26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Keeping Distance or Getting Involved? – Principals’ Sensemaking of Pedagogical Leadership for Instructional Development in a Three-year R&D-program
Mette Liljenberg
University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Presenting Author: Liljenberg, Mette
Research repeatedly emphasizes that if education is to provide students the best prerequisites for development and learning, principals need to support and participate in instructional development (e.g., Grissom et al., 2013; Leithwood et al., 2020; Robinson, 2010; Robinson et al., 2008). Doing so, Robinson (2010) argues that principals need to have general knowledge about management, teaching and learning as well as specific pedagogical knowledge about teaching in different subjects and curriculum orientations. Timperley (2011) too emphasizes the importance of principals’ pedagogical knowledge, but also the ability to put knowledge into action e.g., to give teachers relevant feedback in teaching situations. Despite the knowledge of the importance of principals’ support and participation in instructional development, giving priority to pedagogical leadership tend to be a challenge for many principals. Principals stress lack of time, although lack of knowledge, prevailing norms, and uncertainty in the relationship with teachers also can be contributing (Emstad & Birkeland, 2021; Leo, 2015; Ärlestig & Törnsén, 2014). While demands on principals have expanded over time, the support for principal professional development has not been as prominent.
In Sweden the principal’s role started out, up till the 1950s, as “the first among equals” but afterwards changed and became more of a public administrator of education. In the 1990s, during the NPM era, the principal’s role was further changed, and principals became more of managers of schools with responsibility for both administration and education (Jarl, 2013). In recent years a new principal’s role has been proposed where principals, although being managers and leaders, work collaboratively with teachers for the common good of educating the students (Jerdborg, 2023). However, embracing this new role might not be as easy in all school contexts and for all principals.
This study from the Swedish context, aims to explore how principals’ pedagogical leadership for instructional development can be supported in a R&D-program. The following research question directed the analytical work:
- How do principals make sense of their role(s) as pedagogical leaders for instructional development in the R&D-program?
- What leadership actions are implemented and how can it be understood?
The theoretical point of departure is taken in Weick’s and colleagues (1995; 2001; 2005) sensemaking perspective. Weick (1995) explains sensemaking as an ongoing process through which people seek to make sense of what is unclear and to which questions such as: What does this mean? and What to do now? can be asked. Sensemaking is done in relation to previous experiences and with the intention to be able to move on in new a situation without disruption. Reducing the interpretation options thus becomes a way of handling the situation. However, Weick (2001) believes that when we get the opportunity to create meaning together, new interpretation alternatives can emerge that give perspective on the situation and invite a broader understanding. In this way, collective sensemaking can open for new ways to handle new situations. Weick et al. (2005, p. 417) also emphasize that sense-making is shaped by the rules, norms and cultural-cognitive elements that prevail in the institutional context in which sensemaking takes place. Principals’ sensemaking can thus be understood in relation to the historical development of the principal’s role as well as in relation to the specific school contexts in which principals operate.
The study is of relevance to European educational research for several reasons. First, research about how principals’ take on pedagogical leadership for instructional development is limited. Second, as educational improvement is high up on several national policy agenda, we need to learn more about how principals’ professional development adequately can be supported.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe context of the study is a three-year R&D-program in which a total of about 170 teachers, 35 principals and 10 local education authority (LEA) officials in five Swedish school organizers (four municipalities and one independent organizer) collaborate with three researchers to achieve an 'inside-out' perspective regarding instructional development. Thus, the R&D-program has a transformative agenda (Kennedy, 2014; Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013) aiming to improve instruction by taking its point of departure in the specific needs of children and students in the preschools and schools in question, and where solutions to meet the needs are sought in teachers’ multidimensional knowledge. In parallel, when teachers carry out such development work, their needs form the starting point for principals’ exploration of their pedagogical leadership and leadership actions, and principals’ needs form the starting point for LEA’s exploration of overarching support structures. The R&D-program is case-based and uses models from cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) to facilitate expansive learning in the development process and for the identification of systemic contradictions that need to be overcome in order to achieve the desired inside-out perspective based on the needs of students, teachers, and principals (Engeström & Sannino, 2010; Sannino, 2020).
