Reflective and Reflexive Practice in Teacher Librarianship: Leadership, Ethics and Organisational Learning

Reflective practice is a transformative process that uses structured strategies to examine the ethics, values, and beliefs that shape professional behaviour and decision‑making. Learning organisations such as schools promote reflective and reflexive practices because they enhance ethical judgement, strengthen professional identity, and support improved learning outcomes. In educational contexts, reflective practice enables professionals to make decisions that are ethically and morally responsive, thus strengthening learning cultures and supporting the continual improvement of pedagogical practices. This is particularly significant for teacher librarians, whose roles span instruction, information leadership, and curriculum‑wide collaboration. For teacher librarians, reflective practice is central to exercising instructional and informational leadership, whether formally or informally by enhancing their capacity to analyse decisions, adapt programs, and support evidence‑informed improvement across the school.

Reflective practice, encompassing both reflection and reflexivity, enables individuals to critically evaluate personal and professional experience in order to challenge assumptions, biases and ideological influences. These practices play a significant role in improving outcomes by supporting knowledge creation, organisational learning and ethical responsiveness (Robson, 2022; Bolton & Delderfield, 2018). The strength of reflective practice lies in its capacity to prompt individuals and organisations to examine behaviours, values, decisions and actions, thereby uncovering the deeper influences that shape professional practice (Robson, 2022). For teacher librarians, whose work operates at the intersection of pedagogy, information science and leadership, reflective practice is essential to lifelong learning and professional renewal (Vaandering & Crego‑Emley, 2025). Continuous reflection enables teacher librarians to evaluate their practice both as information professionals and as teachers of literacy and learning to ensure positive and equitable student outcomes.

Robson (2022) defines reflection as a set of deliberate intellectual strategies that seek to improve knowledge by identifying the beliefs and values that underpin behaviour and action. This process can be challenging because it requires individuals and organisations to engage openly, honestly and vulnerably in order to examine identity and the reasoning behind particular practices (Bolton & Delderfield, 2018). Within educational settings, reflection is indispensable for ethical practice, personal growth and the promotion of equity and diversity within learning communities. From a relational ethics perspective, reflective practice supports educators to consider how their decisions and actions affect others, particularly in contexts shaped by power, inclusion and responsibility (Bolton & Delderfield, 2018).

Two key forms of reflection are commonly identified: reflection‑in‑action and reflection‑on‑action. Reflection‑in‑action occurs during practice, requiring professionals to draw on existing knowledge, skills and values to make real‑time judgements. Bolton and Delderfield (2018) note that this form of reflection often arises when individuals recognise themselves relying on habitual routines that may or may not align with their espoused values. Reflection‑on‑action, by contrast, occurs after an event has concluded and allows practitioners to analyse actions retrospectively, evaluate outcomes and adjust future practice. This form of reflection is often considered more powerful, as it supports deliberate learning and professional growth through evidence‑informed change.

While reflection focuses on examining experience, reflexivity extends this process by interrogating position, power and purpose. Reflexivity evaluates whether behaviours align with personal and professional goals while situating practice within broader social, cultural and political contexts (Bolton & Delderfield, 2018; Willig, 2019; Vu & Burton, 2020). Scholars argue that reflexive practice challenges individuals to question their own assumptions, identity and relationships to systems, ideologies and structures of influence (Robson, 2022; Vu & Burton, 2020). Through a relational ethics lens, reflexivity draws attention to how professional actions shape—and are shaped by—relationships with students, colleagues and communities. This process heightens ethical awareness by encouraging practitioners to interrogate attitudes, prejudices and taken‑for‑granted beliefs using theoretical frameworks and professional knowledge.

