01.Professional Learning and Development
Paper
Teachers’ Responses to Expectations about School Improvement: Empirical findings from Switzerland
Vera Niederberger, Guri Skedsmo
Schwyz University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Presenting Author: Niederberger, Vera
Objectives and purposes
With the establishment of performance-based accountability (PBA) policies that combine various types of data about educational quality to form a basis for school improvement (Verger et al., 2019), the demand for evidence-based practices in education has increased significantly. In Switzerland, a competency-based curriculum for primary schools in the German-speaking cantons was introduced in 2018–19 along with standardised tests that provide data on educational quality for cantonal authorities. At the same time, the external evaluation of schools and legal regulations remain strong policy instruments. One example is the regulation of formative assessment in a canton in Central Switzerland, Schwyz. This paper examines how school actors respond to new expectations by applying various data sources and aligning their practices with new legal requirements. Particular attention is directed towards how teacher teams negotiate and make sense of the various data sources to make decisions about classroom practices to improve student learning.
Theoretical perspectives
This paper draws on two theoretical perspectives. The governance perspective emphasises the interplay of various policy instruments, routines and rules in the school system or school organisation, while the enactment perspective helps identify priorities and conditions for local school actors to respond to new governing expectations to improve classroom practices in specific socio-institutional settings (Ball, 2011; Braun et al., 2011). We also explore how the various data sources can be used to develop practices, such as bounded decision-making, leading to formal and informal learning across teacher teams in the school organisation (Cain et al., 2019).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study is conducted in two schools in Switzerland and it has a qualitative design that includes interviews with key persons, document analysis and ethnographically inspired observations of various meetings focusing on development work. Data sources include transcripts from the conducted interviews, field notes from the observations and key documents, such as school development plans and material developed by the teacher teams. The combination of these data sources will help to understand the situational contexts and the larger school context and it allows an approach that is not based only on self-reported data.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsExpected Findings
Policy is often premised on the idea that access to evidence-based knowledge will lead to the use of this knowledge (e.g. Schildkamp et al., 2017). Preliminary findings of this paper suggest that teachers’ use of data sources is often implicit as teachers integrate the various sources (i.e. student performance data, experience, research evidence, contextual information about students) in their decision-making. However, new regulations regarding assessment practices seem to shape teachers’ practices in somewhat instrumental ways.
Scientific significance
The paper shows how school actors respond to new expectations, particularly in terms of how they negotiate and make sense of data sources to improve classroom practices. Through the chosen design and methodological approaches, the article contributes to a deeper understanding of the interplay between performance-oriented and regulatory policy instruments and provides implications for teachers’ professionalism.
ReferencesBall, S. J., Maguire, M. & Braun, A. (2011). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. Routledge.
Braun, A., Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Taking context seriously: Towards explaining policy enactments in the secondary school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 585–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2011.601555
Cain, T., Brindley, S., Brown, C., Jones, G., & Riga, F. (2019). Bounded decision-making, teachers’ reflection and organisational learning: How research can inform teachers and teaching. British Educational Research Journal, 45(5), 1072–1087. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3551
Schildkamp, K., Poortman, C., Luyten, H., & Ebbeler, J. (2017). Factors promoting and hindering data-based decision making in schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(2), 242–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2016.1256901
Verger, A., Fontdevila, C., & Parcerisa, L. (2019). Reforming governance through policy instruments: How and to what extent standards, tests and accountability in education spread worldwide. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 40(2), 248–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2019.1569882
01.Professional Learning and Development
Paper
School Networks: A divergent approach to Teacher Professional Learning
Ruth Bourke
Mary Immaculate College, Ireland
Presenting Author: Bourke, Ruth
Internationally, there has been a proliferation of networks in education over the last two decades and much literature has been written on the models, processes and interactions involved (Azorín and Muijs 2017; Azorín 2020; Azorín et al. 2020; Brown and Flood 2020; Rincón-Gallardo 2020). This paper presents findings from an original piece of research in Ireland which sought to understand how two networks of DEIS schools have supported individual members and schools over a twenty-year period. DEIS is the Irish government policy instrument to address educational disadvantage.