Following the research questions this study close in on the participating principals, how they make sense of pedagogical leadership for instructional development in the R&D-program, how their leadership actions develop and how this can be understood. The empirical material consists of self-reflections written by the participating principals at six occasions throughout the program together with audio-recorded interviews with 10 of the principals conducted during the second half of the program.
The analysis was conducted in several steps. Initially inductive analysis was conducted to detect emerging themes and categories responding to the research question. In the second step of the analysis the sense-making theory (Weick, 1995) was used as a layer to understand how the principals constructed meaning of pedagogical leadership for instructional development and put their meaning into leadership actions. Finally, the categories that emerged were reflected against the professional roles that have characterized Swedish principals throughout history (Jarl, 2013; Jerdborg, 2023). Coding and analysis can thus be characterized as both data-driven and concept-driven (Kvale & Brinkmann 2009).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe early analysis of principals’ self-reflections shows that the principals make sense of pedagogical leadership for instructional development in different ways. In the beginning of the R&D-program, most principals took on a role as “organiser” and focused their leadership actions on setting aside time for professional development, putting groups together, providing tools for documentation and appointing teacher leaders. Although the intension was to gradually get the principals more directly involved in instructional development, the principals hesitated to take on this role. To challenge the principals, promote learning and support a broader understanding, making it possible for the principals to try out new leadership actions, the researchers provided the principals with research-based knowledge, ‘tools for thought’ and communities for collective sensemaking.
Following up on principals’ self-reflections from the second and third year of the program an expansion of principals’ sense made ideas of pedagogical leadership can be identified. At this phase of the R&D-program several of the principals started to involve themselves, more directly, in teachers’ instruction and professional learning. However, differences between the principals were identified and traced back to the principals’ roles in different time eras. Some principals took on a role as “teacher for teachers”, others assumed a “coaching role” and additional others took on a role as “co-learner”. In addition, some principals kept themselves to “organising” while others assumed several of the roles above. Consequently, those that assumed several roles expanded their understandings of pedagogical leadership for instructional development and their leadership actions the most.
The results of this study give an important contribution to research about principals’ pedagogical leadership for instructional development and how it can be supported as well as stresses the need for researchers and educators to continue explore additional ways to support principals’ professional development.
ReferencesEngeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1-24.
Emstad, A.B., Birkeland, I. K., & Robinson, V. M. J (2021). Lärande ledarskap – att leda professionell utveckling i skolan. Lärarförlaget.
Grissom, J. A., Loeb, S., & Master, B. (2013). Effective instructional time use for school leaders: longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 433-444.
Jarl, M. (2013). Om rektorers pedagogiska ledarskap i ljuset av skolans managementreformer. Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, 18(3-4), 197-215.
Jerdborg, S. (2023). Novice school principals in education and their experiences of pedagogical leadership in practice. Journal of Leadership Education, 22(1), 131-148.
Kennedy. A. (2014) Models of continuing professional development: a framework for analysis. Professional Development in Education, 40(3), 336-351.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. SAGE.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5-22.
Leo, U. (2015). Professional norms guiding school principals’ pedagogical leadership. International Journal of Educational Management, 29(4), 461-476.
Robinson, V. M. J. (2010). From instructional leadership to leadership capabilities: Empirical findings and methodological challenges. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(1), 1-26.
Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.
Sannino, A. (2020). Transformative agency as warping: how collectives accomplish change amidst uncertainty. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 1–25.
Scott, W. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests and identities (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage.
Weick, K. E. (2001). Making sense of the organization. Blackwell.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421.
Virkkunen, J., & Newnham, D. S. (2013). The Change Laboratory: A Tool for Collaborative Development of Work and Education. Sense Publishers.
Ärlestig, H., & Törnsén, M. (2014). Classroom observations and supervision – essential dimensions of pedagogical leadership. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(7), 856-868.
26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Curriculum Development Routines Supporting Goal Pursuit in Estonian Schools
Kätlin Vanari, Eve Eisenschmidt
Tallinn University, Estonia
Presenting Author: Vanari, Kätlin;
Eisenschmidt, Eve
In Europa we can distinguish the increased autonomy and flexibility in curriculum development at the school level and it has raised he importance of empowering schools and educators to have a more active role in shaping curricula based on their specific contexts (Priestley 2021). Also Estonian schools have received more decision-making power to manage learning and teaching in recent decades (Kukemelk & Kitsing, 2020). Estonian schools compile their own curricula based on the National Curriculum. Each school has a different curriculum which serves as the basis for all learning related activities (Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act, 2010). The previous research has indicated that education policy pushes school principals toward innovative initiatives for school improvement (Eisenschmidt et al., 2021) and teachers are characterized by low curriculum ownership (Viirpalu et al., 2022). Curriculum development is essential in a school that strives to enhance teaching and learning and requires organizational routines to facilitate leadership for learning and ensure teacher collaboration.
