26. Educational Leadership
Paper
To Make a Difference at Work – Continuous Professional Development Offered to and Valued by Principals
Stina Jerdborg, Mette Liljenberg
University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Presenting Author: Jerdborg, Stina;
Liljenberg, Mette
Living in a changing world we are constantly faced with new challenges which require new knowledge and capacity building. Consequently, principals’ continuous professional development (CPD) has become a central concern of educational actors in many countries (Grissom & Harrington, 2010; Gurr & Drysdale, 2012). Still, research about principals’ CPD is limited although growing. As most of the research is conducted within Anglo-Saxion countries, more knowledge of principals’ CPD practices, especially from outside of North America is needed (Huber, 2011; 2013). So far, research results have recommended a mix of strategies and methods, being embedded in practice and adjusted to local needs (Newmann, et al., 2000). However, if CPD is to challenge prevailing understanding and practices, it needs to provide opportunities for collegial inquiry and systematic learning (Goldring et al., 2012). In addition, Campbell et al. (2017) stress the importance of external support and mentoring for leaders at different stages in their career trajectory. As principals are lonely in their position, an important element of high-quality CPD is group coaching and networking with other principals who could stimulate critical reflection and help identify gaps in knowledge and skills (Aas & Varvik, 2015; Nicolaidou et al., 2016).
In Sweden, central regulation prescribes that local education authorities (LEAs), i.e., the 290 municipalities and the many independent school providers (business companies and non-profit organizations), must ensure principals with CPD. However, due to decentralised implementation, each LEA is free to choose direction and design. To support LEAs, the National Agency of Education offers a variety of voluntary courses and seminaries, individually or in cooperation with universities. In addition, CPD for principals is also offered by companies and organized by LEAs themselves. Swedish research about principal CPD is, in line with international research, limited and primarily restricted to single case studies (e.g. Liljenberg, 2021; Sahlin 2023). Consequently, the aim of this study is to contribute to the research field by capturing a broader picture of principals’ CPD in Sweden. We do so by addressing the following research question: What characterize the CPD offered to and valued by principals?
The theoretical point of departure for the study is taken in Wenger’s (1998) and Wenger Trayner and Wenger Trayner’s (2020) perspective on social learning and social learning spaces. In their view, a CPD initiative could be termed a constellation and understood as a designed social learning space. Constellations define relations of locality, proximity, and distance, not necessarily congruent with physical proximity, institutional affiliations, or even interactions. Hence, learning in social spaces of CPD reconfigure relations of proximity and distance. Even as principals can participate in global improvement initiatives of any kind, they can only engage locally. Engagement in the local while participating in the global are thus to be seen as related levels of participation, always coexisting and shaping each other (Wenger, 1998, p. 131). Learning can also be viewed as value-creation through experiencing meaning in life (Wenger Trayner & Wenger Trayner, 2020 p. 48). Learning to make a difference goes through practice where social learning reveals the value it creates through action. In this sense caring to make a difference is an investment in uncertainty but also in identity, it involves being in tension between caring to make a difference but not yet knowing how to get there, actualising the need to pay attention to responses in the learning process. This means, the ECER 2024 theme ‘education in an age of uncertainty: memory and hope for the future’ is inherent in the approach taken in this study.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study builds on two qualitative datasets. The first set of data emanates from a multiple case study of six Swedish municipalities. To receive maximal variation, the municipalities were strategically selected (Flyvbjerg 2011) based on municipality classification, number of inhabitants and geographic location. Data includes 60 semi-structured individual interviews with principals. Each interview lasted 60–75 minutes, was audio-recorded and then transcribed verbatim. The second set of data emanates from a two-day seminar with 24 principals representing additional eight municipalities. These principals have taken part in a one-year university course given in collaboration with the National Agency of Education to support principals’ CPD within improvement work and pedagogical leadership. The course is corresponding to 7.5 higher education credits at the advanced level. The principals participated in the seminar to collectively learn and share experiences of managing improvement work based on knowledge gained in the course. During the seminar, audio-recorded data from group conversations was collected. Each conversation took part in smaller groups (n=6) of four principals from different course cohorts and lasted for about 60 minutes. Recorded data was later transcribed by the researchers for further analysis. These group conversations can be classified as mini focus group discussions (Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2005) and are preferably used when the potential pool of participants is small but where everyone has a high level of expertise in the topics to be discussed. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection.