Reflexivity requires the capacity to recognise and, at times, decentre one’s own perspective in order to consider alternative viewpoints and experiences (Robson, 2022). While this decentring supports moral decision‑making and meaningful change, it can also be emotionally confronting, as it demands deep introspection and often benefits from external support such as dialogue with mentors or trusted colleagues. Despite these challenges, reflexivity contributes to transformative professional development by enabling individuals to realign beliefs, values and actions with their professional purpose. As a result, reflective and reflexive practices support not only individual growth but also organisational improvement, as schools benefit from enhanced professional judgement, transparent decision‑making and shared learning (Robson, 2022).

The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers emphasise reflective practice across multiple domains, even when reflection is not explicitly named. Teachers are required to plan coherent and well‑structured lessons, select effective teaching strategies and sequence content logically, all of which necessitate reflective judgement (AITSL, 2018). Educators must consider what worked, what did not, and how practice can be refined to better meet learner needs. Regular engagement with reflective practice supports the development of critical pedagogy, as educators connect instructional decisions to outcomes and recognise gaps in knowledge or limitations in practice (Vaandering & Crego‑Emley, 2025; Bolton & Delderfield, 2018). Importantly, reflection must be distinguished from rumination. Purposeful reflection is evidence‑informed, action‑oriented and ethically grounded, whereas rumination is unproductive and rarely leads to professional growth or improvement.

Reflective practice is also central to effective educational leadership. Leaders who model reflective behaviours foster organisational learning by encouraging the sharing and refinement of both tacit and explicit knowledge (Robson, 2022). Through reflective policies and cultures of inquiry, leaders create collaborative environments in which practice is continually examined and improved. For teacher librarians, who frequently occupy informal or middle‑leadership positions, reflective leadership enables them to evaluate systems, support colleagues and advocate for responsive, inclusive learning practices. Reflection in this context functions not merely as a personal skill but as an organisational asset that drives sustainable improvement.

Reflective and reflexive practice is particularly vital for teacher librarians, whose responsibilities encompass pedagogy, information literacy, curriculum support and leadership across the school (Vaandering & Crego‑Emley, 2025). These intersecting roles require continual adaptation to evolving student and staff needs. Reflective and reflexive thinking strengthens decision‑making and enhances the capacity of teacher librarians to lead and model best practice. Reflexivity, in particular, challenges teacher librarians to test actions against professional values, knowledge and experience, transforming individual insight into integrated, ethical practice. Moral reflexivity is especially important given that school libraries often serve diverse, vulnerable and marginalised communities and operate as critical third spaces for learning and belonging (Vu & Burton, 2020). As many teacher librarians work in isolation as sole information professionals, professional networks and collegial relationships play a crucial role in providing external perspectives that support reflection and shared problem‑solving.

Despite their value, reflective and reflexive practices present challenges for educators. Time constraints, heavy workloads and competing priorities can limit opportunities for deep reflection. Reflective work may also require emotional labour, particularly when honest self‑evaluation reveals biases or areas of discomfort. Over‑reflection can lead to rumination rather than action, while a lack of psychological safety may result in superficial or performative reflection. Additionally, educators differ in their familiarity with reflective frameworks, and without appropriate guidance or structure, reflective practice may lack depth. Recognising these challenges highlights the importance of professional supports such as mentoring, coaching and collaborative communities of practice that enable meaningful and sustainable reflective engagement.

Engaging deeply in reflective and reflexive practice is fundamental to ethical, responsive and effective professional practice within learning organisations. Reflection enables educators and leaders to examine experience, improve pedagogy and make reasoned, evidence‑informed decisions, while reflexivity extends this process by interrogating identity, values and assumptions within broader relational, social and moral contexts. Together, these practices move professionals beyond technical improvement towards transformative understanding.