School improvement goals defined in school improvement plans set the direction of improvement a school is taking and lead to more coherent organizational practices that result in more focused, specific, and consistent teaching practices in classrooms (Meyer, Bendikson, & Le Fevre, 2020). To enhance the teaching and learning, the curriculum leadership is crucial. According to Wai-Yan Wan & Leung (2022) the curriculum leadership has been decentralized and the focus on school principal has shifted to multitude forms of teacher collaboration and collective teacher decision making processes. Therefore, the interactions among school leaders and teachers need frame and structure that can be characterized by organizational routines as repetitive, recognizable patterns of interdependent actions, involving multiple actors (Feldman & Pentland, 2003, p. 95). Previous studies (eg Liljenberg et al 2017, Binkhorst et al 2015) about school improvement routines revealed the lack of well-designed routines for principals to implement a well-established idea of pedagogical leadership and to collaborate with teacher teams.
In this study, we explore how school improvement teams' perceptions of how curriculum leadership routines are shaping the pursuit of school improvement goals. The following research questions will be addressed:
● In terms of curriculum development, what are the school's improvement goals?
● What is the school improvement teams' understanding of how curriculum development contributes to school improvement?
● What curriculum leadership routines are implemented in the schools?
In this paper, three pivotal theoretical perspectives will be employed to explore the curriculum leadership routines for school improvement goals. Curriculum Leadership (Wai-Yan Wan & Leung 2022) delves into the influence of leadership on the development, implementation, and evaluation of curricula. Organizational routines, recognizable patterns of actions within an institution, will be a key lens through which the paper examines interactions among teachers and school leaders (Feldman & Pentland, 2003, Liljenberg et al 2017). The perspective of school improvement goals will guide the investigation into specific objectives set by schools (Meyer, Bendikson, & Le Fevre, 2020).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe paper is based on the multiple case study in seven Estonian schools. We employed a case study approach to investigate the curriculum leadership routines, which are closely linked to school contexts. According to Yin (2003), a case study is appropriate when the context and phenomenon are complex and difficult to distinguish from their context.
The cases were selected in the sample in multi-phase combined techniques. We used the dataset of Estonian school improvement plans created for the previous study by Vanari, Eisenschmidt (2022). In the dataset we grouped the schools according to their direction setting type and randomly chose 1-2 schools from each group. The schools in our sample are characterized by varied school type, size, location.
Data on schools' curriculum leadership routines were collected through semi-structured interviews with school principals (8), focus group interviews with improvement teams (32), and documents such as school improvement plans (7) and school curricula (7). In collecting the data, we considered Bendikson et al.'s (2020) critique of previous studies that focused solely on the opinions of school leaders. Therefore, we used the snowball technique to recruit members of improvement teams.
Data analysis was conducted with multi-stage content analysis combining within-case and cross-case techniques. We started by reading carefully and repeatedly the interview transcripts and comparing with theoretical concepts. In the second stage, a case-based analysis of the data was carried out by gathering relevant information from documents and interviews. The research questions were approached deductively and inductively, drawing on different curriculum functions (Bradley et al 2017) and curriculum leadership (Wai-Yan Wan ja Leung 2022) concepts.
As a limitation of this paper, we examined the routines of curriculum leadership from an ostensive perspective as perceived by the school improvement team. Pentland & Feldman (2005) emphasize that the real action may not be in accordance with abstract idea about the routine. Therefore, it is imperative that longitudinal research continue in order to investigate the interrelationship between goal-setting and curriculum development as expressed through the performative aspect of the routine.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe findings reveal that school improvement goals are focusing on a vast scale on curriculum implementation, like changes in teaching methods, teacher activities, assessment of students, the content of subjects and arrangements of support services. The goals for curriculum writing or evaluation are underrepresented. It corresponds to the earlier findings by Grützmacher jt (2023), but the studied cases differ from Meyer, Patuawa (2022) and Viirpalu et al., (2014) as the goals are not aiming for higher academic results, improving the relations of students nor differentiation in subject areas.
