11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance
Paper
Early Childhood Teachers' Perspectives Toward the Importance of Teacher Leadership: What Really Matters?
Raúl González-Fernández, Laura Guerrero-Puerta, María-Luz Cacheiro-González, Ernesto López-Gómez
UNED, Spain
Presenting Author: Guerrero-Puerta, Laura;
López-Gómez, Ernesto
Over the last decades, pedagogical leadership has been consolidated as a key factor to promote the quality of educational institutions. It is a commonplace, but it is also highlighted in the results of educational indicators and in educational policy studies: leadership matters. Traditionally, leadership has been linked to the formal roles of management, especially to the head or principal (Fullan, 2014; González-Falcón et al., 2020), however the most recent research has highlighted on the relevant role of middle leaders (De Nobile, 2018; Gurr, 2023; Lipscombe et al., 2023) and teacher leadership (Muijs y Harris, 2003; Pan et al., 2023). It should also be noted that research has been contextualized more often in secondary education and to a lesser extent in the context of early childhood education (Heikka, et al., 2018; Fonsén et al., 2023; Cooper, 2023).
In this framework, this contribution aims to analyze the perspectives about pedagogical leadership of Early Childhood teachers. More specifically, the objective is to explore the perception of early childhood teachers about the importance of indicators of the teacher's pedagogical leadership to explore the possibilities to implement theoretical models in practice through initial and continuous training.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedWe present a survey study focus on gathered the perceptions of Early Childhood teachers regarding the importance of teacher pedagogical leadership. The participants in this research are 36 teachers of five schools located in Madrid Region. The 88.90% are women (n= 60) and the 66.7% teach in the second cycle (3-6 years) of early childhood education. Regarding teaching experience, it is very varied (while 52.8% have less than three years of experience, 27.8% have more than ten years).
The instrument was a questionnaire specifically designed for this purpose, considering the background of the literature and especially the proposals of Gento (2002) and González-Fernández et al. (2020, 2021). The questionnaire includes 26 items, which is filled by the teachers on a 6-point scale according to the importance they ascribed to each indicator of teacher pedagogical leadership. Also, the survey includes three open-ended questions about pedagogical leadership in early childhood education (advantages, competencies necessary for teacher leadership and the relationship between leadership-quality). The internal consistency coefficient showed that questionnaire is highly reliable (.913). The questionnaire of this study was distributed during September 2013. The results were analyzed with an exploratory and descriptive approach with SPSS v24 and we also conducted thematic analysis with coding to delve deeper into the arguments and teaching reflections on teacher leadership.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe results showed interesting results that allow us to answer our research objectives. First, it should be noted that the set of indicators derived from Gento's (2002) theoretical model are globally valued as important by the participating teachers. However, the quantitative study highlights that the participating teachers perceive the indicators included in the professional, emotional, and charismatic dimensions as more important than those included in the administrative and training dimensions (Gento et al., 2022).
Although it is important to delve into the analysis by items, this result has implications for establishing policies that affect issues that really matter while reducing irrelevant ones (excessive bureaucratization of teaching, which reduces the capacity to innovate and improve).
In a complementary way, the qualitative analysis carried out allows us to interpret the quantitative scores and position the teacher's pedagogical leadership as an informal but very relevant role in the life of schools (Scallon et al., 2023). Its relevance is in the direct educational relationship with students, and the capacity to improve school coexistence, inclusion, and guidance/tutoring (Fernández y López, 2023; López-Gómez et al., 2020).
These results, which should be interpreted considering limitations of generalization, will be discussed to propose a teacher professional development program focused on specific teacher leadership in Early Childhood Education and related teaching competencies.
ReferencesCooper, M. (2023). Teachers grappling with a teacher-leader identity: Complexities and tensions in early childhood education. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 26(1), 54-74.
De Nobile, J. (2018). Towards a theoretical model of middle leadership in schools. School Leadership & Management, 38(4), 395-416.
Fernández, V., & López, J. (2023). The effect of teacher leadership on students’ purposeful learning. Cogent Social Sciences, 9(1), 2197282.
Fonsén, E., Szecsi, T., Kupila, P., Liinamaa, T., Halpern, C., & Repo, M. (2023). Teachers’ pedagogical leadership in early childhood education. Educational Research, 65(1), 1-23.
Fullan, M. (2014). The principal. Three keys to maximizing impact. Jossey-Bass.
