Conference Agenda

Currently, within the education system in Wales, professional learning and system leadership remain at the epicentre of contemporary education policy. This paper builds on an initial, conceptual paper, presented at ICSEI 2020, to outline the inception, development and implementation of the National MA Education (Wales) that has been co-constructed and co-delivered by seven Welsh Universities working in partnership. The main intention of the paper is to outline the way in which the National MA Education (Wales) is internationally ground-breaking in design and delivery through offering accredited professional learning at scale. The National MA Wales is a new system-wide, post-graduate qualification that is intellectually rigorous but also close to practice with the core intention of building professional capacity and capital throughout the system. The paper will highlight how the National MA Education (Wales) is of international importance in its design, delivery, and impact. The paper will highlight how the National MA Education (Wales) has positively redefined and reshaped the accredited professional learning offer in Wales. The implications for research, practice and policy will be considered along with a commentary and analysis of professional learning at scale.

This paper explores a phenomenon we have traced in our research with educational professionals involved in inquiry in professional learning networks. Described as 'catalytic affiliation' we identified features of network and leader practices that enabled an acceleration of commitment to inquiry-based professional learning and a growth in network participation. We see this work as primarily relational - as Daly and Stoll (2017) have argued, relational links through which change moves are understudied and require a deeper exploration of the quality of networked, relational ties.

This paper is based on a multi year study of the connections amongst educators involved in the Canadian based Networks of Inquiry and Indigenous Education. (https://noiie.ca/ ) This voluntary professional inquiry network has been functioning since 1999 and now includes schools in several international jurisdictions. The main goals of NOIIE are linked closely to the conference themes of equity, inclusion, diversity, social justice and sustainability. Because many of the 60 BC based network leaders are graduates of the Transformative Educational Leadership Program at UBC https://telp.educ.ubc.ca/, NOIIE also serves a function in sustained leadership development and capacity building.

We believe that catalytic affiliation is a conceptual idea that can unpack the complexity of relational ties that thrive in inquiry networks such as NOIIE. It also can help us explore how social practices such as kindredness, authenticity, relational agency and reciprocal aligned beliefs work in tandem to deepen and accelerate systemwide innovation.

Our investigation illuminates how catalytic affiliation is more than a practice of individual leaders but is a characteristic of networked learning spaces deeply anchored in shared repertoires of learning, action and commitment - attracting and broadening professional engagement. Catalytic affiliation is operationalized through enabling structures, symbols, social and cultural tools and practices that curate connections. It is a function of right relations, creating shared relational spaces through which to collaboratively and inclusively build common horizons of purpose. These ideas are developed more fulsomely in the paper that follows.

This paper aims to gain insights into the development of collaboration in school environments and asks which types of collaboration, collaborating stakeholders and effects of collaboration can be identified. From an organisational-psychological perspective collaboration is defined as “…goals or tasks to be achieved together. It is intentional, communicative, and requires trust. It presupposes a certain autonomy and is committed to the norm of reciprocity" (Spieß, 2004, p. 199). The greater independence of schools and shared goals of school development intensifies relationships not only outside, but also within the institution. It is essential for stakeholders to develop and improve collaboration to ensure sustainable school development. Management, as well as the teaching staff and the students, represent the school and thus help to strengthen the school's prestige, competitiveness and learning outcome. Promoting collaboration among the staff and the students is crucial. Previous research has shown that collaboration in schools enhances school development and learning outcomes (Huber, 2012).

While multiple studies already exist, this paper offers an in-depth qualitative approach through a large-scale longitudinal study at schools in challenging circumstances. Due to their location and the composition of their student body, these schools are exposed to difficult conditions and are particularly challenged. In example, schools in challenging circumstances have a high percentage of students from non-privileged family situations (measured in terms of the educational and financial circumstances of the parents). These poorer socio-economic circumstances are often associated with special compensatory services provided by the school to cope with low graduation rates, poorer learning outcomes and dysfunctional characteristics (Holtappels et al., 2017).

