacher-leader to maintain their vision and be consistent in their actions. Contrarily, thin leader identity encourages teacher-leaders to compartmentalise their work and shift between competing agendas. On reflection, I easily relate to “thin” leader identity as the demands of full-time class commitment and those required to lead play-based learning constantly compete for energy, time and attention. Despite the importance of teacher-leader identity, Biesta et al. (2017, pg52) state that “professional frameworks can, ultimately, restrict an educator’s autonomy as they become heavily influenced by the framework itself”. Ultimately, the extent to which my educational establishment’s professional context is values-based and therefore affords leadership opportunities beyond the head teacher is contentious. Despite this, my own leadership experience as a class teacher exhibits the opportunities and flexibility afforded to Scottish educators to take advantage of a values-based professional framework and embrace an environment where values-based professional practice and transformational leadership can flourish (O’Brien, 2011).
Transformational Leadership
Complementing play-based learning, transformational leadership, shares many characteristics such as inspiring vision, creating a supportive environment, and enabling others to feel empowered and successful. It is closely aligned with my own attempts to create an inclusive environment where colleagues feel motivated and inspired to create a play-based environment for our pupils and their right to play. Abu-Tineh et al (2009) believes that transformational leadership has the potential to generate an increased level of commitment in teachers in relation to school reforms as well as developing the capacities teachers need to respond positively. This is contested by Barnett, McCormick and Connors (2001) where their study revealed that teachers may be distracted from concentrating on learning and teaching by taking time away from pupils to be involved in corporate school initiatives. This argument is particularly pertinent to my experience in a leadership position while retaining full time class responsibility. It has been a challenge to manage the expectations placed on me as a class teacher, along with those expected by my senior leadership team and colleagues as the school’s lead for play-based learning. As a result, I learned that leaders and followers must collaborate fully to help raise one another’s achievements, morality and motivations to levels that would otherwise have been impossible (Hay, 2006). Kouzes and Posner (1995) emphasised the importance of exemplary leadership for producing leader-follower trust that is central for transformational leadership. Kouzes and Posner’s (1995) leadership model suggest that leadership is not a position, but a collection of practices and behaviours as illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: from Emmanuel and Valley (2022)
Inspiring a shared vision for bringing people together to foster a commitment to a shared future they intend to create is, for Abu-Tineh et al (2009) based on a transformational belief to make a positive difference by envisioning the future and creating a nurturing and transparent climate of what can be achieved. Litz and Scott (2017) support this argument by stating that leaders must understand peoples hopes and dreams and bring people together towards common goals through a compelling and realistic vision. Similarly, play-based learning encourages educators to establish a vision of engaging and enjoyable learning experiences (Beigi, 2021). This alignment between the two was realised for me through the Scottish Government’s Play Strategy Vision (2013, pg. 8) which states, ‘Play is essential to healthy development from birth to adulthood, contributing to capacity for learning, resilience and the development of physical, cognitive, social and emotional skills.’ By creating a culture of collaboration, we created a shared vision for play, specific to the experiences and opportunities of significant value to the pupils at our school. Litz and Scott (2017) support this approach as they argue that effective transformational leaders influence shared beliefs and values to create a complete and comprehensive level of change. Avolio et al (1991) concur with Litz and Scott (2017) and believe that a transformational leader is one who demonstrates inspirational motivation, idealised influence, is intellectually stimulating and displays individualised consideration for each of their followers. Copeland (2014) supports this conceptualisation by stating that a leader’s charisma or ability to be a vision seeker, as well as setting high standards for others to follow are behaviours of a transformational leader.
Inspiring others, and the ability to foster intrinsic motivation towards a common goal could be aligned with Self Determination Theory (SDT) as it states for development to occur, individuals should be supported to progress towards the shared aspiration. The ‘autonomy’ component of Self Determination Theory (Ryan and Deci, 2020), I believe, aligns closely with the premise of transformational leadership and its attempts to create an inherent motivation amongst followers. Stone, Russell and Patterson (2003) contest this stance by arguing that transformational leaders can exert a very powerful influence over followers, who offer them trust and respect.