Gento, S. (2002). Instituciones Educativas para la Calidad Total. La Muralla.
Gento, S., González-Fernández, R. y López-Gómez, E. (2022). Heads of educational institutions and expansion of autonomy with accountability. The mediating role of pedagogical leadership. Revista Española de Pedagogía, 80 (281), 193-209. https://doi.org/10.22550/REP80-1-2022-07
González-Falcón, I., García-Rodríguez, M. P., Gómez-Hurtado, I., & Carrasco-Macías, M. J. (2020). The importance of principal leadership and context for school success: Insights from ‘(in) visible school’. School Leadership & Management, 40(4), 248-265.
González-Fernández, R., Khampirat, B., López-Gómez, E., & Silfa-Sención, H. O. (2020). La evidencia del liderazgo pedagógico de directores, jefes de estudios y profesorado desde la perspectiva de las partes interesadas. Estudios sobre Educación, 39, 207-228.
González-Fernández, R., López-Gómez, E., Khampirat, B. y Gento, S. (2021). Measuring the importance of pedagogical leadership according to the stakeholders’ perception. Revista de Educación, 394, 39-65.
Gurr, D. (2023). A review of research on middle leaders in schools. International encyclopedia of education. London, England: Elsevier.
Heikka, J., Halttunen, L., & Waniganayake, M. (2018). Perceptions of early childhood education professionals on teacher leadership in Finland. Early Child Development and Care, 188(2), 143-156.
Lipscombe, K., Tindall-Ford, S., & Lamanna, J. (2023). School middle leadership: A systematic review. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 51(2), 270-288.
López-Gómez, E., González-Fernández, R., Medina-Rivilla, A. y Gento-Palacios, S. (2020). Proposal to Promote Quality of Education: A View from Spain. En H. Flavian (Ed.), From Pedagogy to Quality Assurance in Education: An International Perspective (pp. 29-44). Emerald.
Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership—Improvement through empowerment? An overview of the literature. Educational management & administration, 31(4), 437-448.
Pan, H. L. W., Wiens, P. D., & Moyal, A. (2023). A bibliometric analysis of the teacher leadership scholarship. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121, 103936.
11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance
Paper
The Quest For a Quality of Career in Academia
Jana Poláchová Vašťatková, Dita Palaščáková
PalackyUniversity Olomouc, Czech Republic
Presenting Author: Palaščáková, Dita
In the past few decades, public universities have undergone significant changes, which have reshaped academic work and workplaces (Bentley et al. 2013; Teichler et al. 2013). Technological advancements, globalization etc underline the changing role of universities in the society. The career development systems based on linear male models are no longer relevant to meet the needs of today’s society in diverse contexts. Although there has been an ongoing debate about the impacts of this global shift on the career development of academics (Bentley et al. 2013), in certain countries the linear model of an academic career persists.
When examining the careers of academics, particular attention is paid to factors influencing leaving the academia or the university. The findings underline the career age, career stage, tenure status and scientific field as the strongest predictors of intention to exit academia (White-Lewis, D.K., O’Meara, K. & Mathews, K., 2023). Nontenured academics and academics in early stages of the career report lower job satisfaction than senior academics. Focusing on the group of young academics in the beginning of their professional path in the Czech Republic brings also the focus on the position of women in the Czech republic. Women increase the number of graduates on the level of doctoral programmes in contrary to the representation of women in the number of professors and associate professors in the country in the last two decades (Cidlonská & Vohlídalová, 2015).
Quality or success in academic career from the neoliberal perspective can be linked to the H-index, number of published articles or solved grants or to the linear concept of career, i.e. the gradual acquisition of academic degrees or functions. However, the rather new theory called the Kaleidoscope Career Model (as it is rooted in social cognitive career theory) explains the phenomenon of women’s careers through three career parameters: authenticity, balance, and challenge.
