Conference Agenda

This symposium contributes to decades of international research designed to understand and improve leadership practices across educational sites. In times where uncertainty for educational development prevails, the work of a group of educators described as middle leaders, whose remit is largely to support professional learning, brings hope to teaching development. Scholarship shows that the study of educational leadership is predominantly focused on the work, characteristics, and practices of school principals (Gurr & Drysdale, 2013). Yet among the web of leadership practices (Nehez et al., 2022), the leading and development practices of middle leaders are less prominent as a dedicated focus of research (Forde et al., 2019). Across the globe, middle leaders are increasingly recruited to support site-based education development of teachers in primary and secondary schools, preschools, and universities (Grootenboer et al., 2020; Vangrieken et al., 2017). Site-based education development, a term coined by Kemmis et al. (2024), is a central notion for capturing the actual situatedness (needs and circumstances of practitioners) that influence the practices for leading professional learning. This symposium draws together research conducted in Australia, New Zealand and Sweden seeking to redress the more limited body of research focused on middle leadership, particularly as it relates to the productivity of communicative practices employed when middle leaders lead education development in their own settings.

Middle leaders are variously defined across different educational jurisdictions and international contexts (Lipscomb et al., 2023); for example, they are known as first teachers or development leaders in Sweden, or instructional leaders, instructional teachers or middle leaders in Australia and New Zealand. Among their designated roles, it is generally understood that a main responsibility is to facilitate professional development and curriculum change initiatives (Rönnerman et al., 2018). In this symposium, presenters consider middle leaders as those educators responsible for leading, teaching, communicating and collaborating with teams of colleagues as they manage and facilitate professional development among their colleagues (Grootenboer et al., 2020). As previous research has shown, as middle leaders lead the learning of others, the framing and focus of their roles and responsibilities shift responsively across their leading practices requiring different relational intensities as they work alongside teaching colleagues and senior leadership (Edwards-Groves et al., 2023). This heightens the research attention needed to illuminate the sociality, so communicative interactional imperatives, of middle leading practices.

Capitalising on the ‘practice turn’ in education (Kemmis et al., 2014), the papers in this symposium utilise practice theories to explore the nature and influence of middle leaders’ communicative practices as they engage in their leading work. Broad questions for the collection of papers consider the relationship between middle leading practices (what actually happens), the sociality (the intersubjective and interpersonal), the situatedness (the site-ontological responsiveness) and the enabling and constraining conditions (or practice architectures) which influence the day-to-day practices of middle leaders. Practice theories attend assiduously to the site in both existential and ontological terms as being sited (in actual places where things happen), not just as a location in an abstract and universal matrix of space-time (Kemmis et al., 2014, pp. 214-215). In this light, the papers aim to show how middle leaders leading the practice development of their colleagues recognise and respond to the local contingencies ‘at work’ in the site. This reciprocally requires a theory of practice that treats middle leading practices as situated, socially, dialogically, ontologically and temporally constituted. This view of practices is important for considering, as the papers in this symposium do, ways the communication practices enacted by middle leaders are comprised of practices that promote and embody dialogue, relationality and responsivity.