In addition to contributing to the evidence and practice base nationally and internationally, this research developed a unique Conceptual Framework to problematise the networks from a policy, practice and theoretical perspective. As such it draws on national and international education policy, literature on school networks, social theory on the reproduction of inequality in education, social capital theory and the social learning theory of Communities of Practice to recognise the complexity of the two networks and match them with conceptual tools that do not, in Lima’s words (2010, p. 2), ‘oversimplify’. The CF maps the interplay between the key elements in the analysis of the networks drawn from the literature i.e., composition, structure, purpose, processes, dynamics, effectiveness and challenges (Hadfield and Chapman 2009; Lima 2010; Muijs et al. 2011; Rincón-Gallardo and Fullan 2016; Azorín and Muijs 2017; Azorín 2020; Azorín et al. 2020) and the domain, community and practice of CoPs (Wenger 1998; Wenger Trayner and Wenger-Trayer 2015), illustrating how they can co-exist. It also demonstrates how social capital is built internally through bonding social capital (Putnam 2000) and externally through bridging (ibid) and linking social capital (Grootaert et al. 2004) to support schools in the face of societal and economic inequity and social and cultural reproduction of inequality in education. In doing so, the networks help to connect the micro level of the DEIS school to the macro level of national education policy mediating through the meso layer in the centralised Irish system. This research captures and analyses the multifaceted nature of the networks and illuminates the structures, processes and interactions through which the aims of the networks and outcomes from participants’ perspectives are realised at the individual level (i.e., professional learning, growth and development of leadership skills and occupational wellbeing of members), and collective level (i.e., mobilising resources and support for schools involved in a variety of areas, advocacy and raising awareness of the concerns of member schools). The CF also recognises and illuminates the challenges and limitations of these networks theoretically, practically and in terms of policy. This approach will be of benefit to other researchers internationally who wish to situate school networks or indeed, other collaborative professional learning within practice, policy and theory.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedA qualitative research design was employed, utilising an exploratory, instrumental case study (Stake 1995). The aim was to gain a holistic overview of the context of each network, to understand the emic perspective of participants and describe the ways in which they have come to ‘understand, account for, take action and otherwise manage their day to day situations’ (Miles et al. 2014, p. 8-9).
The case study approach involved gathering primary data through focus groups (N=3), in-depth individual interviews (N=26) and surveys (N=26) with network members. Secondary data analysed included documentary analysis of agendas and minutes of meetings from 1999 to 2018. Multiple methods and sources of data generation facilitated triangulation of sources of evidence (Creswell 2014; Robson 2011; Yin 2009; Merriam 1999; Stake 1995).
The analytic strategy adopted in the research drew on a variety of proponents of qualitative and case study research, including Stake (Stake 1995; Merriam 1998; Yin 2009; Robson 2011; Creswell 2014; Miles et al. 2014) to establish a systematic, thorough and comprehensive strategy for analysis and interpretation of the data.
Creswell (2014, pp. 197-201) advocates a six-step general process for qualitative data analysis that was followed. The coding strategy for analysis of interview and focus group data was adapted from Miles et al. (2014, pp. 71-93) and involved first and second cycle coding in Nvivo. Surveys were analysed using SPSS and redacted minutes and agendas of meetings were analysed through one cycle of coding and incorporated specifically for contextual and historical information and to triangulate participants’ accounts.
Themes/categories formed the major findings of the research as presented in case study reports and were analysed for each case and then across cases (Creswell 2014). Findings were then drafted in narrative form i.e., case study reports, with a detailed description of each case, the key emergent themes and sub-themes and discussion with inter-connecting themes. Explanation building (Yin 2009) involved constructing an explanation about the case through the analysis of the case study data. This iterative process involved examining the case study evidence, revising the theoretical stance and re-examination of evidence from a ‘new perspective’. The final step in the analysis involved making an interpretation of the findings or results i.e., what are the lessons learned? These are the researcher’s personal interpretation, ‘couched in the understanding that the inquirer brings to the study from a personal culture, history and experiences’ (Creswell 2014, p. 200).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe two networks were found to be teacher professional learning and support networks (Azorín 2020) that assist schools in challenging circumstances to respond to intractable social issues by:
1) Enhancing Teacher Professional Learning (TPL) of members, building professional capital and supporting members’ wellbeing;
2) Supporting schools involved to implement key educational policy i.e., School Self-Evaluation and Wellbeing;
3) Connecting network members’ priorities to those of key stakeholders through the development of social capital;
4) Building lateral capacity for systemic change.
Additionally, the research acknowledges that there are challenges to networking and limitations to these particular networks including exclusion of those not in particular roles or particular schools which can also lead to homogeneity and power imbalances.