To address the outlined issue, the following main research question has been set: How do the female academics in social sciences understand success in their career?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis research focuses on successful careers, rather than on constraints and barriers, which is the feature of much previous research. Purposive sampling in terms of career stages, academic experience and life roles has been used. More specifically to address the main research question, female academics were contacted based on the following criteria: a) Woman in academia - social sciences; b) R2 or R3 research career stage; c) Experience from several scientific workplaces; d) Experience from abroad; e) Permanent effort to contribute to the improvement of the quality of the field through research (a changemaker that has a demonstrable positive impact); f) Woman in more reflected life roles (academia, mother, wife/partner, daughter). The criteria were applied when searching in databases and public documents (CV´s). Out of six women contacted, four agreed to participate in research using the narrative design. Narrative interviews in a number of rounds have been carried out and all transcribed interviews are analyzed being through three dimensions of KCM (still in process). When analysiong the narratives, the attention is paid to the sujet and fabula (what and how in the story), key milestones of the story (epizodes) and turning points of the story. Coding is preformed by two researchers as a support for the reflection of the emotions, attitudes, and opinions of the main researcher.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe issue of career development in academia is connected to the promotion of diversity and inclusion. High sense of autonomy and professional identity as well as diverse perseption of quality work and job satisfaction frame the academic career and call for different possible trajectories.
The prelliminary resuts show that KCM has brought new perspectives on career success eventhough as the research is still running. They bring impulses for revisiting conditions in Czech academia: influencing the organizations in terms of creating appropriate conditions for different career paths and patterns of women who often experience success and quality differently and who are generally perceived as successful. These bring along challenges for current conditions: Disparities in gender diversity (particulary in leadership roles), underrepresented minority groups (compared to their proportion in the general population), implicit bias, microaggressions, unequal access to resources and opportunities.
Findings of this research so far indicate that decision-makers in academia should pay more attention to understanding the unique ways in which authenticity in particular is understood by female academics in social sciences and how this is connected to their understanding success in their career.
This may from the longterm perspective encourage universities to look more closely and deeply at their organizational cultures to be more supportive to women and their career paths and patterns.
ReferencesCabrera, E. F. (2007). Opting out and opting in: understanding the complexities
of women’s career transitions. Career Development International, 12(3), 218–237.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430710745872
Cidlonská, K. Vohlídalová, M. (2015) To stay or to leave? On a disillusionment of (young) academics and researcher. Aula. 15 (3), p. 3-36. https://www.csvs.cz/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Aula-01-2015.pdf
Dabbs, S. M., Graham, J. A., & Dixon, M. A. (2020). Extending the Kaleidoscope
Career Model: Understanding Career Needs of Midcareer Elite Head Coaches.
Journal of Sport Management, 34(6), 554–567.
Knowles, J., & Mainiero, L. (2021). Authentic talent development in women leaders
who opted out: Discovering authenticity, balance, and challenge through the
kaleidoscope career model. Administrative Sciences, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/
admsci11020060
Mainiero, L. A., & Gibson, D. E. (2018). The Kaleidoscope Career Model Revisited:
How Midcareer Men and Women Diverge on Authenticity, Balance, and
Challenge. Journal of Career Development, 45(4), 361–377. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0894845317698223
Sullivan, S. E., & Mainiero, L. (2008). Using the Kaleidoscope Career Model to
Understand the Changing Patterns of Women’s Careers: Designing HRD
Programs That Attract and Retain Women. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 10(1), 32–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422307310110
Sullivan, S. E., & Carraher, S. M. (2018). Chapter 14: Using the kaleidoscope career
model to create cultures of gender equity. In Research Handbook of Diversity
and Careers. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Retrieved May 22,
2023, from https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785365607.00024
White-Lewis, D.K., O’Meara, K., Mathews, K. et al. Leaving the Institution or Leaving the Academy? Analyzing the Factors that Faculty Weigh in Actual Departure Decisions. Research in Higher Education.64, 473–494 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-022-09712-9.
11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance
Paper
Facilitators of Teacher Professional Development: Underestimated and Under-Researched Part when Considering Innovations in the Education System?!
Lara-Idil Engec, Manuela Endberg
University Duisburg-Essen, Germany
Presenting Author: Engec, Lara-Idil;
Endberg, Manuela
Against the background of the uncertainty and simultaneity of multiple challenges confronting the school system, such as the shortage of teachers, issues of educational inequality, and the dynamics of technological developments with constantly growing impulses for education and learning, the need for comprehensive, high-quality and thus effective further teacher training as well as support opportunities for all those involved in school development, increases. Especially regarding digitalisation, professional development plays an important role – in Germany and many other European countries as well (Butler et al., 2018; Engec et al., 2021; Fraillon et al., 2019).