Broadly, the analysis was conducted in the following way: Firstly, the two dataset was approached using the theoretical construct of value-creation (Wenger Trayner & Wenger Trayner, 2020). Analytically, the focus was set on ‘a principal’s direction in terms of their will and ability to make a difference at work’ to find out what characterizes the CPD offered to and valued high or low by principals in terms of the dual concepts of local and global as well as individual and social. Secondly, the second dataset was further approached by focusing on the shared experiences of the CPD course and inherent improvement work in terms of value-creation operationalised as meaning making and categorised as strategic, enabling, orienting or transformative, and coded as immediate, potential, applied or realized value. That means value can take a mundane and practical form but still be made sense of analytically.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsPreliminary results show that CPD offered by LEAs are highly valued when based on external support from university lecturers or coaches. However, more often CPD was valued low by principals due to individual learning, short term and too general. Even when the CPD involved collegial exchange of experience, it was valued low due to being too local, sometimes combined with being too global in terms of lectures, conferences or book reading shaping a distance, thus difficult to translate into practice. To a lesser extent, principals engage in CPD’s offered by LEAs that are collegial, inquiry and research based and fairly global through organizational exchange. However, these are not always adapted to local schools’ needs.
One group of principals distance themselves from university courses. The principals that participate in and value CPD university courses high are divided into two sub-groups. Both groups feel a strong care to make a difference at work by improving education. They experience courses as promoters of leadership actions, identifying and meeting the needs of their organisation, connecting global participation and local engagement. They value university courses high even when participation require additional working hours and rarely guarantee any pre-given benefits. For the first sub-group, supported by their superintendents, value-creation became a common strategic interest. Participation is experienced as enabling and transformative being applied and realized locally. For the second sub-group, less supported by superintendents, value-creation was strategic while gaining support not offered elsewhere; however, their outcome was orienting, being of immediate and potential value.
In all, the CPD most valued are characterized by linking global and local features and making individual concerns social and collective. The results indicate principal CPD can contribute to strengthen school-capacity, but responsibility falls heavily on the individual principals’ shoulders.
ReferencesAas, M. & Vavik, M. (2015). Group coaching: a new way of constructing leadership identity? School Leadership and Management, 35(3), 251-265.
Campbell, C., Osmond-Johnson, P., Faubert, B., Zeichner, K. & Hobbs-Johnson, A. (with Brown, S., DaCosta, P., Hales, A., Kuehn, L., Sohn, J. and Steffensen, K.). (2017). The state of educators’ professional learning in Canada: Final research report. Learning Forward, Oxford, OH.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case study. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, (pp. 301-316). Sage.
Goldring, E. B., Preston, C. & Huff, J. (2012). Conceptualizing and evaluating professional development for school leaders. Planning and Changing, 43(3-4), 223-242.
Grissom, J. A. & Harrington, J. R. (2010). Investing in administrator efficacy: an examination of professional development as a tool for enhancing principal effectiveness. American Journal of Education, 116(4), 583-612.
Gurr, D. & Drysdale, L. (2012). Tensions and dilemmas in leading Australia’s schools. School Leadership & Management, 32(5), 403-420.
Huber, S. G. (2011). The impact of professional development: a theoretical model for empirical research, evaluation, planning and conducting training and development programmes. Professional Development in Education, 37(5), 837–853.
Huber, S. G. (2013). Multiple learning approaches in the professional development of school leaders – theoretical perspectives and empirical findings on self-assessment and feedback. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(4), 527-540.
Kamberelis, G., & Dimitriadis, G. (2005). Focus groups: Strategic articulations of pedagogy, politics, and inquiry. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed. (pp. 887–907). Sage Publications Inc.
Liljenberg, M. (2021). A professional development practice to enhance principals’ instructional leadership – enabling and constraining arrangements. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 6(4), 354-366.
Newmann, F. M., King, M. B. & Youngs, P. (2000). Professional development that addresses school capacity: lessons from Urban Elementary Schools. American Journal of Education, 108(4), 259-299.
Nicolaidou, M., Karagiorgi, Y. & Petridou, A. (2016). Feedback-based coaching towards school leaders’ professional development: Reflections from the PROFLEC project in Cyprus. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 5(1), 20-36.
Sahlin, S. (2023). Professional development of school principals – how do experienced school leaders make sense of their professional learning? Educational Management, Administration & Leadership. Online print.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
Wenger-Trayner, E., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2020). Learning to make a difference: Value creation in social learning spaces. Cambridge University Press.