Essentially, these networks represent a ‘divergent’ (Stoll 2010, p. 472) approach to TPL that is required to support schools to respond to the progressively more complex nature of society and the myriad of pervasive challenges faced including societal inequity, income poverty, health inequality, the climate crisis and migration. They do so through an informal process of learning centered on developing bonding social capital and the ‘social formation’ (Pyrko et al. 2017, p. 351) of network members’ professional identities and by supporting DEIS schools to develop networked agency (Hadfield and Chapman 2009) through bridging and linking social capital. This is significant in the absence of a ‘joined up’ response to educational inequality in a context where educational policy makers and subsequent piecemeal interventions for schools view ‘educational disadvantage’ as an isolated, school based issue for teachers to deal with, rather than a wider societal concern that recognises the endemic nature and intersectionality of multiple dimensions of inequality and thus requiring a whole government response to social exclusion involving a range of departments and agencies (Cahill 2015; Fleming and Hartford 2021; Jeffers and Lillis 2021).
ReferencesAzorín, C. (2020) 'Leading Networks', School Leadership & Management, 40(2-3), 105-110, available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2020.1745396.
Azorín, C.M. and Muijs, D. (2017) 'Networks and collaboration in Spanish education policy', Educational Research, 59(3), 273-296, available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2017.1341817
Creswell, J.W. (2014) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th ed., London: SAGE.
Fleming, B. and Harford, J. (2021) 'The DEIS programme as a policy aimed at combating educational disadvantage: fit for purpose?’, Irish educational studies, 1-19, available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2021.1964568 .
Grootaert, C., Narayan, D., Nyhan Jones, V. and Woolcock, W. (2004) Measuring Social Capital: An Integrated Questionnaire, Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Hadfield, M. and Chapman, C. (2009) Leading School-based Networks, Oxon: Routledge..
Lima, J.Á. (2010) 'Thinking more deeply about networks in education', Journal of Educational Change, 11(1), 1-21, available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10833-008-9099-1 Merriam, S.B. (1998) Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. and Saldaña, J. (2014) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook, 3rd ed., London: SAGE Publications.
Muijs, D., Ainscow, M., Chapman, C. and West, M. (2011) Collaboration and Networking in Education, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Putnam, R.D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York: Simon & Schuster.
Pyrko, I., Dörfler, V. and Eden, C. (2016) 'Thinking together: What makes Communities of Practice work?’, Human Relations, 70(4), 389-409, available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726716661040 .
Pyrko, I., Dörfler, V. and Eden, C. (2019) 'Communities of practice in landscapes of practice', Management Learning, 50(4), 482-499, available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1350507619860854 .
Rincón-Gallardo, S. and Fullan, M. (2016) 'Essential features of effective networks in education', Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 1(1), 5-22, available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-09-2015-0007 .
Rincón-Gallardo, S. (2020) 'Leading school networks to liberate learning: three leadership roles', School Leadership & Management, 40(2-3), 146-162, available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1702015 .
Robson, C. (2011) Real World Research: A Resource for users of Social Research Methods in Applied Settings, 3rd ed., Chichester: Wiley.
Stake, R.E. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research, Thousand Oaks, California London: Sage.
Stoll, L. (2010) 'Connecting Learning Communities: Capacity Building for Systemic Change' in Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M. and Hopkins, D., eds., 341 Second International Handbook of Educational Change, Springer Netherlands, 469-484.
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger-Trayner, E. and Wenger-Trayner, B. (2015) Communities of Practice: A Brief Introduction, available: https://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/ [accessed 31 October 2022].
Yin, R.K. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th ed., London: SAGE.
01.Professional Learning and Development
Paper
Collegial Planning and Preparation as Subject-didactical School Improvement
Kenneth Nordgren1, Ann-Christin Randahl2, Ingela Portfelt1, Yvonne Liljekvist1, Martin Jakobsson1, Anette Forssten Seiser1
1Karlstad university, Sweden; 2Gothenburg university
Presenting Author: Portfelt, Ingela;
Liljekvist, Yvonne
This paper reports on a project aiming to develop empirical and theoretical knowledge about teachers' planning and preparations (PaP) of lessons as a didactical collegial practice and how this shapes and is shaped by the local school organization. One goal is to explore and theoretically describe PaP as a collegial practice by contrasting different subjects over time. Another is to analytically explore how these settings affect and enable teachers' ability to make strategic decisions for students' learning. Finally, the aim is to examine local school improvement efforts. The project is based on longitudinal case studies wherein teachers of different school subjects had time to plan and prepare lessons. The collegial setting was organized to facilitate teachers' focus on student learning, primarily subject-oriented and sometimes cross-curricular, but always oriented to a learning object. This design allowed us to study teachers' transformational competence over time and between subjects by following their decisions about content, learning goals and objects, sequencing, and adjusting to students' needs and interests. This design opened up for comparative analyses to better understand similarities and differences between and across subjects. Further, the schools have different management cultures, one more individual and one more collegial. How PaP is implemented and refigured in regard to the local school organization is also examined in the project. We will be asking three research questions:
- RQ1: How do teachers' PaP appear as a transformational competence when scheduled as collegial collaboration?