Despite the plethora of conflicting arguments surrounding transformational leadership, my experience has been predominately positive. Embracing a transformational leadership approach to motivate the staff team resulted in group members seeking changes to their practice, reflecting upon impact and engaging in further professional development sharing insights, professional reading and visiting neighbouring schools to share good practice. Ultimately, to adopt a transformational ideal leading a significant change, like play-based learning, may be considered contentious. However, fostering an environment of collaboration and partnership, the staff team have introduced meaningful changes through professional reflection and shared professional practice.
Complex Leadership Theory
Traditional, hierarchical views of leadership are becoming increasingly scrutinised given the inherent complexities of an ever-changing world (Uhl-Bien and Arena, 2018), that we, as educators strive to prepare our young people for. As such, leadership theory must support the changing demands placed upon educators to provide more innovative and complex learning experiences, like play-based learning (Lichtenstein et al, 2006). Complex Leadership Theory (CLT) is an epistemological stance which offers a fresh perspective on leadership. Lichtenstein et al (2006, pg. 2) describe leadership as, “a dynamic that transcends the capabilities of individuals alone”.
Historically, leadership theory has largely focussed on leaders – through the actions of individuals. It has not examined the dynamic, complex-systems and processes that comprise leadership (Uhl-Bien and Arena, 2018). Complex Leadership theory recognises organisations as complex, adaptive systems, characterised by interconnectedness, non-linearity, and emergent behaviour. It views organisations as dynamic entities influenced by multiple factors including individuals, interactions, and the external environment (Uhl-Bien and Arena, 2018). Education can be classed as a complex system where a variety of stakeholders interact, adapt, and evolve within policy-driven frameworks.
This interplay between these different elements is closely aligned with Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) which Uhl-Bien et al (2007, pg. 299) characterise as, “neural-like networks of interacting, interdependent agents who are bonded in a co-operative dynamic by common goal…”. By utilising the concept of Complex Adaptive Systems, leadership is not only viewed as a position and authority but also as an emergent dynamic and a complex interplay from which a collective impetus for action emerges (Uhl-Bien, 2007). Lichtenstein et al (2006) support this view, redirecting leadership emphasis away from the individual as a leader, without diminishing the importance of leadership. Indeed, complexity leadership theory recognises that leadership transcends the individual by being fundamentally a system phenomenon which can be considered within the framework of a Complex Adaptive System. In such systems, relationships are not hierarchical but are instead defined by interaction among heterogeneous agents. In other words, Complex Adaptive Systems require a different approach to leadership. In a complex environment, leaders move away from always being the experts and being directive. Instead, they facilitate and influence network construction and increase non-linearity and decrease hierarchy.
Despite the suggestion that Complex Leadership Theory can enhance autonomy, Rosenhead et al (2019) criticises this view of leadership by accusing adherents of Complex Leadership Theory of rejecting the importance of individual agency. Given that the key finding claimed for Complex Leadership Theory is the effective unknowability of the future, the leader’s traditional role to decide where the organisation is going and to take decisions to help it get there is seen by proponents of Complex Leadership Theory as a “dangerous delusion” (Rosenhead et al, 2019, pg. 14). Traditional managerial reflexes such as the enunciation of a vision, the determination of strategy and the elimination of deviation as viewed by Rosenhead et al (2019) as valuable attributes within an organisation and criticises leading theorists of Complex Leadership Theory for viewing these traits as counterproductive as conflict is a necessary pre-requisite for collaborative change. Complex Leadership Theory helps distinguish leadership from managerial positions by offering the concept of adaptive leadership which can be conceptualised as an emergent, interactive dynamic which results from the interactions of Complex Adaptive Systems and produces adaptive outcomes (Uhl-Bien et al, 2007).
This resonates with my own experience as my senior leadership team encourage staff members to lead working groups to address different school priorities in an environment of collaboration and innovation. Tourish (2019) disagrees with this notion that Complex Leadership theory distinguishes leaders from leadership, stating: “A significant body of the work that falls under its rubric retains an often-inadvertent pre-occupation with valorised images of leader agency”. In response, Uhl-Bien (2018) attempt to reconceptualise the notion of adaptive leadership as ‘entrepreneurial leadership’ and argue that leadership for organisational adaptability is a multi-faceted concept that uses a systems-level approach to designing adaptive organisational structures, enabling networked interactions, nurturing innovation, and providing leadership development that fosters collaboration. Ultimately the modern world dictates a new approach to leadership which allows for organisations to work and evolve within complex and dynamic systems. For me, Complex Leadership theory offers a distinction between leadership and leaders as it moves away from hierarchical concepts of leadership which focus largely on the actions of individuals and instead promotes a framework that focusses on the nature of the leadership process which can account for interactive, dynamic outcomes.