For teacher librarians in particular, reflective and reflexive practice underpins their work as instructional and informational leaders. Their capacity to lead literacy, inquiry and knowledge‑rich learning across the curriculum depends on continual evaluation of practice, ethical judgement and alignment between professional values and action. Through reflective leadership, teacher librarians model critical inquiry, support inclusive learning environments and contribute to organisational learning by translating individual insight into shared professional knowledge. Ultimately, reflective and reflexive leadership strengthens both individual capability and collective capacity. In schools committed to continuous improvement, reflective practice is not optional; it is a professional and moral imperative that ensures decisions remain ethically grounded, relationally responsive and centred on learner growth.

references

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2018). Australian professional standards for teachers. AITSL. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/standards

Bolton, G., & Delderfield, R. (2018). Reflective practice: Writing and professional development. ACU Library

Robson, J. (2022). Teacher professional learning and development: Practices of reflection. ACU Library

Vaandering, A. G., & Crego‑Emley, A. (2025). The library instructor as learner: A survey of reflective teaching practices in U.S. academic libraries. Communications in Information Literacy, 19(2), 220–241. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/library-instructor-as-learner-survey-reflective/docview/3295971614/se-2

Vu, T., & Burton, L. (2020). Moral reflexivity and responsible management. ACU Library

Willig, C. (2019). Interpretive phenomenology and reflexive practice. ACU Library

Transformational leadership

There are many different types of leadership styles and their suitability is dependent on the organisation and the type of outcomes desired. Schools and other learning institutions that have learning as their focus, require leaders to ensure learning outcomes are maximised for all individuals. In response to the information revolution and the digital age, MCEETYA (2009) has highlighted the necessary skill set required by young people to succeed in the twenty-first century. No longer just focused primarily on just knowledge acquisition, the modern world requires students to have critical and creative thinking skills, digital and multimodal literacy as well as competent personal and social capabilities. This transformation of educational outcomes requires a leadership style that is able to inspire change. That style of leadership is defined as transformational leadership.

There is a significant body of research indicating the efficacy of transformational leadership in modern educational institutions. Anderson (2017) describes this style as being characterised by a leader (principal) who guides their subordinates towards a shared vision and executes that change with a team. Transformational principals are able to envision the trajectory of their school towards the goals set by the Melbourne Declaration, and are able to motivate their colleagues to build successful teams and achieve that vision within the desired time frame (MCEETYA, 2009; Mindtools, 2016).

Transformational leadership promotes team building and opportunities for professional growth. This style encourages the development of leadership skills in others (Ingram, 2019). A principal who demonstrates this style of leadership recognises the importance of relationships between teachers and the need to develop teacher leaders (Longwell-McKean, 2012). They recognise the importance of building collaborative relationships and promoting professional growth to enable teachers to become leaders, and instruments of change within their teams and departments (Longwell-McKean, 2012, p. 24). Transformational principals nurture collaborative practices and professional practice in others, and as such collectively increase the level of transformation within the organisation (Longwell-McKean, 2012, p. 25).

REFERENCES:

Anderson, Matthew (2017) “Transformational Leadership in Education: A Review of Existing Literature,” International Social Science Review 93: 1. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/issr/vol93/iss1/4

Longwell -McKean, P.C. (2012). Restructuring Leadership for 21st Century Schools: How Transformational Leadership and Trust Cultivate Teacher Leadership. UC San Diego. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6746s4p9

MCEETYA (2009) Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Curriculum Corporation. Australia. Retrieved from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/national_declaration_on_the_educational_goals_for_young_australians.pdf

MindTools. (2016). Core leadership theories. https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/leadership-theories.htm

Schools as learning organisations.

The leadership and management of a school is heavily dependent on the organisation’s structure and learning culture.

Small businesses, large corporations and government agencies tend to have an organisational structure that is easily identifiable. However, schools and other learning institutions rarely adhere to a single framework and are often a medley of theories and are also heavily influenced by external political, social and economic factors. This variance in organisational framework and external influences can affect the way schools are managed and overall success achieved.

Buijs (2005) argues that the way education and teaching is viewed has a direct influence on teaching practices. Consequently, if education and learning institutions are to be viewed as centres of learning, then the focus of that organisation should be based upon pedagogical practices and the achievement of learning outcomes. Kools & Stoll (2016) elaborate upon this idea further by suggesting that schools are knowledge based organisations with community as a central focus. This is because learning and learning outcomes are exponentially increased when students are emotionally supported in the presence of strong relationships. Consequently the definition of schools as knowledge based learning organisations is more suitable as there is a shared focus on good pedagogical practice, student welfare and a strong emphasis on meaningful relationships. This means schools will have different organisational needs and require a very different leadership style. It is also important to remember that schools are not businesses and cannot be run for a profit from an ethical or moral point of view (Kools & Stoll, 2016).