In Estonia school leaders perceive the function of curriculum contradictory. In some cases, the school leaders advocate the importance of the curriculum development. On the other side there are school leaders, who express confusion when trying to reflect the function. In their opinion the curriculum development needs to assure that the curriculum document is in accordance with the study organization in everyday actions. Similarly, the teachers perceive the curriculum as a bureaucratic tool copying the National Framework Curriculum (Erss et al., 2014; Mikser et al., 2016, 2023). We assume that the reasons refer to educational policy in Estonia, where the school principals are not conceptualized as leaders for learning or instructional leaders (Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act, 2010;).
In all the schools there are curriculum leadership routines following mostly a hierarchical task-oriented model. It is remarkable that there were few or no routines for curriculum evaluation in the cases and also no goals for creating routines for curriculum evaluation was set. At the same time the schools should implement regular internal evaluation to analyse the teaching and learning in the school (Estonian Parliament, 2010). The internal evaluation possesses a potential to give input for the curriculum development, but it needs further research to explore how the schools are implementing it.
ReferencesBasic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act. (2010). The Parliament of Estonia. https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/530062020003/consolide
Binkhorst, F., Handelzalts, A., Poortman, C. L., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2015). Understanding teacher design teams – A mixed methods approach to developing a descriptive framework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.07.006
Grützmacher, L., Holzer, J., Lüftenegger, M., Schober, B., & Prenzel, M. (2023). The stimulation of school improvement processes: The orientation of development perspectives. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2023.2246950
Eisenschmidt, E., Ahtiainen, R., Kondratjev, B. S., & Sillavee, R. (2021). A study of Finnish and Estonian principals’ perceptions of strategies that foster teacher involvement in school development. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2021.2000033
Erss, M., Mikser, R., Löfström, E., Ugaste, A., Rõuk, V., & Jaani, J. (2014). Teachers’ Views of Curriculum Policy: The Case of Estonia. British Journal of Educational Studies, 62(4), 393–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2014.941786
Kukemelk, H., & Kitsing, M. (2020). Estonia: School Governance in Estonia—Turnaround from Order-Oriented to Inclusive and Evidence-Based Governance. In Educational Authorities and the Schools—Organisation and Impact in 20 States. Springer.
Meyer, F., & Patuawa, J. (2022). Novice Principals in Small Schools: Making Sense of the Challenges and Contextual Complexities of School Leadership. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 21(2), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2020.1757722
Mikser, R., Viirpalu, P., & Krull, E. (2023). Reflection of teachers’ feelings of curriculum ownership in their curriculum definitions: The example of Estonia. Curriculum Journal, July, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.217
Vanari, K., & Eisenschmidt, E. (2022). Missions, Visions, and Goals for School Improvement—A Typology of Estonian Schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 0(0), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2022.2160360
Viirpalu, P., Krull, E., & Mikser, R. (2014). Investigating Estonian Teachers’ Expectations for the General Education Curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 16(2), 54–70.
Wai-Yan Wan, S., & Leung, S. (2022). Integrating phenomenography with discourse analysis to study Hong Kong prospective teachers’ conceptions of curriculum leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 52(1), 91–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2021.1946484
Yin, R., K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd Edition, Vol. 5). SAGE Publications, Inc.
26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Pedagogical Dimensions of Educational Leadership, a Theoretical Contribution
Janne Elo, Michael Uljens
Åbo Akademi University, Finland
Presenting Author: Elo, Janne;
Uljens, Michael
Studies on leadership and educational leadership (EL) on the European and international level have not been ideal regarding theoretical foundations (Alvesson, 2019; Niesche & Gowlett, 2019; Wang, 2018). The pace of theoretical and conceptual development appears more modest than the increase in the volume of empirical research (Alvesson, 2019; Wang, 2018). This conceptual paper contributes to the ongoing theory turn in recent critical EL research (Niesche & Gowlett, 2019). We focus on the theoretical foundations of EL research by addressing three critiques pointing at some of the conceptual challenges in contemporary research on EL. The paper then elaborates the potential for non-affirmative theory of education to offer a theory and language to overcome these challenges. The study is anticipated to have impact on both European and international audiences.