Central research questions:

1. What types of collaboration can be identified throughout the environment of schools in challenging circumstances and which stakeholders are involved?

2. How does collaboration develop between stakeholders inside the school and out-of-school contexts?

3. What effects are achieved through identified forms of collaboration?

Methodology and Method

The qualitative longitudinal study examines the development of collaboration in the context of school environments in Germany (75 Schools). A biannual collection of semi-structured interviews with principals, teachers, pedagogical staff, parents and students addresses the above-mentioned research questions through the analysis of individual cases and cross-case comparison. The schools were chosen based on their status as schools in challenging circumstances. Over a multiple-year period (since 2016) a total amount of 659 interviews have been collected. Currently, the presented research project is at an early stage of qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz & Rädiger 2019). Therefore, this paper focuses on three “most diverse” cases/schools (approx. 45 interviews) which have been chosen based on the results of a quantitative co-study with the same timeframe and cohort groups.

Conclusion

Due to the early stage of the project, first, a theoretical framework will be presented that links cooperation with possible effects and school development. Second, the collaboration stakeholders in the context of school environments will be outlined. In addition, collaborators outside of the school environment will be investigated. Third, a first typification of different forms of collaboration in school environments between stakeholders will be reconstructed and discussed.

Objectives

Research-practice partnerships (RPPs) are emerging globally to address the disconnect between research and practice in education. RPPs “connect diverse forms of expertise and shift power relations in the research endeavor to ensure that all partners have a say” (Farrell et al., 2021, p. iv). Since RPPs aim to flatten hierarchies between researchers and practitioners, we examine discourse patterns for evidence. By conducting an international cross-cultural comparison of RPP meetings in the US and Switzerland, we ask: What do discourse patterns in RPPs reveal about issues of power between researchers and practitioners? What differences are observed in RPPs across contexts? How do meeting artifacts shape power and discourse features?

Framework

We use a practice theoretical approach where “bundles of practices and arrangements are the central unit of conceptuality and analysis of social life and social phenomena” (Schatzki, 2019, p. 27). Discourse is one observational category of practice (Reckwitz, 2016) which can illuminate power dynamics within a context. Ultimately, power and status differences influence all types of collaborations (Yamashiro et al., 2022; Eshchar-Netz et al., 2022). Research has documented power asymmetries between researchers and practitioners in RPPs (Klein, 2023; Vetter et al., 2022). Examining discourse within RPPs can illuminate how communication is distributed and roles are negotiated (Farrell et al., 2023). Artifacts used in RPPs, such as shared documents, can be explored as boundary objects that redistribute power and raise productive tensions in discourse (Tabak, 2022; Wegemer & Renick, 2021).

Methods

Sixteen Meetings from US and Swiss RPPs were videotaped and coded using MAXQDA software. Each RPP involved researchers and school practitioners, a focus on improving instruction, and participant involvement in defining the work. We analyzed discourse in RPP meetings coding whether it was generative, non-generative, or structuring (e.g., opening a meeting) (Lefstein et al., 2020). We also coded data to determine who has a voice and who contributes generative dialogue, considering relational power and identity. While there are different ways to operationalize power differences, we focus on the share and type of discourse of groups of participants.

Results

Meetings in both RPPs were rich in generative utterances (47.4% in US RPP; 44.6% in Swiss RPP) in which participants engaged in collaborative problem solving. Despite efforts to give more voice to practitioners, researchers spoke 60% of the time in the US case and 78% in the Swiss case, reflecting their proportion in the group. While researchers spoke more in meetings, practitioners were responsible for their representative share or more of the generative discourse (58% of generative utterances in US RPP; 24% in Swiss RPP). RPP agreements also defined meeting situations and the use of artifacts (e.g,, Google docs) engaged more practitioner voice, but did not necessarily shift power. The positional authority and identity of participants also influenced power dynamics, beyond researcher-practitioner distinctions.

ICSEI Connection

This paper is relevant to the ICSEI theme of “quality professional development” as RPPs are intended to promote capacity building. The call for proposals also notes the influence of partnerships globally (e.g., RPPs).