26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Professional Development for School Leaders and Schools – Combining Persistent and Coherent Interventions
Stephan Huber1, Christoph Helm1, Rolf Strietholt2, Jane Pruitt1, Gregor Steinbeiß1
1Johannes Kepler University, Austria; 2IEA Hamburg
Presenting Author: Huber, Stephan
This paper examines a professional development program for school leadership and school development combining multiple interventions and their quality and benefits. The longitudinal mixed methods study analyses the effect on school leadership, school development and school quality in schools in challenging circumstances. It is based on data from an accompanying study of a program aimed at supporting schools in disadvantaged areas, providing school principals from schools in low socio-economic environments with various interventions to aid in the further development of their schools.
The study builds on research on school effectiveness and school improvement, especially regarding schools in challenging circumstances in terms of school turnaround and the role of school leadership.
Due to their location and the composition of the student body, schools in challenging circumstances face more difficult conditions. These schools typically have a high proportion of students from underprivileged family backgrounds, often measured by their parents' education levels and financial circumstances. These poorer socio-economic conditions are frequently associated with the need for special compensatory efforts by the school. However, characterizing a school as a being in a disadvantaged area does not automatically imply diminished school quality (Racherbäumer & van Ackeren, 2015). Some schools may face greater challenges for various reasons, including lower graduation rates or poorer academic performance (Holtappels et al., 2017). Moreover, there can be a cumulative effect of dysfunctional organizational characteristics (composition effect), which can lead to significantly lower school quality and/or more difficult school development processes. In other words, stressors not only affect the current quality of the school but also hinder its progress and improvement (Author, 2018, 2020). As a result, quality characteristics can differ. These schools need external support. The necessary additional support from the system can be provided within the framework of professionalization and advisory services. The range of support measures can vary, including leadership development through training and further education, process consulting and coaching offers, and providing additional resources in the form of time, equipment, and funding.
School leadership also plays an important role not only in school development and building school development capacities but also in accessing external resources and moderating and mediating external interventions. The importance of school leadership for school effectiveness (see, among others, Fend 1987, 1998; Rutter et al. 1979; Sammons et al. 1995) and school improvement, aimed at continuous enhancement of schools (see, among others, Fullan 1988, 1991, 1992; Leithwood & Montgomery 1986; Schratz 1998), has been well-established since the 1980s (Author 1997, 1999a,b,c, 2010a,b, 2011a, 2012, 2016a,b). Consequently, the question of effective and successful actions by educational leaders, especially school principals, has become one of the central topics in educational discussions. There is now broad agreement on the necessity and significance of corresponding professionalization and qualification opportunities. In this sense, leadership development is closely related to the development of the quality of schools.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis five-year longitudinal sequential explanative mixed methods study is based on a sample of around 150 schools in challenging circumstances from a German state. Over a three-year period, half of the schools experienced additional measures to professionalize school leadership (e.g., coaching of school leaders, continuous professional development program) and support for school development (additional financial resources, process consultancy for school development activities).
The qualitative analysis includes school documents (e.g., school strategy documents), semi-structured interviews with different actors in the schools (at baseline, after three years), and protocols of coaches and school development consultants. Qualitative data are analyzed using qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2015).
For the quantitative analysis, six questionnaires with staff and school administrators are conducted - three on the work situation, three on the various interventions. Statistical data from government agencies and student achievement data are also analyzed. In addition to a descriptive evaluation of the quality assessments of staff and school leaders, regression analyses are conducted to examine the impact of specific program components on selected school quality characteristics during the program period. As the program was implemented at the school level, the analyses were conducted accordingly.
Through a comparison group design, it is possible to compare the changes in project and comparison schools and to relate them to the program interventions. To measure the changes in the schools using questionnaire data of the survey on the work situation, the effect size Cohen's d (Cohen, 1988) was calculated, which refers to the practical relevance of the results.
The paper focuses on the support measures, examining both the processes and the outcomes. Therefore, the paper investigates the quality of the program components in terms of the assessment of the involved actors and provides an overview on the topics, objectives, processes, and impact particularly of school leadership coaching and school development consultancy on school quality and its changes.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe findings show the very positive assessment of the program’s quality and benefits and its positive consequences on the school’s quality. The regression analyses demonstrate that positively perceived outcome qualities of the interventions are associated with improvements in numerous dimensions of school quality (e.g., cooperative leadership). Effect sizes show that most schools involved in the program developed better over time than the comparison schools.
The analyses of interviews and protocols on school leadership coaching and school development consultancy reveal numerous benefits of their activities in organizational, personnel, and instructional development. For example: Coaching primarily addresses aspects of self and personnel management and aids in self-management by allowing leaders to reflect on challenging situations, develop problem-solving strategies, and gain a better understanding of their values and role.