Challenges in need of resolution
Examining the current state of the art, we have identified three critical challenges within Educational Leadership (EL) research.
Firstly, there exists an ambiguity in how EL research conceptually and theoretically connects EL practices with other societal fields, such as the economy or politics. This lack of a well-defined position poses the risk of fostering isolated or partial interpretations of the relationships between education and broader societal fields, potentially constraining the understanding of educational institutions. An approach devoid of context overlooks the various levels of leadership autonomy and remains silent on the educational role of schools, both from an individual and societal standpoint.
Secondly, numerous approaches to EL as a multilevel phenomenon rely on universal terminology or generic theories, neglecting the necessary conceptual sensitivity required for the leadership of educational institutions. Universal approaches tend to treat multilevel leadership uniformly, irrespective of the specific societal institution under consideration. Conversely, particularistic research approaches, when focused on educational institutions, often isolate separate levels of leadership, failing to grasp the comprehensive view of EL. Moreover, many multi-level approaches omit addressing the mechanisms through which policy interests permeate educational institutions, encompassing both affirmative and enactment-oriented processes.
Thirdly, research on leadership and EL commonly asserts that a crucial aspect of leadership involves providing direction, creating conditions for change, and influencing others' learning. While it is widely acknowledged that leadership encompasses a pedagogical influence, the field remains significantly undertheorized in this regard. Despite various initiatives, such as those proposed by Kasworm and Bowles (2012), EL research lacks a comprehensive language to address both the pedagogical dimensions of leadership and the ultimate objectives of EL—namely, teaching, studying, and learning.
In response to the aforementioned limitations, this paper advocates for a shift that involves recognizing the following. (i) EL requires an idea of how education relates to other societal practices, (ii) EL and pedagogical leadership (PL) are phenomena occurring at different leadership levels simultaneously, and (iii) EL theory requires an idea of the pedagogical process because pedagogical processes constitute its object, and because EL itself features a pedagogical dimension (PL). Theory acknowledging these dimensions could better explain the pedagogical dimensions of leadership at and between different levels, while understanding the object of EL: teaching, studying, and learning.
Based on these assumptions, our aim is to take educational theory as a starting point for approaching EL by studying whether non-affirmative theory of education and Bildung (NAT) (Benner, 2023) may provide a theoretical language for elucidating the pedagogical character of relational leadership interaction, at and between all levels of governance and leadership. NAT draws on the relational and processual theory of Bildung, aligning itself with the Humboldtian model of education in the Western tradition. Given the conceptual nature of this paper, our theoretical approach serves as our methodological foundation.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe paper draws on NAT, based on the modern tradition of Bildung as developed by Rousseau, Fichte, and Herbart (e.g. Benner, 2015; 2023; English, 2013; Elo & Uljens, 2023, in press; Horlacher, 2004). Figure 1 lays out the fundamental principles of NAT; two regulative principles focusing on education´s relation to society and two constitutive principles focusing on pedagogical interaction.
NB! CONFTOOL DISTORTS FIGURE, see instead: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00890-0
Constitutive principles Regulative principles
A Theories of Summoning to self activity Pedagogical transformation of
education societal influences and
requirements
B Theories of Bildsamkeit as attunement of Non-hierarchical order of
Bildung humans to receptive and cultural and societal
spontaneous corporeity, practices
freedom, historicity and
linguisticality
Fig. 1 Four basic principles/concepts of NAT (Elo & Uljens, 2023), following Benner (2023).
The first regulative principle in the bottom right-hand corner addresses the relation between education and other societal practices encompassing politics, culture, religion, and economics. This principle aligns with our first critique, contending that contemporary societies exhibit a non-hierarchical interplay among societal practices, where each facet influences and is influenced by the others simultaneously.
The second regulative principle corresponds to our second critique, probing into how policies, financing, administration, and other forms of governance/leadership — spanning from supranational entities to individual teachers — contribute to transforming societal interests to pedagogical work. Given the many levels of decision-making in the education system, this principle asks to what extent autonomous action to determine the meaning and value of aims and contents of educational influences exists on and between levels of EL.