- RQ2: How does the collegial teaching setting affect teachers' ability to make strategic decisions in relation to students' learning?
- RQ3: How is school leading prefigured in the implementation process of scheduled collegial PaP at participating schools, and what are the implications for the local school organizations?
What motivates this focus on PaP? In short, we know little about how collegial planning affects teachers' transformational competence and how this may be context-bound to different subjects, nor about its infrastructural function in the local school organization (Hirsh, & Lindberg, 2015; Yuan, & Zhang, 2016). Such evidence-informed knowledge is needed as PaP involves complex strategic decisions that have been shown to benefit from adequate collegial cooperation (Nordgren et al., 2019; 2022). As teachers can make a difference in student learning beyond socio-economic restraints (Hattie, 2008), school authorities and research communities alike have invested in enhancing teachers' professionalism both through collegial and individual strategies (Chetty et al., 2014; Lefstein et al., 2020). Consequently, it is a paradox that planning is largely overlooked as a fundamental activity for generating qualitative teaching. Boeskens and Nusche (2021) note that student learning does not correlate with lesson time as such, but with 'the time students spend engaged with tasks that are of adequate difficulty' (p. 12). To improve teaching quality, teachers have to canalize their knowledge through their PaP. If PaP is compromised due to organizational or ability restrictions, teaching quality will also be compromised. Yet, the role of teachers' planning is seldom distinguished in political reforms nor as a salient practice in school improvement research. In subject-didactical research, the planning–teaching–reflecting cycle is acknowledged as core to teachers' professionalism (Carlson & Daehler, 2019), yet it is seldom targeted for study (Boeskens & Nusche, 2021). Evidence indicates that whether the school improvement efforts target collegial cooperation or teacher leadership, a necessary condition for enduring improvements is teachers' ability to think strategically and autonomously about students’ learning processes (Kennedy, 2016).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedSelection: The project was carried out in cooperation with one upper secondary school and one lower secondary school in Sweden. Voluntary schools were selected based on interest and size. In addition, the school leaders had to participate actively, and the teachers had to be allotted joint weekly planning time. The upper secondary school is in a mid-sized city. There are six planning teams organized based on teaching content: history, mathematics (three on three levels), technology, and physics. Each team consists of two to four participants. The whole management team (two directors and six principals) is participating in the project. The lower secondary school is in a municipality. The teachers are divided into six planning teams in one subject, Swedish, each with two teachers. One principal represents the lower secondary school. In total, the project monitors around 25 teachers, nine school leaders, and 600 students.
Implementation: Planning teams (PTs) were set up to meet weekly at a scheduled time. Each PT plans and prepares teaching sequences. Each PT had one contact in the research group with subject-didactical expertise. A specific focus was on to what extent the collegial setting supports teachers' formative strategies. School leaders were actively involved in implementing the project. The school leaders met regularly to discuss the project's implications with experts in school development research.
Data: Audio-recorded PT group meetings, audio-recorded interviews with school leaders, and additional planning documents.