Successful implementation of coaching and school development consultancy shares several common features. The expertise and competence of the coach and the consultant play a vital role in the effectiveness of the coaching and consultation process. Equally important is the design of the framework conditions surrounding the measures and adequate structural resources. Additionally, ensuring a good fit between the coach/consultant and the coachee/school is of importance to ensure a successful process.
Overall, the findings provide evidence for the effectiveness of school development programs on school leadership and school improvement. The results indicate that intervention strategies should be tailored to the individual school's circumstances, needs, and challenges, ensuring they fit precisely into the school's specific context. For project initiators and decision-makers, this means providing a framework that is individually adapted by each participating school to its unique context. This is a prerequisite for sustainable and effective transfer of knowledge into school development processes. The interventions will be discussed in terms of their effects and the necessary conditions for successful implementation, along with their practical implications.
ReferencesAuthor 1997, 1999a,b,c, 2010a,b, 2011a, 2012, 2016a,b, 2018, 2020
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
Fend, H. (1987). „Gute Schulen – schlechte Schulen“ – Die einzelne Schule als pädagogische Handlungseinheit. In U. Steffens & T. Bargel (Hrsg.), Erkundungen zur Wirksamkeit und Qualität von Schule (Beiträge aus dem Arbeitskreis Qualität von Schule, Heft 1 (S. 55 – 80). Hessisches Institut für Bildungsplanung und Schulentwicklung.
Fend, H. (1998). Qualität im Bildungswesen. Schulforschung zu Systembedingungen, Schulprofilen und Lehrerleistung. Weinheim: Juventa.
Fullan, M. (1988). What’s worth fighting for in the principalship. Ontario Public School Teachers’ Federation.
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. Cassell.
Fullan, M. (1992). Successful school improvement. Open University Press.
Holtappels, H. G., Webs, T., Kamarianakis, E., & Ackeren, I. van (2017). Schulen in herausfordernden Problemlagen–Typologien, Forschungsstand und Schulentwicklungsstrategien. In V. Manitius & P. Dobbelstein (Ed./Hrsg.), Schulentwicklungsarbeit in herausfordernden Lagen (S. 17 – 35). Waxmann.
Leithwood, K. A., & Montgomery, D. J. (1986). Improving Principal Effectiveness: The principal profile. Toronto: OISE Press.
Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim: Beltz.
Racherbäumer, K., & Ackeren, I. van (2015). Was ist eine (gute) Schule in schwieriger Lage? Befunde einer Studie im kontrastiven Fallstudiendesign an Schulen in der Metropolregion Rhein-Ruhr. In L. Fölker, T. Hertel & N. Pfaff (Hrsg.), Brennpunkt(-) Schule. Zum Verhältnis von Schule, Bildung und urbaner Segregation (S. 189 – 20). Verlag Barbara Budrich.
Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., & Ouston, J. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours. London: Open Books.
Sammons, P., Hillman, J., A., & Mortimore, P. (1995). Key Characteristics of Effective Schools: A Review of School Effectiveness Research. Institute of Education, University of London, and Office for Standards in Education.
Schratz, M. (1998). Schulleitung als change agent: Vom Verwalten zum Gestalten von Schule. In H. Altrichter, W. Schley & M. Schratz (Hrsg.), Handbuch zur Schulentwicklung. StudienVerlag, S. 160-189.