On reflection, I believe that my education establishment can be viewed as a complex system, to an extent as there are many agents that could influence the direction of school life. It can be argued that the senior leadership team, as administrative leaders attempt to organise activities and take care of the bureaucracy to create an environment where subordinates, like me as a class teacher feel enabled to lead and make decisions on a particular shared goal for the benefit of all stakeholders which ultimately leads to innovation and dynamic outcomes.
Conclusion
The relationship between transformational leadership theory, complex leadership theory, play-based learning, and teacher-leader identity can be illustrated as a concept map (figure 2). This concept map shows how each theory and concept interrelate, illustrating the dynamic interplay between leadership theories, learning approaches, and teacher identity.
Figure 2: Concept map illustrating relationship between transformational leadership theory, complex leadership theory, play-based learning, and teacher-leader identity
To embark on a leadership role within the context of Scottish education – in a time when there is great debate regarding appropriate leadership approaches – has proven to be an interesting experience. Not only is it clear that there are shifting perceptions within Scottish education concerning the type of learning experiences currently offered to children in Scottish schools but there is also a clear attempt to re-imagine the role of the teacher and the management structures that currently exist within schools (Torrance and Hume, 2015). This is clear with government publications such as “Teaching Scotland’s Future” (2010) which states that it is now time to re-invent the role of the teacher and consider a more egalitarian approach where all teachers, regardless of remit can be recognised as leaders.
As a class teacher, leading on an important and topical initiative like play-based learning, within an environment where the nature of educational leadership is under the spotlight has made me acutely aware of the important role that context can play in the success or failure of a leaders’ attempts to implement change. I began to realise an individual’s competence and approach to leadership is, in fact, closely tied to contextual factors such as societal and organisational culture, personal and professional values, relationships and external demands. Furthermore, as a class teacher assuming an informal leadership role, I reject the argument presented by Kouzes and Posner (1995) that in a transformational leadership model, leadership is not a position but a collection of practices and behaviours. What I have discovered is that to embrace a transformational leadership approach, a leader must not be distracted from inspiring the vision by other commitments, like retaining a full-time class responsibility as I did. Leading within an education establishment, for me, equates to engaging within a complex system where a variety of stakeholders interact.
Lichtenstein et al (2006) argued that Complex Leadership Theory recognises that leadership transcends the individual where relationships are not hierarchical but are defined by interactions amongst heterogeneous agents as part of a complex adaptive system. Ultimately, Complex Leadership Theory resonates with my experience and helps me understand further the current Scottish policy landscape within education and its vision to offer a more egalitarian approach to educational leadership. Despite this aspiration, the importance of traditional managerial roles still have an important part to play in school life (Rosenhead et al, 2019). When considering the number of stakeholders capable of influencing change within the school community, I believe it to be a benefit that an authoritative figurehead leads and facilitates interdependence, encourages collaboration, whilst maintaining focus, amongst followers, on the shared vision. Ultimately, my sense of leader identity rests on the ability to work in partnership with other professionals and create connections with others who can help achieve the shared vision (Hargreaves, and Fullan, 2012).
Reference List
Abu-Tineh, A.M., Khasawneh, S.A. and Omary, A.A., (2009) Kouzes and Posner’s transformational leadership model in practice: The case of Jordanian schools. Journal of Leadership Education, 7(3), pp.265-283.
Acaroglu, L., (2017) Tools for systems thinkers: The 6 fundamental concepts of systems thinking. Medium, Disruptive Design.
Avolio, B.J., Waldman, D.A. and Yammarino, F.J., (1991) Leading in the 1990s: The Four I′ s of Transformational Leadership. Journal of European industrial training, 15(4).
Baltaci, A. and Balcı, A., (2017) Complexity leadership: A theorical perspective. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, pp.30-58.