Both constitutive principles (Figure 1) directly address our third critique on the absence of a robust theory of pedagogical interaction in EL. The first constitutive principle, located in the bottom left-hand corner, underscores the significance of pedagogical interaction, drawing on the German concept of "Bildsamkeit," which denotes the subject's self-active, spontaneous, and perpetual dynamic engagement with the world. In this context, "Bildsamkeit" involves the individual's ability to relate to, and potentially surpass, their current understanding and existence in the world (Benner, 2023). The second constitutive principle defines a pedagogic intervention as a summons of self-activity; an invitation or provocation to an already self-active Other, to direct her attention and engage in self-transcending activity that likely will result in intended changes through a process of learning. PL, understood as a pedagogic summons, entails directing an Other’s self-activity to transcend their current state through a process of self-directed transformation.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAddressing the first critique, our analysis concludes that in a political democracy and liberal economy, Educational Leadership (EL) exerts influence on politics and the economy, while simultaneously relying on citizenship and professional education. Leadership in support of staff necessitates a deliberative and processual conception. Non-affirmative Theory of Education (NAT) elucidates the pedagogical qualities of EL by questioning the extent to which such practices embrace a non-affirmative character. NAT contends that while external legitimate interests need to be recognized, they should not be affirmed one-sidedly, as it would instrumentally subordinate education to external interests, violating Western democratic education ideals.
Regarding the second critique, embracing a non-hierarchical view as the foundation for EL, NAT introduces a leadership language incorporating the dynamics of influence across and within levels of leadership. EL mediates and transforms external interests, providing various degrees of freedom for enactment processes on other levels.
Originally designed to understand teaching in the context of Bildung (summoning, Bildsamkeit), the terminology describing dyadic teaching, studying, and learning processes is extended in response to the third critique. The notion of summoning the 'Other' now encompasses a 'generalized Other,' including individuals, organizations, boards, policies, or nations. Consequently, Pedagogical Leadership (PL) is contextualized in diverse settings, extending beyond traditional pedagogical situations.
Adopting a Bildung theoretical point of departure, where the subject’s relation to the world, others and herself is constitutively open, provides a processual view of being human; an unending process of becoming but always in relation to something other than the subject herself. PL is an intervention in the Other’s relation to herself, to other human beings, and to the world. Invitational summoning of the Other creates a temporally limited reflective, shared space enabling the Other to transcend her current way of understanding and being.
ReferencesAlvesson, M. (2019). Waiting for Godot: Eight major problems in the odd field of leadership studies. Leadership, 15, 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715017736707
Benner, D. (2015). Allgemeine Pädagogik (8th edition). Beltz Juventa.
Benner, D. (2023). On affirmativity and non-affirmativity in the context of theories of education and Bildung. In M. Uljens (Ed.), Non-affirmative theory of education and Bildung (pp. 21–59). Springer.
English, A. R. (2013). Discontinuity in learning: Dewey, Herbart, and education as transformation. Cambridge University Press.
Elo, J., & Uljens, M. (2023). Theorising pedagogical dimensions of higher education leadership—A non affirmative approach. Higher Education, 85, 1281–1298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00890-0
Elo, J. & Uljens, M. (Eds.) (in press). Multilevel pedagogical leadership in higher education – a non-affirmative approach. Springer Open Access.
Horlacher, R. (2004). Bildung – a construction of a history of philosophy of education. Studies in Philosophy and Education 23, 409–426.
Niesche, R., & Gowlett, C. (2019). Critical perspectives in educational leadership: A new ‘theory turn’? In Niesche, R. & Gowlett, C. (2019). Social, critical and political theories for educational leadership, (pp. 17–34). Springer.
Uljens, M. (2015). Curriculum work as educational leadership: Paradoxes and theoretical foundations. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 1, 22–30. https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v1.27010
Uljens, M. (Ed.). (2023a). Non-affirmative theory of education and Bildung. Springer Open Access.
Uljens, M. (2023b). The Why, Where, How and What of Curriculum Leadership: A Non-affirmative Approach. In R. Ahtiainen, E. Hanhimäki, J. Leinonen, M. Risku & A-S. Smeds-Nylund (Eds.), Leadership in educational contexts in Finland: Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 179-197). Springer Open Access.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-37604-7_9
Uljens, M., & Ylimaki, R. (2017). Non-affirmative theory of education as a foundation for curriculum studies, Didaktik and educational leadership. In M. Uljens and R. Ylimaki, (Eds.), Bridging educational leadership, curriculum theory and Didaktik—Non-affirmative theory of education (pp. 3–145). Springer.