26. Educational Leadership
Paper
School Leadership Workshops as an Arena for Research-Practice Partnership
Ruth Jensen1, Kristin Helstad2, Ann Elisabeth Gunnulfsen1, Hedvig N. Abrahamsen1
1University of Oslo, Norway; 2Oslo Metropolian University
Presenting Author: Jensen, Ruth;
Helstad, Kristin
There is an international consensus that the professionalization of school leaders through education is necessary due to the increased complexity of governance expectations and needs of change (Crow et al., 2008; Spillane et al. 2002). In a complex world people and organizations are expected to learn something that is not stable or understood ahead of time (Engeström, 2001, p. 138). Consequently, there is a need of professional learning in ongoing work activities. During years, school leaders have had the opportunity to participate in various arrangements of school leadership development such as networks across schools and partnership with researchers. Developing partnerships between researchers and practitioners is a common strategy for supporting school improvement and professional development (Coburn & Penuel, 2016). It may involve interventional approaches, such as action research, design-based research, and formative interventions (Engeström, 2011) which is the strategy being used in the present study. In the present study, we are inspired by the Finnish version of formative intervention. This mode of intervention is building on cultural historical activity theory and on the principles of double stimulation and ascending from abstract to the concrete to mediate agency in and between workplaces (Sannino et al, 2016). The point of departure is ‘a problematic and contradictory object, embedded in the participants´ workplace (Engeström, 2015, p. xxxi). It can be manifested as a problem space riddled with conflicting motives and dilemmas (Engeström & Sannino, 2011; 2017). We have explored the method of ChangeLaboratory (CL) in leadership teams in upper secondary schools in Norway. A central feature of CL is that the researchers intervene with specific triggers such as theoretical models and “mirrors” generated from data being collected from workplace to trigger explorative work with a problem statement based on the practitioners needs and future visions. Formative interventions have been conducted in a range of fields over the past three decades, such as in court reforms, farming, health care, small-firms and industries, media companies, medical care, and to a limited degree in vocational teacher education and in teacher teams (Engeström & Sannino, 2010). Some studies have been conducted within the field of teacher education (Jakhelln & Postholm, 2022) but to a limited degree in leadership teams in schools. As such, we organized several workshops in leadership teams in three upper secondary schools. The purpose of the paper is to contribute with empirical knowledge about school leadership workshops as an arena for formative interventions in partnership with a specific attention to the tools, the processes, and the experiences. The research questions are as follows:
- What characterize the use of tools in ongoing school leadership workshops?
- How do the participants experience participation in the workshops?
- To what extend do the collaborative work between school leaders and researchers have relevance when leading processes of school improvement in upper secondary schools?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study is a longitudinal study with cases from three schools. We have collected video data from eight workshops in each case (2h) and materials being explicitly introduced and used when working on selected problem spaces. The data were collected over a two-year period of time and have been subject to content and interaction analysis. The transcripts from the video data have been organized into episodes, which makes it possible to trace the objects being worked on over time. We have also collected interview data from the participants. The interview data and the materials have been subject to content analyses.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsVideo data revealed that a myriad of artefacts was introduced in the leadership workshops. In addition, several artefacts such as models, charts, plans, and visions were being introduced by the school leaders. In the interactions, ideas flourished in the workshops. Over time, it became visible that some of the ideas were used or transformed to better handle the problematic situation under scrutiny. The artefacts were used for different purposes. Questions about the past, the present and the future were pervasive. Interview data showed this type of questions often triggered negotiations, elaborations, and clarifications about the leadership practices, and not at least agency to solve and handle existing problems and dilemmas. A premise seemed to be that the questions were open-ended rather than being closed questions. The video and interview data showed the object of the leadership workshops where rather ill-defined in the beginning. Several search actions among the participants and the researchers emerged in the workshops where the researchers used a variety of artefacts to make the purpose of the workshop explicit. It became visible in the video data that the concept of leadership workshops seemed to be rather abstract in the beginning. A turning point become visible when the researchers began to present mirrors based on observations and videos; an object seemed to emerge, which met their needs as leaders of professional work. In all three cases, the interview data indicated the issues being discussed seemed to have relevance to their practices, not at least since the conversations revealed that a horizon of possible actions became visible. Because the study built on longitudinal data from video recordings, it has been possible to trace how some episodes became conducive to transformative agency and substantial and incremental changes in how to lead the professional community of teachers.
ReferencesCoburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research–practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational researcher, 45(1), 48-54.
Crow, G., Lumby, J., & Pashiardis, P. (2008). Introduction: Why an international handbook on the preparation and development of school leaders? In J. Lumby, G. Crow & P. Pashiardis (Eds.), International handbook on the preparation and development of school leaders (pp. 1–17). New York: Routledge.
Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory & psychology, 21(5), 598-628
Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Cambridge.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of education and work, 14(1), 133-156.
Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory & psychology, 21(5), 598-628.
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2017). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findingsand future challenges. Introduction to Vygotsky, 100-146.
Jakhelln, R., & Postholm, M. B. (2022). University–school collaboration as an arena for community-building in teacher education. Educational Research, 64(4), 457-472.
Sannino, A., Engeström, Y., & Lemos, M. (2016). Formative interventions for expansive learning and transformative agency. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 599-633.Sannino, A., Engeström, Y., & Lemos, M. (2016). Formative interventions for expansive learning and transformative agency. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 599-633.
Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., Burch, P., Hallett, T., Jita, L., & Zoltners, J. (2002). Managing in the middle: School leaders and the enactment of accountability policy. Educational Policy, 16(5), 731-762.
Virkkunen, J. & Newnham, D.S. (2013). The change laboratory: A tool for collaborative development of work and education. Sense Publications.
|