In the context of digitalisation and for the quality of further teacher training and support services, professional development facilitators are considered to be highly relevant (Gräsel et al., 2020). Despite this assumption, research so far offers little knowledge about in-service trainers (Karsenty et al., 2021; Perry & Booth, 2024), although they necessarily influence the learning of teachers and thus occupy a central position in the professionalisation and support of schools (Lipowsky, 2019; Timperley et al., 2007). This may be due to the fact that defining the term ‘teacher professional development facilitators’ is rather complicated: Focusing the German context, different types of teacher professional development opportunities exist and are offered and deployed by various actors and institutions. These use different terms and understandings when describing teacher professional development facilitators; a standardised definition is non-existent. There also is the umbrella term ‘multipliers’ to describe people disseminating information and knowledge between institutions and levels of the education system, which is used in a wide variation of contexts and understandings, e.g. pupils using peer approaches, student teachers, teachers who pass on learning content from further training courses at their schools; further qualified teachers who train and advise other schools and teachers within the framework of state structures, or managers who are responsible for the conception of training and counselling.
In the paper at hand, we understand teacher professional development facilitators as persons who work within the structures of the German federal states and who educate practicing teachers as trainers and counsellors (Endberg & Engec, 2023). This definition comes close to the one issued by Perry and Booth (2024, S. 145): “Our focus is those practitioners who design, lead and deliver formal professional development activities for teachers, including workshops, courses, programmes and similar activities, whether online, face-to-face or blended”.
Considering the lack of standardized terminology, the federal and multi-level education structure in Germany, and the under-researched role of teacher professional development facilitators, our aim is to generate descriptive knowledge about the recruitment, qualification, and deployment of professional development facilitators in Germany. Moreover, we use a co-constructive approach by networking representatives of the state institutes/quality institutions of the federal states with responsibility for teacher professional development facilitators within a working group “Multipliers”, which has been initialized within the context of our ongoing research project (part of the joint project “Kompetenzverbund lernen:digital” funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research and by the European Union-NextGenerationEU). Here they contribute their expertise on how concepts for the selection, qualification, and deployment of teacher professional development facilitators are implemented in their state. Discussions concerning similarities and differences between the federal states, open questions and existing challenges are encouraged in order to generate a survey to gather the necessary descriptive knowledge about the group of facilitators as “multipliers” in permanently changing circumstances in schools, school systems, countries and the whole world.
The guiding research interest therefore revolves around the question:
To what extent are there cross-national approaches, strategies and quality criteria for recruitment, qualification, and deployment of teacher professional development facilitators in the context of digitalisation?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTo answer this question, we draw on existing expert knowledge from the education system and systematise findings from established structures and processes. To this end, a semi-structured survey with leading questions will be conducted in state institutes/quality institutions, which will be answered by responsible persons with relevant expertise in the institutions mentioned. The methodological approach can be considered as an expert (group) interview in written form. One main advantage of expert interviews lies within their power to “add to experimental findings about micro processes and how decisions were made in practice” (von Soest, 2023, S. 277). Regarding the lack of research knowledge, while assuming a great variety in terminology, implementation standards, and qualifying programs for teacher professional development within the federal states, this approach allows for a look ‘behind the scenes’ and into the practices of the state institutes/quality institutions whose role and importance is only slowly gaining attention from the perspective of educational research.
The list of open questions will be discussed and modified in the "Multipliers" working group on the basis of preliminary scientific work so that both the existing research desideratum is addressed, and the needs of educational practice are taken into account. The approach and methodology of data collection are deliberately designed to be open: there are no prescribed answers; instead, the expertise should be noted down in the experts’ own words. The interviewees decide whether they answer in writing or provide audio files. The data will be analysed qualitatively by the research team using content analysis (Mayring, 2015) applying a category system following a deductive-inductive approach.
Exemplary, the following superordinate categories have been identified by applying the deductive approach:
• Group of people (qualifications/professional background, employment/institutional connection, number/quotas of multipliers in the federal states);
• Deployment (deployment strategies and areas of application, subject reference/school reference, job description);
• Recruitment (strategy/concept, process, criteria);
• Qualification (determined goal/s, structured qualification programs/modules, content/skills, needs, reference to competency models/quality criteria e.g. standards or quality frameworks);
• Intended and perceived effects for school development, school effectiveness, i.e. student learning (effect logic/chain, ways of evaluating effects/effectiveness);
• Possible conditions for success (specific objectives, emphasis and reported challenges of the federal states).