Wang, Y. (2018). The panorama of the last decade’s theoretical groundings of educational leadership research: A concept co-occurrence network analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54, 327–365.
26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Principal Instructional Leadership: Unraveling the Indirect Influence through Teacher Collaboration on Pupil Achievement
Rebecka Persson, Ema Demir
Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden
Presenting Author: Persson, Rebecka;
Demir, Ema
Ample research has consistently highlighted the positive influence of both principal instructional leadership and teacher collaboration on pupil performance. Given the collaborative nature of schools, we sought to investigate whether there is a mediation effect of principal instructional leadership through teacher collaboration on pupil performance. Surprisingly, the results unveiled a counterintuitive pattern—negative relationships emerged. In other words, the combination of effective principal leadership and enhanced teacher collaboration was associated with a negative impact on pupil performance. While this finding may raise eyebrows, it is not an isolated occurrence in the literature, prompting a re-evaluation of the conventional understanding of leadership dynamics in schools, emphasizing the pivotal roles played by both teachers and principals. Our journey into this novel perspective begins with a robust longitudinal dataset encompassing 79,683 teacher evaluations, offering a nuanced exploration of principal leadership and teacher collaboration in shaping the educational landscape.
The significance of principal instructional leadership in education has been extensively discussed, particularly its impact on pupil academic achievement (e.g., Böhlmark et al., 2016). Effective instructional leadership sets high academic standards and nurtures a conducive learning environment, vital for student success. Principals who prioritise academic goals, provide teacher support, and foster a collaborative culture can significantly enhance school performance. However, empirical research is lacking, particularly concerning the interplay between instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and pupil outcomes.
In educational research, instructional leadership is a cornerstone concept, focusing on principals' roles in shaping teaching and learning environments. This involves defining educational goals, developing pedagogical programs, and fostering a conducive learning climate. In Sweden, where this study is based, school leadership research has been limited despite the acknowledged importance of principal leadership for school performance (Ärlestig et al., 2016).
Principal leadership is believed to indirectly affect pupil outcomes through various channels, including teacher morale and school culture. Meta-analyses have consistently demonstrated positive associations between principal leadership and pupil achievement (Wu & Shen, 2020; Tan et al., 2020). However, the exact mechanisms through which leadership influences academic outcomes remain complex, with potential moderating factors such as school context.
Teacher collaboration is critical to effective school environments, facilitating resource exchange, targeted student learning discussions, and mutual learning experiences (e.g., Banerjee et al., 2017; Vangrieken et al., 2015). Principals play a vital role in fostering a culture of collaboration (Voelkel, 2022), which has been shown to impact pupil achievement positively (Goddard et al., 2007). However, recent research has yielded mixed results regarding the relationship between teacher collaboration and pupil performance (Goddard et al., 2010; Mora-Ruano et al., 2021), necessitating further exploration.
This study investigates the relationship between principal instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and pupil academic achievement. This research seeks to elucidate the intricate dynamics of school leadership and its impact on student achievement by assessing principal leadership through teacher ratings and examining its association with pupil outcomes. Additionally, the study aims to explore the potential indirect effects of instructional leadership on pupil performance through teacher collaboration while controlling for various confounding variables.
In sum, this research provides valuable insights into the role of principal instructional leadership in shaping school environments and influencing pupil achievement. By elucidating the mechanisms through which leadership impacts student outcomes, this study aims to inform educational policy and practice, ultimately enhancing school performance and student success.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe data for the study was collected from a teacher survey conducted by the Swedish School Inspectorate, distributed biannually to all schools. From an initial pool of n=243,880 responses, n=79,683 were included, as only schools serving the final year of compulsory schooling were included. The sample was nested within n=1,643 schools, generating n=3486 school scores for Principal instructional leadership and Teacher collaboration. Collected longitudinally over five years (2015-2019), the data averaged n=2.1 responses per school. Responses for Principal instructional leadership and Teacher collaboration were obtained simultaneously, with each school's data gathered on multiple occasions.
