Personal Blogs

This article present a very open and contemporary approach to learning, in that students and  teachers take the responsibility of learning collaboratively, to the extent that teachers may as well be called as 'learning advisers'. i understand the concept and do believe that this is a good idea. but still, two questions remain:

1. can this frame be defined as one of 'distributed leadership'? the main discussion in the article is rather based on the ownership of learning, i.e., distributing ownership to an overarching community that encompasses not only policy makers and school administrations but also individual teachers and learners (students). in this regard, i'd rather think that the frame described is one of transformative leadership exercised by the policy makers and administrations, and teachers and learners alike are delegated to become 'agents' of this transformation.
2. it is not clear that this approach would indeed be beneficial in all stages of learning, that is, from K-12 to undergraduate to postgraduate education alike. it is probably a very good idea for postgraduate learning (my own context) in which learners may actually own and  lead their individual learning by virtue of their backgrounds but may not be as good an idea in primary schools in which, as also demonstrated in this article, the role defined for learners would rather be one of improving their learning within a predefined context. again, it becomes agency rather than leadership.

so in summary, it is either me or the authors who are confused about the definition of leadership.