Analysis procedure: Audio recordings from the PTs has been analyzed thematically. We have developed a framework for categorizing the data. Categories developed a priori (previous research and theory) were combined with categories a posteriori (deductive and inductive steps in the analytical procedure) (e.g. Österholm et al., 2016). The framework makes it possible to navigate the extensive data and analyze singular themes (e.g. teachers' choice of activity), correlation (choice of activity and formative teaching), or the whole iterative process of how teachers transform content plays out over time and in different subjects. Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) and particularly the dimension of Specialization is used to analyze teachers’ transformational competence as they take strategic decisions on students' learning (Maton, 2014). The NVivo coding enables us to search the extensive data to make comparative analyses overtime on what themes different PTs decide to focus. The coded PT meetings are also influential in searching for and unpacking the collegial setting and the complexity of strategic decisions.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAs already mentioned, we have comprehensive data. Our analytical results are preliminary and most of the material has not yet been analyzed. The initial findings can briefly be summarised: Collegial PaP as practice: After a negotiating period, a collegial PaP practice was developed. The teams started targeting specific areas that they wanted to explore. After a while, teachers began to implement research-based models to develop their teaching. PaP as transformation: Teachers do have formative ambitions but struggle to find effective and functional methods. A comparative perspective: Planning teams approach the PaP process differently, which seems to be related to subject-specific causes. For example, the planning team in History spent 36% on specifying objectives and knowledge whereas the planning team in Mathematics spent 5% on that theme. In a closer analysis of the teachers’ interactions, different beliefs about knowledge and knowers appeared where a hierarchical knowledge structure and a horizontal knower structure were identified in Mathematics and a horizontal knowledge structure and a hierarchical knower structure were identified in History (Jakobsson et al., 2022). PaP Implementation: It seems to take a rather limited amount of time for teachers to take PaP ownership. The local management culture seems to be of importance but in a complex way. The results show how methods that support dialogue, intersubjectivity, and unforced consensus enable the progress of an equivalent collaboration (Forssten Seiser, & Portfelt, 2022). In addition, the results reveal how a lack of shared agreements regarding the purpose of collaboration constraints, or even prevents, co-ownership. Hence, PaP is a complex and strategic decision; schools need to consider how to organize this activity adequately. We suggest that this calls for a balance between teachers' time for individual planning and marking and time with colleagues as a supportive setting for joint planning and strategic decisions.
ReferencesBoeskens, L., & Nusche, D. (2021). "Not enough hours in the day: Policies that shape teachers' use of time". OECD Education Working Papers, No. 245, OECD Publishing.
Carlson, J., & Daehler, K. R. (2019). The refined consensus model of pedagogical content knowledge in science education. In: Hume A., Cooper R., Borowski A. (Eds.), Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers' knowledge for teaching science (pp. 77-92). Springer.
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers I: Evaluating bias in teacher value-added estimates. American Economic Review, 104(9), 2593-2632.
Forssten Seiser, A., & Portfelt, I. (2022). Critical aspects to consider when establishing collaboration between school leaders and researchers: two cases from Sweden. Educational action research, 1-16.
Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement: Routledge.
Hirsh, Å., & Lindberg, V. (2015). Formativ bedömning på 2000-talet–en översikt av svensk och internationell forskning. Vetenskapsrådet
Jakobsson, M., Randahl, A. C., & Nordgren, K. (2022). Planification et préparation collégiale des cours en Suède. Revue internationale d’éducation de Sèvres, (90), 127-137.
Kennedy, M. (2016), "How does professional development improve teaching?", Review of Educational Research, Vol. 86/4, pp. 945-980
Lefstein, A., Vedder-Weiss, D., & Segal, A. (2020). Relocating research on teacher learning: Toward pedagogically productive talk. Educational researcher, 49, 0013189X2092299.
Maton, K. (2014). Building powerful knowledge: The significance of semantic waves. In: B. Barrett & E. Rata (Eds.), Knowledge and the future of the curriculum (pp 181-197). Palgrave studies in excellence and equity in global education. Palgrave Macmillan
Merritt, E. G. (2016). Time for teacher learning, planning critical for school reform. Phi delta kappan, 98(4), 31-36.
Nordgren, K., Bergh, D., Duek, S., Liljekvist, Y., & Jakobsson, M. (2022). Rektorers uppfattningar om undervisningens villkor och en skola på vetenskaplig grund: En uppföljande enkätstudie till undersökningen Lärares planering och efterarbete av lektioner: Infrastrukturer för kollegialt samarbete och forskningssamverkan. Karlstads universitet.
Nordgren, K., Kristiansson, M., Liljekvist, Y., & Bergh, D. (2019). Lärares planering och efterarbete av lektioner: Infrastrukturer för kollegialt samarbete och forskningssamverkan. KUP
Nordgren, K. (2019). Boundaries of historical consciousness: a Western cultural achievement or an anthropological universal? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(6), 779-797.
Yuan, R., & Zhang, J. (2016). Promoting teacher collaboration through joint lesson planning: Challenges and coping strategies. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(5), 817–
Österholm, M., Bergqvist, T., Liljekvist, Y., & van Bommel, J. (2016). Utvärdering av Matematiklyftets resultat: slutrapport.Umeå Universitet.
|