The reality is that most local schools are part of larger organisations, such as education departments or charters, and or have strong links to religious affliliations. This means that as part of larger conglomerates, they are not an independent organisation but are at the behest of the policies and procedures of the parent. This acknowledgement of a parent organisation confirms the presence of machine theory, which can make some schools inefficient and rigid because they are unable to meet the local community due to the largely bureaucratic nature of the overarching organisation. This can be fairly common in education department schools that have to follow a central path instead of meeting the needs of their local community.

Besides the presence of the overarching machine theory, most individual schools are aligned along the classic management format with a clearly defined hierarchy of authority emanating from the principalship down to heads of faculty, team leaders and then classroom teachers (Kokemuller, 2017). This structure is generally very stable as there are distinct channels of communication and in most circumstances staff are compliant as this system is often replicated across schools and sectors (Kokemuller, 2017).

Interestingly, few schools adhere to the professional organisational theory even though the teachers are considered to be highly educated and thus should have volition of their professional practice. This difference could be due to the difference in how teachers view their own organisation and the way the organisation views teachers. Classroom teachers view their profession as a student centred and have learning outcomes at the focus of their practice. But as schools are often viewed as public property, the actions and decisions made by school leaders are often influenced by the politics and society. The presence of national curriculums, state syllabi, standardised testing and performance reviews limit the professional autonomy of practice teachers truly have. These decisions, such as standardised testing, are often used to measure the efficacy of teachers and schools rather than determining and then resolving inequity between students (Berry, 2018). It also puts into focus the trust and level of professional courtesy extended to teachers themselves by the governing authority and the greater community.

What influences a school’s decision making?

Whilst schools place a system of caring as its focus is beneficial to students, there are some negatives for teachers. Kools & Stool (2017) argue that using vision and purpose to bind workers to an organisation is not always in the worker’s best interests as it puts the organisation’s vision above the needs of the employee. Consistently putting the needs of the organisation above the worker can quickly lead to employee dissatisfaction, reduction in morale and increased attrition rates. This is glaringly obvious when considering the high attrition of teaching staff due to disillusionment and a lack of support (Stroud, 2017). Currently, it is touted that over half of people who hold a teaching degree do not currently work in education and almost a fifth of new graduates do not even register as teachers upon completion of their degree (Stroud, 2017). These statistics do not bode well for schools as learning organisations in the long term. Schools are learning organisations and should be focused on the needs of their learning community and the relationships that support that learning for staff and students.

The unfortunate truth is that the education sector is at the behest of public funds and as such are dependent on governmental policies as well as societal expectations. This means that till there is a consensus about what the actual focus is of schools and other educational institutions, there will continue to be uncertainty about its outcomes, and for the people that work within the system.

The OECD’s report about schools being a learning organisation acknowledges that student learning needs to be the focus of educational institutions (OECD, 2016). It points out that as a learning organisation, schools need to have the flexibility to adapt quickly to changing circumstances, as well as having the internal frameworks to embrace emerging technologies and innovative practice (OECD, 2016). It is evidently clear that for students to receive the necessary skills and knowledge required for the 21st century, schools need to have a shared and collaborative approach to learning. As such, there is a clear need for schools to have a shared vision, a positive culture of learning, support professional development and collaboration, and be able to exchange information freely with the external environment (OECD, 2016, p.1). This type of organisation values its staff members as professionals, and places importance in building those valuable relationships.