While school data often exhibit a multilevel structure in cross-sectional studies due to within-school variability, this dataset solely provided school-scale scores because individual teachers were not tracked over time. However, the longitudinal nature of the data still permits multilevel analysis due to within-school variability over time. No missing data were present, as only complete survey responses were recorded.
The independent variable, Principal instructional leadership, was measured with three items showing good internal consistency (α=.88) and an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of .27 on the first occasion (2015). The mediator, Teacher collaboration, comprised three items with moderate internal consistency (α=.61) and ICC of .20 on the same occasion.
School averages per occasion were used for both outcomes of interest, i.e., Grades and Standardised test scores. Grades were furthermore averages of the three subjects of Swedish, Math and English.
We used multilevel structural equation models (MSEM) (Preacher et al., 2010) to examine the effects of Principal instructional leadership on pupil achievement mediated by Teacher collaboration. In these models, Grades and Test Scores were dependent variables, while SES, Share of certified teachers, and Teacher-to-student ratio were used as observed control variables. Principal instructional leadership and Teacher collaboration were treated as latent variables. The MSEM framework allows for simultaneous, one-step estimation of multivariate models, making it suitable for mediation analyses. For the dependent variables, Grades and Test Scores, unconditional models incorporating time as a covariate were estimated to assess any temporal effects, considering the linear change over the study period. The resulting changes were positive but small.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe findings from our current study reveal consistent trends in grades and standardised test scores as outcome variables. Intriguingly, there is no observed mediation effect of teacher collaboration within schools over time regarding the relationship between principal instructional leadership and school outcomes. However, a noteworthy negative mediating relationship emerges between schools. When control variables are introduced, only the negative relationship between schools in the context of grades as the outcome variable remains significant. This unexpected outcome diverges from prior research expectations regarding the association between principal instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and pupil performance. Notably, a previous study utilising PISA data (Mora-Ruano et al., 2021) also discovered a negative relationship.
To delve deeper into this counterintuitive mediating relationship, we plan to conduct a latent class analysis (LCA) of the data. The objective is to discern whether the unexpected association between principal instructional leadership and teacher collaboration represents a linear trend in the sample or if various trends exist, forming distinct groups of schools with diverse relationships between these variables. This analysis seeks to uncover potential mechanisms that may differ between schools, such as variations in teacher collaboration constellations. While these intricacies may not be explicitly modelled in our data, we aspire to offer valuable insights into potential school differences, urging future research to move beyond replicating linear relationships across entire samples of schools.
In summary, while principal instructional leadership and teacher collaboration each exhibit connections with pupil performance, their combined influence, inevitable within the educational setting, introduces nuances. This prompts a call for further investigation in research on principal leadership and teacher collaboration.
ReferencesBanerjee, N., Stearns, E., Moller, S., & Mickelson, R. A. (2017). Teacher job satisfaction and student achievement: The roles of teacher professional community and te
Böhlmark, A., Grönqvist, E., & Vlachos, J. (2016). The headmaster ritual: The importance of management for school outcomes. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 118(4), 912-940.
Goddard, Y. L., Miller, R., Larsen, R., Goddard, R., Madsen, J., & Schroeder, P. (2010). Connecting Principal Leadership, Teacher Collaboration, and Student Achievement. Online Submission.
Mora-Ruano, J. G., Schurig, M., & Wittmann, E. (2021, February). Instructional leadership as a vehicle for teacher collaboration and student achievement. What the German PISA 2015 sample tells us. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 6, p. 582773). Frontiers Media SA.
Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological methods, 15(3), 209.
Tan, C. Y., Gao, L., & Shi, M. (2022). Second-order meta-analysis synthesizing the evidence on associations between school leadership and different school outcomes. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(3), 469-490.
Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational research review, 15, 17-40.
Voelkel Jr, R. H. (2022). Causal relationship among transformational leadership, professional learning communities, and teacher collective efficacy. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 25(3), 345-366.
Wu, H., & Shen, J. (2022). The association between principal leadership and student achievement: A multivariate meta-meta-analysis. Educational research review, 35, 100423.
Ärlestig, H., Johansson, O., & Nihlfors, E. (2016). Sweden: Swedish school leadership research–An important but neglected area. In A decade of research on school principals (pp. 103-122). Springe
|