Teachers' professional learning is connected to and dependent on different leading practices. In a previous study, we explored such practices and identified how principals’ leading, teacher leaders’ leading and external development leaders’ leading formed a web of leading (Nehez et al. 2022). In this presentation, we take the perspective of a development leader as a middle leader and explore the interplay between development leaders and teacher leaders in a professional development program, where the leading and learning practices of development leaders and teacher leaders meet. The current study is informed by the theory of practice architectures (TPA) (Kemmis et al. 2014, Mahon et al. 2017) and the theory of ecologies of practices (Kemmis et al. 2014). In line with TPA we regard development leaders’ leading as a site and time specific social practice composed of sayings, doings and relatings hanging together in a distinctive project, which in this study is defined as leading professional learning. The study is conducted in a Swedish school organization where professional learning for teachers is conducted in cooperation between development leaders at an over-arching organizational level, principals, and teacher leaders. The data is collected from a professional development program where 33 teacher leaders participated. It includes the planning of and reflections on the program. The analysis consists of: 1) identification and categorization of the development leaders’ sayings, doings and relatings when leading the program, 2) documentation of the interplay in narratives, and 3) thematic analysis of the narratives to understand what characterized the development leaders’ leading for professional learning. The findings show how the development leaders’ leading practice hangs together with the teacher leaders’ learning and leading practices through four types of responsiveness: 1) responsiveness to ideas of successful leading, 2) responsiveness to experiences and observations of leading practices, 3) responsiveness to teacher leaders’ understanding and 4) responsiveness to own leading practices. Through these, a formative aspect of leading unfolds, where the connection between leading and learning appears. Due to the findings, the web of leading (Nehez et al. 2022) can be further developed. The dimension of learning comes forward as an essential part of the web. To be able to lead responsively, specific arrangements need to be in place. With such arrangements it becomes possible to act responsively and relate to information that is relevant for leading professional learning. Such arrangements form learning leading in the web of leading for professional learning.

Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, J., Edwards-Groves, C., Hardy, I., Grootenboer, P. & Bristol, L. (2014). Changing Practices, Changing Education. Springer. Mahon, K., Kemmis, S., Francisco, S., & Lloyd, A. (2017). Introduction: Practice theory and the theory of practice architectures. In: K. Mahon, S. Francisco, and S. Kemmis, eds. Exploring education and professional practice: Through the lens of practice architectures, (pp.1-30). Springer. Nehez, J., Sülau, V., and Olin, A., 2022. A web of leading for professional learning: Leadership from a decentring perspective, Journal of educational administration and history, 55 (1), 23-38.

This paper presents an examination of ways middle leader’s dialogicality and interaction practices create communicative openings for professional practice development among teachers across school and tertiary contexts. The paper addresses issues concerning how middle leaders support the design and implementation of professional learning that is worthwhile and responsive to the needs and circumstances of site-based development. It pays attention to the ways in which apposite communication approaches to practice development are derived from what we describe as dialogic principles for teacher learning that can be employed to guide the discourses and discursivity that enable development and change (Grootenboer et al., 2020; Edwards-Groves et al., 2023). It addresses the multidimensionality of relational trust as critical in creating democratic communicative spaces for professional dialogue, learning and practice development (Edwards-Groves & Grootenboer, 2021). The theory of practice architectures guides the thematic analysis revealing the unique cultural-discursive, material-economic and social-political arrangements that influence the possibilities for creating open communicative spaces where teachers are supported by middle leaders to address issues of change (Grootenboer & Edwards-Groves, 2024; Kemmis et al., 2014). As a theory concerned with the site-based 'happeningness' of practices, it offers a lens to delineate the distinctive ways the dialogic practices of middle leaders create conditions that enable teachers to actively participate in their professional learning conversations. This provides opportunities for engaging deeply with the thinking of others, recognising and expanding their own and others’ insights, and by challenging the ideologies, theories and practical propositions they are encountering. Drawing on empirical cases, the paper will outline ways dialogic approaches to professional learning form a critical pivot point from which middle leading practices support teachers to successfully engage in site-based change (Rönnerman et al., 2018). An empirically-derived, theoretically informed dialogic framework useful for facilitating robust and productive collegial conversations will be introduced. As a fundamental position, dialogue is taken not to be the kind of facilitator talk that simply delivers, lectures or feeds information, but it is a planned-for approach to professional learning that deliberately opens up communicative spaces in democratic ways responsive to individual circumstances and needs, thus maximising teacher engagement in individual and collective learning experiences. Specifically, the presentation demonstrates the value of a dialogic approach to designing and negotiating site-based professional learning, where as a premise, it is considered that it is the dialogues that take place among educators that display the critical position ‘the site’ has for facilitating practice development.

