| Session | ||
01 SES 04 B: Diversity, Adaptions and Changes
Paper Session
| ||
| Presentations | ||
01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper Learning to Adapt Instruction to Varied Student Needs: Recognizing Teachers' Multidimensional Knowledge, Triggering Agentive Action, and Stimulating Professional Development. Gothenburg university, Sweden Presenting Author:Several decades of teacher effectiveness research show clear correlations between teachers' ability to adapt instruction to students' needs and students' learning gains. For teachers to develop this complex adaptive ability, however, at least 15 years of professional experience is often required (van den Hurk et al, 2016). At the same time, societal developments in the 21st century have resulted in teachers today encountering a highly diverging population of pupils, wherefore attempts to accelerate teachers' ability to adapt instruction to students' needs are considered urgent (Ibid.). This study was carried out in Sweden, where operational responsibility for students’ schooling rests at the municipal level. Overall regulation is provided by the National Agency for Education (NAE) via curricula, grading criteria, and national tests, but local school professionals enjoy a high degree of freedom regarding the design of instruction and assessment. The last 15 years, however, the state has increasingly taken control of the substantive and methodological focus of instructional improvement efforts, by providing state grants to municipalities committing to work with national-scale teacher professional development (PD) programs in content areas designated by the state as particularly important. The most extensive efforts have been directed at mathematics and literacy instruction, with the expressed goal to strengthen Swedish teachers' ability to adapt instruction to students' varying needs. Within the national PD programs, teachers work according to a fixed cyclical model including text reading, testing given methods in the classroom, and discussing in 'collegial learning groups'. As these programs are linked to extra funding, their content and associated working methods have come to occupy a large part of Swedish teachers’ annually allocated PD time. One of few research studies on the national programs' impact on students' results shows that the program aimed at mathematics instruction had a small but statistically significant impact on teachers' instructional practices but no effect for student achievement (Lindvall et al., 2022). Moreover, neither national grade statistics nor internationally comparative knowledge measurements show any increase in students' knowledge results to date (Skolverket, 2023). Thus, it can be questioned whether such efforts, given their enormous financial cost, are effective in raising teachers' ability to adapt instruction to students' needs. There is also concern that the dense flow of general solutions provided from school authorities risks reducing rather than strengthening teachers' agency and ability to analyse the needs of their own student base (Engström, 2022; Jahnke & Hirsh, 2021). This study stems from a three-year R&D collaboration - involving three researchers and 170 teachers - initiated as a reaction to the development described above, where general prescriptions for instructional improvement are served top-down from school authorities. The collaboration’s overall design is grounded in the activity theoretical frameworks of Expansive learning and Transformative Agency by Double Stimulation (Engeström & Sannino, 2010; Sannino 2022; Vygotsky, 1997/1931). Since expansive learning implies that the collaboration taking place is about jointly learning ‘something not yet there’, the researchers' role is not to share a predetermined method for the participants to implement. Instead, double stimulation is regarded as a core mechanism to guide and strengthen the transformative agency of the actors working with the changes in practice. Hence, the role of researchers is to provide stimuli that evoke and contribute to maintaining a transformation process led and owned by the practitioners. This study aims to contribute knowledge about teachers’ professional development through:
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used During the R&D collaboration (August 2021-May 2024), researchers worked with the teachers (representing different school forms and subjects) to strengthen their professional agency and achieve instructional improvement rooted in the needs of actual students, ascertained in assessment information. The theory of action is to be understood as an overall stimulus containing a series of second stimuli – ‘thinking tools’ – designed to enable the teachers to redefine the challenging task of instructional improvement and take volitional action through instructional interventions. The theory of action intertwines ideas from Gee's sociocultural understanding of Opportunity to Learn/OTL (2008), van Manen's epistemology of reflective practice and pedagogical tact (1991; 1995), an Aristotelian conceptualisation of multidimensional professional knowledge (Johannesson, 1999), Biggs’ (1996) theory of constructive alignment, and Harlen's conceptualization of the relationship between formative and summative assessment (2012). Work has taken place in two arenas: 1) at regularly