The survey is expected to take place in March 2024, so that initial insights into the data and first results can be provided during the conference.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings “[C]hallenges of school development, like integrating ICT, can best be tackled when working collaboratively” (Gageik et al., 2022, p.18). This does not only hold true for individual schools collaborating within a school network but is also highly relevant considering the multi-level school system in Germany with different levels of authority and responsibility. In this context, facilitators of professional development are seen as a central group of actors whose actions and impact on school development have not yet been sufficiently recognised.
As the role of facilitators of professional development in the implementation of innovations in the school system will become more important in the future since schools are key actors in realising the SDG4 (‘Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all’, (UNESCO, 2016) then more research is needed on the multipliers themselves, their qualifications, their application scenarios and strategies and, associated with this, their selection, support and underlying impact assumptions as well as impact measurements.
In this paper we aim to contribute to this rarely researched topic. We present preliminary findings from the nation-wide systematic inquiry of practices of recruitment, qualification, and deployment of facilitators of professional development in the German federal states. That offers also new perspectives on this crucial role of facilitators of professional development for spreading innovations into schools and into school systems in Germany and provides a foundation for an international comparison of structures and practices in teacher professional development.
This paper also presents the co-constructive, cross-state concept of the working group, which brings together representatives from academia and practice. Initial experiences of the discursive and solution-orientated approach are reported in addition to the jointly modified survey and its preliminary findings.
ReferencesButler, D., Leahy, M., Twining, P., Akoh, B., Chtouki, Y., Farshadnia, S., et al. (2018). Education Systems in the Digital Age: The Need for Alignment. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(3), 473–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9388-6
Endberg, M., & Engec, L.-I. (2023). Unentdeckte Potenziale der Lehrkräftefortbildung im Kontext der Digitalisierung – Wandeln auf neuen Wegen in Fortbildungs- und Unterstützungssystemen. Sektionstagung empirische Bildungsforschung AEPF und KBBB, Universität Potsdam, 13.-15.09.2023.
Engec, L.-I., Endberg, M., & van Ackeren, I. (2021). Expertise zur Situation der Fortbildungs- und Unterstützungssysteme für Schulentwicklung im Kontext der Digitalisierung in Deutschland. Bundesweite Ergebnisse und grundlegende Einschätzungen aus dem Forschungsprojekt „ForUSE-digi“ im Rahmen des Metavorhabens „Digitalisierung im Bildungsbereich“. Universität Duisburg-Essen. https://doi.org/10.17185/duepublico/75251
Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Duckworth, D., & Friedman, T. (2019). IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 Assessment Framework. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19389-8
Gageik, L., Hasselkuß, M., & Endberg, M. (2022). School Development Within Networks in a Digital World: Risky Ride or Beneficial Blessing? In K. Ortel-Cass, K. J. C. Laing, & J. Wolf (Eds..), Partnerships in Education. Transdisciplinary Perspectives in Educational Research (5. Vol.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98453-3_2
Gräsel, C., Schledjewski, J., & Hartmann, U. (2020). Implementation digitaler Medien als Schulentwicklungsaufgabe. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 66, 208–224. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:23629
Karsenty, R., Pöhler, Birte, Schwarts, G., Prediger, S., & Arcavi, A. (2021). Processes of decision-making by mathematics PD facilitators: The role of resources, orientations, goals and identities. Journal for Mathematics Teacher Education, 26(1), 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-021-09518-z
Lipowsky, F. (2019). Wie kommen Befunde der Wissenschaft in die Klassenzimmer? – Impulse der Fortbildungsforschung. In C. Donie, F. Foerster, M. Obermayr, A. Deckwerth, G. Kammermeyer, G. Lesnke, M. Leuchter, & A. Wildemann (Eds.), Grundschulpädagogik zwischen Wissenschaft und Transfer (pp. 144–161). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken: Bd. 12., überarbeitete Auflage. Beltz Verlag.
Perry, E., & Booth, J. (2024). The practices of professional development facilitators. Professional Development in Education, 50(1), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2021.1973073
Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher Professional Learning and Development. Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration [BES]. Ministry of Education. http://educationcounts.edcentre.govt.nz/goto/BES
UNESCO. (2016). Education 2030. Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/education-2030-incheon-framework-for-action-implementation-of-sdg4-2016-en_2.pdf
von Soest, C. (2023). Why Do We Speak to Experts? Reviving the Strength of the Expert Interview Method. Perspectives on Politics, 21(1), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592722001116
|