Schools are indeed organisations that promote learning and need to have a strong focus on their learning community which includes staff and students. Unfortunately, education sectors are at the behest of public funds and as such are dependent on governmental policies as well as societal expectations. This means that till there is a consensus about what the actual focus is of schools and other educational institutions, there will continue to be uncertainty about its outcomes, and the people that embedded within the system.

References:

Buijs, J. (2005). Teaching: Profession or vocation? Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 8; 3. Pp 326-345. Retrieved from https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/cej/article/view/590/579

Berry, Y. (March 20, 2018). Time to drop NAPLAN? We shouldn’t treat school like a competition. The Canberra Times. Retrieved from https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6021749/time-to-drop-naplan-we-shouldnt-treat-school-like-a-competition/digital-subscription/

Kokemuller, N. (2017). Mintzberg’s five types of organizational structure. Hearst Newspapers: Small business. http://smallbusiness.chron.com/mintzbergs-five-types-organizational-structure-60119.html

Kools, M. and Stoll L. (2016), “What Makes a School a Learning Organisation?”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 137, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jlwm62b3bvh-en

Laming, M.M. and Horne, M. (2013) Career change teachers: Pragmatic choice or a vocation postponed? Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19 (3). pp. 326-343.

OECD. (2016). What makes a school a learning organisation? A guide for policy makers, school leaders and teachers. UNICEF – Office of Research-Innocenti. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/school/school-learning-organisation.pdf

Stroud, G. (2017). Why do teachers leave? ABC News – Opinion. Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-04/why-do-teachers-leave/8234054

Leadership – The beginning of ETL504

The action of leading a group of people or an organisation.

Leaders are people with the ability to use social influence rather than formal authority to convince others to follow their vision. Leaders can be appointed or emerge from the ranks, and thus the qualities of leadership are not correlated to seniority, nor a person’s position in an organisation. This is because the ability to inspire others is based upon their ability to influence rather than power or authority (Kruse, 2013).

There are two main objectives of a leader, the first one is to use their influence to convince people to work cohesively together, and the second one is to have a task, vision or goal in mind to focus their influence upon (Mindtools, 2016). This leads to the summation that the type of leader will be dependent upon the vision, the cohort and the environment the leader is working with and that there is no one correct type of leader. Consequently it can be theorised that leaders and leadership style will vary depending on the circumstances in which the organisation finds itself in (Mindtools, 2016). This means that unlike previous years where good leadership was assumed to be within the realms of charismatic individuals, the modern perspective of leadership is instead perceived to be situational and team based (Klingborg et al., 2014; Kruse, 2013; Mindtools, 2016).

Unfortunately, leadership roles and management are often confused for each other. This is a fallacy as leaders are not necessarily managers. Whilst there are similarities between the two roles, there is a difference in the spheres of influence. Both leaders and managers can be appointed to their positions and the efficacy of both can impact an organisation, but in different ways. Ingram (2019) points out that leaders are focused on the future and therefore provide goals and incentives for their team to achieve, whereas managers are focused on the achievements of the day. This means that leaders are required to provide opportunities for personal growth and collaboration in order to promote individual and group performance (Ingram, 2019). Managers are not mandated to provide the same level of access to personal development as their task is to use their legitimately appointed power to ensure tasks get completed on time, whereas leaders are tasked with using their socially influenced power to induce others to engage and participate in their vision or goal over a period of time (Kruse, 2013; Ingram, 2019). Whilst leaders are not always managers, it is helpful for managers to also possess leadership qualities or traits.

References

Ingram, D. (2019, February 4). Transformational leadership vs transactional leadership definition. Hearst Newspapers: Small Business. http://smallbusiness.chron.com/transformational-leadership-vs-transactional-leadership-definition-13834.html

Klingborg, D., Moore., D, & Varea-Hammond, S. (2006). What Is Leadership? Journal of veterinary medical education. 33. 280-3. 10.3138/jvme.33.2.280.

Kruse, K. (2013). What is leadership? Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2013/04/09/what-is-leadership/?sh=3bcbe1115b90

MindTools. (2016). Core leadership theories. https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/leadership-theories.htm