Barnett, K., McCormick, J. & Conners, R. (2001) Transformational leadership in schools – panacea, placebo or problem? Journal of Educational Administration, 39(1), pp. 24-46.
Bass, B. (1999) ‘Two Decades of Research and Development in Transformational Leadership’, European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 8 (1), pp. 9-32.
Beigi, R. (2021) Early years pedagogy in practice: a guide for students and practitioners. London: Routledge.
Biesta, G., Priestley, M. and Robinson, S. (2017) ‘Talking about Education: Exploring the Significance of Teachers’ Talk for Teacher Agency’, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49 (1), pp 38-54.
Braun, A. and Ball, S. J., Maguire, M. and Hoskins, K. (2011) ‘Taking Context Seriously: Explaining Policy Enactments in the Secondary School’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32 (4), pp. 585-596.
Briggs, M. and Hanson, A. (2012) Play-Based Learning in the Primary School. First Edition. London: Sage.
Broadfoot, P. (2008) ‘Comparative Perspectives on the Changing Roles of Teachers’, in E. Hoyle (ed.) Teaching: Professionalisation, Development and Leadership. Oxford: Springer, pp 263-270.
Clark, A. (2023) Slow knowledge and the unhurried child: time for slow pedagogies in early childhood education. London: Routledge.
Clarke, N. (2013) Model of complexity leadership development. Human Resource Development International, 16(2), pp.135-150.
Clarke, S. and O’Donoghue, T. (2017) ‘Educational Leadership and Context: A Rendering of an Inseparable Relationship’, British Journal of Educational Studies, 65 (2), pp. 167-182.
Cooper, M. (2023) Teachers grappling with a teacher-leader identity: Complexities and tensions in early childhood education. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 26(1), pp.54-74.
Copeland, M.K., (2014) The Emerging Significance of Values Based Leadership: A Literature Review. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(2), p.105.
Educational Institute of Scotland (2010) The EIS and Leadership in Schools. Edinburgh: Educational Institute of Scotland.
Education Scotland (2010) Curriculum for Excellence. Scotland: Available at: https://education.gov.scot/documents/All-experiencesoutcomes18.pdf (Accessed: 18 July 2023).
Education Scotland (2023) What is Curriculum for Excellence? Available at: https://education.gov.scot/education-scotland/scottish-education-system/policy-for-scottish-education/policy-drivers/cfe-building-from-the-statement-appendix-incl-btc1-5/what-is-curriculum-for-excellence# (Accessed: 18 July 2023).
Emmanuel, S. and Valley, C.A., (2022) A qualitative case study of exemplary principal leadership in the United States Virgin Islands: An application of Kouzes and Posner’s five practices of exemplary leadership. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 17(3), pp.243-264.
Fisher, K. R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Newcombe, N., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2018). Taking shape: Supporting preschoolers’ acquisition of geometric knowledge through guided play. Child Development, 89(3), 1009-1022.
Forde, C., McMahon, M., Hamilton, G. and Murray, R. (2016) ‘Rethinking Professional Standards to Promote Professional Learning’, Professional Development in Education, 42 (1), pp. 19-35.
General Teaching Council for Scotland (2021) Professional Standards for Teachers Available at: Professional Standards for Teachers – The General Teaching Council for Scotland (gtcs.org.uk) (Accessed: 10 August 2023).
Hay, I., (2006) Transformational leadership: Characteristics and criticisms. E-journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership, 5(2).
Hargreaves, A. and Fullan, M. (2012) Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School. New York: Routledge.
Hartley, D. (2010) ‘Paradigms: How Far Does Research in Distributed Leadership ‘Stretch’?’, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 38 (3), pp. 266-397.
Hartley, D. (2010) ‘The Management of Education and the Social Theory of the Firm: From Distributed Leadership to Collaborative Community’, Journal of Educational Administration and History, 42 (4), pp. 345-361
Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G., J. and Minkov, M. (2010) Cultures and Organizations: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival. Third Edition. USA: McGraw-Hill.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. J. (2002). Leadership challenge, Third Edition, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lichtenstein, B.B., Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., Seers, A., Orton, J.D. and Schreiber, C., (2006) Complexity leadership theory: An interactive perspective on leading in complex adaptive systems.