occurring two-day dialogue conferences (program level), and 2) continuously by teachers in practice at the home schools. Dialogue conferences have offered research input, thinking tools, workshops, cross-group presentations of ongoing/completed casework, individual and dialogic reflections on intervention processes and experiential professional learning, and feedback from researchers to participants/between participants. During the collaboration, teachers have (cyclically): • Selected 1-3 case students each at the home school. • Defined specific learning needs of case students based on analysis of assessment information relative well-defined aspects of school subjects and curricular assessment criteria. • Participated in monthly collaborative workshop-and-learning sessions at the home schools, for joint analyses and formation/refinement of instructional interventions with assumed potential to meet case-students’ learning needs. • Implemented, evaluated, and documented case-students’ responses to the interventions. • Meta-reflected on 1) various spillover effects of the casework, and 2) individual and collective professional learning. • Conducted cross-group presentations of ongoing/completed casework. • Documented completed case work, including research-informed and experiential professional learning meta-reflections, in coherent case reports. Data processed for this study comes from: • Two questionnaires with Likert scale and open-ended questions answered by all teachers. • In-depth interviews with 12 teachers. • Case reports written by 102 teachers after completed cases. Data was analysed using directed qualitative content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) to discern 1) which assessment information teachers use and how, 2) if and how the provided stimuli has evoked agentive action in teachers’ casework, 3) signs of performance improvements in the case students, and 4) expressions of experiential professional learning. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Results indicate that the theory of action has been highly appropriated by the teachers, enabling them to 'translate' formal (test-based) and informal (classroom-interaction-based) assessment information into clearly defined learning needs - a step in the instructional improvement process that many had previously paid little attention to. Regardless of school form, teachers agree that such translation contributes powerfully to shifting focus from the student's shortcomings to instruction as decisive for students’ opportunity to learn, and that the translation enables greater precision in the planning of effective instructional interventions. Most teachers report that provided thinking tools have contributed to the articulation of a crucial part of professional knowledge – that which, with van Manen (1995), denotes pedagogical tact - which otherwise often remains unarticulated. In interviews and case reports, teachers describe how they intuitively have always known that to effectively address learning needs, tact must be active together with the more scientific and rational forms of professional knowledge. Clearly, it empowers the teachers, that the theory of action used here assigns pedagogical tact a value and provides conceptual tools to verbalize it. Teachers report that they have become increasingly confident in taking as a starting point their own and their colleagues' multidimensional knowledge in planning needs-based instruction. Additionally, they unanimously report that the case methodology, i.e., to intervene and learn with starting point in specific students, is highly effective for achieving analytic concretion. In nearly all student cases completed so far, knowledge development (often measured through tests) relative to curricular goals is confirmed. Certainly, causal relationships cannot be established with certainty in a project such as this, but it is reasonable to assume that a relationship exists. Additionally, all teachers report positive spillover effects to other students and/or their own teaching skills in general, following the interventions implemented with specific cases in mind. References Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing Teaching through Constructive Alignment. Higher Education, 32 (3), 347-364. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1-24. Engström, A. (2022). Nej, statens skolutvecklingsinsatser fungerar verkligen inte [No, the state's school development efforts really don't work]. Skola & Samhälle, 2022-12-12. Gee, J. P. (2008). A sociocultural perspective on opportunity to learn. In P. A. Moss, D. C. Pullin, J. P. Gee, E. H. Haertel & L. J. Young (Eds.), Assessment, Equity, and Opportunity to Learn. Cambridge University Press. Harlen, W. (2012). On the Relationship between Assessment for Formative and Summative Purposes. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and Learning, 2nd edition. Sage. Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15(9), 1277–1288. Jahnke, A & Hirsh, Å. (2019). Varför förbättras inte elevresultaten trots alla insatser? En fördjupad nulägesanalys av en gymnasieskola [Why do student results not improve despite all efforts? An in-depth current situation analysis of a secondary school]. Ifous rapportserie 2020:1. Johannessen, K. (1999). Praxis och tyst kunnande [Practice and tacit knowledge]. Dialoger. Lindvall, J., Helenius, O., Eriksson, K. & Ryve, A. (2022). Impact and Design of a National-scale Professional Development Program for Mathematics Teachers. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 66(5), 744–759. Sannino, A. (2022). Transformative agency as warping: how collectives accomplish change amidst uncertainty. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 1–25. Skolverket. (2023). PISA. 15-åringars kunskaper i matematik, läsförståelse och naturvetenskap[PISA. 15-year-olds' skills in Mathematics, Reading comprehension and Science]. Rapport Internationella studier. Skolverket. Van den Hurk, H.T.G., Houtveen, A.A.M., & Van de Grift, W.J.C.M. (2016). Fostering effective teaching behavior through the use of data-feedback. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 444-451. Van Manen, M. (1995). On the Epistemology of Reflective Practice. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 1(1), 33-50. Van Manen, M. (1991). The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness. The Althouse Press. Vygotsky, L. S. 1997 [1931]. The History of Development of Higher Mental Functions. In R. W. Rieber (Ed.) The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky, 207–219. 01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper Raising the Bar: The Contribution of a whole school approach for Differentiated Instruction in Secondary Schools AUAS, Netherlands, The Presenting Author:Urban areas across Europe are characterized by increased diversity. This is reflected in the school populations in these areas with a high degree of heterogeneity and diverse learning needs (Smets & Struyven, 2020). Secondary school teachers are expected to adapt their teaching to the diverse educational needs of students through differentiated instruction (DI) (OECD, 2018; UNESCO, 2017). DI is seen as an important domain of educational quality and as an approach for providing equal educational opportunities for all learners (Brevik et al., 2017). According to Tomlinson and Imbeau (2010), the core of DI is the adaptation of learning content, process, product and effect in response to differences in learners' readiness, interests and learning profile. This involves teachers assuming different learning needs in their 1) lesson planning and preparation, 2) selecting materials, 3) lesson activities, 4) classroom organization, and 5) student evaluation and assessment (Prast et al., 2015). DI is included in teachers' competence requirements and part of the educational inspection framework. Most teachers recognize the different learning needs in the classroom and the need to adapt instruction, but few secondary school teachers actually put DI into practice (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2017). Letzel et al. (2023) found that teachers in upper secondary schools are more often than not low on the implementation of DI, and do not often implement DI. Several explanations are offered in the literature: Teachers indicate that they do not feel prepared to implement DI, that they lack knowledge and understanding of DI. They find differentiation too complex to incorporate into their teaching practice and doubt its feasibility (Gaitas & Alvas Martins, 2017; Whipple, 2012). Research shows that teacher professional development for teachers is warranted. Langelaan et al. (2024) identified characteristics of teacher programs for DI that were successful to some extent. They incorporated active learning, collaboration and reflection and were often longitudinal, comprehensive and addressed attitudes, knowledge and skills. Understanding of differentiation is cited as a prerequisite for being able to apply DI in practice and teachers' attitudes play a crucial role in their use of differentiated instructional practices (Wan, 2016). Educational innovation and improvement is generally seen as intricate: professional learning of teachers within the school is constantly influenced by the often complex school context in which it is implemented. Factors like the (national) curriculum, policies, various organizational factors, and numerous personal characteristics of teachers and students constantly interplay with school development processes. Dack (2019) found that knowledge about differentiation of candidates developed during a course and that participants integrated the newly acquired knowledge into their existing frameworks of knowledge about teaching and learning, which strengthened their beliefs about the importance of differentiation and their learning. At the same time, teachers are constantly trying to find coherence between their own personal frames of reference and those of the changing context during an innovation (Stollman et al. , 2022). As a result, educational innovations often turn out differently than they were intended by their developers. TPD programs for DI are often initiated and developed by external parties and facilitated by educational experts from outside the school (Dixon et al., 2014). Educational development and improvement driven by the school's own ambition may lead to more sustainable and lasting change (Geijsel et al., 2009). At the same time, the question arises whether schools have the resources, capacity and expertise needed . research question: how and to what extent does a school-led and school driven innovation for DI contribute to teachers conceptions, attitudes and classroom practices concerning differentiated instruction? The innovation was monitored during the course of one school year. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The initiation of the innovation was an internally driven endeavor undertaken by the school itself, adopting a participatory approach informed by theoretical insights of successful DI implementation. This study employed a longitudinal mixed methods research design within an explanatory sequential framework to thoroughly examine the contribution of the intervention. Specifically, we focused on three key dimensions: (1) teachers' conceptions (2) the extent of DI implementation in the classroom, and (3) the attitudinal aspects of teachers toward DI. The data collection instrument utilized was a comprehensive self-completed questionnaire comprising 62 items, including one open-ended question and 61 closed-ended items measuring 10 variables. The data were collected from a cohort of 62 teachers at three distinct measurement points throughout a school year. To assess the impact of the intervention, the results from these three measurements were subjected to statistical analysis using a repeated measures ANOVA. Post-intervention group interviews were conducted with a representative sample of 21 teachers to delve deeper into the contribution of the intervention and to identify hindering and supporting factors. A content analysis approach was applied to scrutinize the qualitative data obtained from open-ended questions probing teachers' conceptions of DI. In the subsequent qualitative research phase, the focus shifted towards a nuanced understanding of the learning process and implementation of DI. This phase employed instruments and analytical methods tailored to explore social processes and meaning-making. Thematic analysis was employed iteratively in line with the principles of qualitative study research to extract meaningful insights from the data. This methodological approach allowed for a more holistic understanding of the complex dynamics involved in the adoption and integration of DI practices within the educational context. By combining both quantitative and qualitative research paradigms, we aimed to paint a comprehensive picture and articulate statements regarding the multifaceted factors that either facilitated or hindered the teachers' learning journey. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The findings elucidate the impact of innovative measures on DI with regard to conceptualizations, attitudes, instructional practices among educators, and the factors influencing both the learning of DI by teachers and its subsequent implementation. 1) Over the course of the academic year, there was a discernible progression in teachers' DI conceptualizations, exhibiting greater comprehensiveness and alignment both internally and with established literature definitions. Utilizing a repeated measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with consideration for sphericity, it was observed that teachers' engagement in differentiation planning, preparation, utilization of activities and materials, as well as their mindset exhibited statistically significant growth on average across distinct time points. Conversely, no statistically significant differences were detected between the various measurement times in relation to the variables of classroom environment, organization and management and assessment and evaluation.. In the subsequent qualitative research phase of data collection, the emphasis was placed on gaining a deeper understanding of the learning process and implementation of DI. The study employed specialized instruments and analytical methods centered on social processes and meaning-making. This qualitative approach aimed to explore the nuanced aspects of how educators engage with and interpret DI, shedding light on the intricate social dynamics and sense-making processes inherent in the implementation of innovative pedagogical practice. References Brevik, L. M., Gunnulfsen, A. E., & Renzulli, J. S. (2018). Student teachers’ practice and experience with differentiated instruction for students with higher learning potential. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 34–45. *Dack, H. (2019). Understanding teacher candidate misconceptions and concerns about differentiated instruction. The Teacher Educator, 54(1), 22-45. Dixon, F. A., Yssel, N., McConnell, J. M., & Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated instruction, professional development, and teacher efficacy. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(2), 111–127. Geijsel, F. P., Sleegers, P. J. C., Stoel, R. D., & Krüger, M. L. (2009). The effect of teacher psychological and school organizational and leadership factors on teachers’ professional learning in Dutch schools. Elementary School Journal, 109(4), 406–427. Langelaan, B. N., Gaikhorst, L., Smets, W., & Oostdam, R. J. (2024). Differentiating instruction : Understanding the key elements for successful teacher preparation and development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 140, 1-14. Letzel, V., Pozas, M., & Schneider, C. (2023). Challenging but positive! – An exploration into teacher attitude profiles towards differentiated instruction (DI) in Germany. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 1–16. OECD (2018). Teaching for the Future-Effective Classroom Practices to Transform Education. OECD. Prast, E. J., Weijer-Bergsma, E., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. (2015). Readiness-based differentiation in primary school mathematics: Expert recommendations and teacher self-assessment. Frontline Learning Research, 3(2), 90–116. Smets, W., & Struyven, K. (2020). A teachers’ professional development programme to implement differentiated instruction in secondary education: How far do teachers reach? Cogent Education, 7(1). Stollman, S., Meirink, J., Westenberg, M., & Van Driel, J. (2022). Teachers’ learning and sense-making processes in the context of an innovation: a two year follow-up study. Professional Development in Education, 48(5), 718–733. Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. UNESCO (2017). A Guide for Ensuring Inclusion and Equity in Education. UNESCO. Whipple, K. A. (2012). Differentiated instruction: A survey study of teacher understanding and implementation in a southeast Massachusetts school district (Doctoral dissertation, Northeastern University). 01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper Principals’ Professional Learning - the Process of Changing Practice Karlstad university, Sweden Presenting Author:In a neoliberal society, individualistic and technical logics reduces professionals to consumers of development courses (Hardy, 2012). Principals’ professional learning has come to be about carrying through standardized methods on the initiation of school authorities (Aas & Blom, 2017). Such arrangements usually not lead to changes, due to difficulties of transferring content from one practice to another (Forssten Seiser & Söderström, 2022). The aim of this study is to contribute with an empirical example of principals’ professional learning from a practice perspective, conceptualizing learning as the process of changing practices (Kemmis, 2021). The theoretical framework used is the Theory of practice architectures (TPA) (Kemmis & Grootenboer, 2008) and Ecologies of practices (Kemmis et al., 2012). According to TPA a practice are made up of sayings, doings and relatings. Related to these, the practice architectures consist of three kinds of arrangements prefiguring the practice; Cultural-discursive arrangements - the sayings of a practice, mediated through language and discourses; Material-economic arrangements - resources as the physical environment, human and non-human entities, schedules, money and time ; Social-political arrangements- shaping how people relate to other people and to non-human objects, mediated in the social space as rules, hierarchies, solidarities and other relationships. Ecologies of practices takes a wider perspective to focus on how the practices are related to each other in the complex of educational practices.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study is based on a critical action research (Kemmis et al., 2014) in which 14 preschool principals, working in a midsized municipality in Sweden, collaborated with a researcher to critically examine and change their ways of leading digitalization in preschool education. The action research followed a cyclic process of trying out actions of leading at the local preschools and reflecting on the experiences in group conversations. The group conversations were audio recorded and analyzed with the theory of practice architectures to identify changes in sayings, doings, and relatings of leading. Ecologies of practices was then used to identify how the practice of professional learning (AR) and leading practices became interdependent during the process, and what practice architectures that enabled the identified changes. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The study is expected to contribute with an empirical grounded example and some indicators of how professional learning can be arranged to generate transformations of practice. The result of the study is relevant to those engaged in organizing for, leading, and participating in, practices for professional learning, such as authorities, local management, school leaders and educators in general. References Aas, M., & Blom, T. (2017). Benchlearning as professional development of school leaders in Norway and Sweden. Professional Development in Education, 44(1), 62–75. Forssten Seiser, A., & Söderström, Å. (2022). The impact of the Swedish national principal training programme on school leaders’ actions: Four case studies. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership, 7(4), 826–859. https://doi.org/10.30828/real.1120909 Kemmis, S. (2021). A practice theory perspective on learning: Beyond a ‘standard’ view. Studies in Continuing Education, 43(3), 280–295. Kemmis, S., & Grootenboer, P. (2008). Situating praxis in practice: Practice architectures and the cultural, social and material conditions for practice. In S. Kemmis & T. J. Smith (Eds.), Enabling praxis: Challenges for education (pp. 37–62). Sense. Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon. R. (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Springer. Kemmis, S., Edwards-Groves, C., Wilkinson, J., & Hardy, I. (2012). Ecologies of practices. In P. Hager, A. Lee, & A. Reich (Eds.), Practice, learning and change. Professional and practice-based learning (Vol. 8). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4774-6_3 | ||