Edwards-Groves, C., & Grootenboer, P. (2021). Conceptualising the five dimensions of relational trust: middle leadership in schools. School Leadership and Management, 41(6),1-24. Edwards-Groves, C., Grootenboer, P. Attard, C., & Tindall-Ford, S. (2023). Middle leading practices of facilitation, mentoring and coaching for teacher development: A focus on intent and relationality. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 19(1), 1-20. Grootenboer, P. & Edwards-Groves, C. (2024). The theory of practice architectures: Researching Practices. Springer. Grootenboer, P., Edwards-Groves, C. & Rönnerman, K. (2015). Leading practice development: voices from the middle, Professional Development in Education, 41(3), 508-526. Grootenboer, P., Edwards-Groves, C. & Rönnerman, K. (2020). Middle Leadership in Schools: A practical guide for leading learning. Routledge. Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, J., Edwards-Groves, C., Hardy, I., Grootenboer, P. & Bristol, L. (2014). Changing Practices, Changing Education. Springer. Rönnerman, K., Edwards-Groves, C., & Grootenboer, P. (2018). Att leda från mitten - lärare driver professionell utveckling [trans: Leading from the middle - Teachers driving professional development]. Lärarförlaget. ISBN 978-91-88149-33-6

There is a widespread understanding that schools play a pivotal role in protecting and preserving biological, social, and material resources. However, this requires a certain kind of education practices that support shared responsibility, promote competences in collaboration and facilitate critical and creative thinking. Such practices, denoted in both policy and research as education for sustainable development (ESD), is a response to the need to educate students to cope with the complex challenges associated with sustainable development and future societies. This paper presents a sub-study as part of a larger project (Forssten Seiser et al., 2023) that took place in a municipality in Sweden. ESD was introduced in 2016, and the school administration supported and managed the work for three years. In the sub-study, the function and conditions of ESD facilitators were explored. ESD facilitators are teachers with a function to lead improvement processes towards ESD. As middle leaders, the ESD facilitators’ responsibility was to facilitate dialogue and communication among teaching staff. The ESD process was directed towards a whole school approach, meaning that ESD is fully integrated in the local curriculum and functions as a pedagogical idea (Mogren & Gericke, 2019). In a middle leading position, the ESD facilitators worked from a position between the school leaders and the teaching staff, focusing on both students’ learning and on leading and organizing colleagues’ professional learning (Edwards-Groves & Rönnerman, 2013; Grootenboer et al., 2015). In semi-structured interviews seven ESD facilitators describe their goals, relationships and the practice architectures which enabled and constrained their function as middle leaders. Their reported experiences were analysed in relation to a typology of sustainability change agents (Van Poeck et al., 2017) in which their roles can be positioned along the axes of open-ended vs. instrumental approaches to change and learning, and personal involvement vs. personal detachment. Results show how the ESD facilitator function were more open-ended in schools where there was room for dialogue, reflexive discussions, and collaboration. In schools where there was little space for these activities, the facilitator function became more instrumental. The results show how a lack of dialogue and collaboration created challenges to integrating ESD as a holistic pedagogical idea. An individualistic school culture emerged as a plausible explanation for teachers’ resistance to other teachers acting as ESD facilitators and, that contextual factors relating to the organization and culture have significant influence on middle leaders and their ability to fulfil their assignments.

Edwards Groves, C., & Rönnerman, K. (2013). Generating leading practices through professional learning. Professional development in education, 39(1), 122-140. Forssten Seiser, A., Mogren, A., Gericke, N., Berglund, T., & Olsson, D. (2023). Developing school leading guidelines facilitating a whole school approach to education for sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, 29(5), 783-805. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2022.215198 Grootenboer, P., Edwards-Groves, C., & Rönnerman, K. (2015). Leading practice development: voices from the middle, Professional Development in Education, 41(3), 508-526, DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2014.924985 Mogren, A., & Gericke, N. (2019). School leaders’ experiences of implementing education for sustainable development: Anchoring the transformative perspective. Sustainability, 11(12), 3343. Van Poeck, K., Læssøe, J., & Block, T. (2017). An exploration of sustainability change agents as facilitators of nonformal learning: Mapping a moving and intertwined landscape. Ecology and Society, 22(2).