Litz, D. and Scott, S. (2017) ‘Transformational Leadership in the Educational System of the United Arab Emirates’, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 45 (4), pp. 566-587
Martlew, J., Stephen, C., & Ellis, J. (2018). Play in the primary school classroom? The experience of teachers supporting children’s learning through a new pedagogy. Early Years, 38(3), 239-254.
Muijs, D., Harris, A., (2003) ‘Teacher Leadership: Improvement Through Empowerment?’, Educational Management and Administration, 31 (4), pp. 437-448.
O’Brien, J. (2011) ‘Continuing Professional Development for Scottish Teachers: Tensions in Policy and Practice’, Professional Development in Education, 37 (5), pp. 777- 792.
Priest, K.L. and Middleton, E., (2016) Exploring leader identity and development. New directions for student leadership, 2016(149), pp.37-47.
Priestley, M. and Biesta, G. and Robinson, S. (2019) Teacher Agency: An Ecological Approach. Fourth Edition. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Priestley, M. and Minty, S. (2013) Curriculum for Excellence: ‘A brilliant idea, but…’ Scottish Educational Review 45 (1), pp.39-52.
Pyle, A., & Danniels, E. (2017). A continuum of play-based learning: The role of the teacher in play-based pedagogy and the fear of hijacking play. Early Education and Development, 28(3), 274-289.
Rosenhead, J., Franco, L.A., Grint, K. and Friedland, B., (2019) Complexity theory and leadership practice: A review, a critique, and some recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(5), p.101-304.
Ryan, R. and Deci, E. (2020) ‘Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation from a Self-Determination Theory Perspective: Definitions, Theory, Practices and Future Directions’, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61 (1), pp 1-11.
The Scottish Government (2011) Teaching Scotland’s Future: Report of a Review of Teacher Education in Scotland. Edinburgh: Available at: https://www2.gov.scot/resource/doc/337626/0110852.pdf (webarchive.org.uk) (Accessed: 3 August 2023).
Scottish Government (2013) Play Strategy for Scotland: Our Action Plan. Scotland: Available at: Play strategy for Scotland: our action plan – gov.scot (www.gov.scot) (Accessed: 1 August 2023).
Scottish Government (2019) Early Years Framework. Available at: The Early Years Framework – gov.scot (www.gov.scot) (Accessed: 14 June 2024)
Serpell, R. and Hatano, G. (1997) ‘Education, Schooling and Literacy’, in J. Berry, P. Dasen and T. Sarawathi (eds.) Handbook of Cross Cultural Psychology: Basic Processes and Human Development. USA: Allyn and Bacon, pp 339-376.
Stone, A.G., Russell, R.F., & Patterson, K. (2003) Transformational Versus Servant Leadership – A Difference in Leader Focus. Servant Leadership Roundtable. Retrieved August 3, 2023 from http://www.regent.edu/acad/cls/2003servantleadershiproundtable/stone.pdf
Torrance, D., Hume, W., (2015) ‘The Shifting Discourses of Educational Leadership: International Trends and Scotland’s Response’, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 43 (5), pp. 792-810.
Tourish, D., (2019) Is complexity leadership theory complex enough? A critical appraisal, some modifications and suggestions for further research. Organization Studies, 40(2), pp.219-238.
Uhl-Bien, M., Arena, M., (2018) ‘Leadership for Organisational Adaptability: A Theoretical Synthesis and Integrative Framework’, The Leadership Quarterly, 29, pp. 89-104.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., McKelvey, B. (2007) ‘Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting Leadership from the Industrial Age to the Knowledge Era’, The Leadership Quarterly, 18 (4), pp. 298-318.
Wenner, J.A. and Campbell, T., (2018) Thick and thin: Variations in teacher leader identity. International Journal of Teacher Leadership.
Whitebread, D., Basilio, M., Kuvalja, M., & Verma, M. (2019). The importance of play in early childhood education: A critical review. International Journal of Early Childhood, 51(3), 207-218.
Zajda, J. (2020) Globalisation, Ideology and Education Reforms: Emerging Paradigms. Dordrecht: Springer.