Conference Agenda

Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).

Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 1st June 2024, 01:10:19pm IST

 
 
Session Overview
Session
P44.P3.EL: Paper Session
Time:
Wednesday, 10/Jan/2024:
11:00am - 12:30pm

Location: Rm 3131 (Tues/Wed)


Show help for 'Increase or decrease the abstract text size'
Presentations
ID: 173 / P44.P3.EL: 1
Educational Leadership Network
Individual Paper
Orientation of proposal: This contribution is mainly an academic research contribution.
ICSEI Congress Sub-theme: Exploring the evolving research and evidence base for leadership education and capacity building

Being A Principal of School Age Educare Centers; a comparison between Sweden and Switzerland about a complicated assignment

Lena Boström1, Patricia Schuler2, Helene Elvstrand3

1Mid Sweden University, Sweden; 2Zurich University of Teacher Education,Switzerland; 3Linköping University, Sweden

Extended education is an emerging field and being the principal of School-Age Educare Centers (SAEC) does not only mean pedagogical, operational and administrative responsibility, it includes also the responsibility for the aspect of care provided to the children during their stay at SAEC. In the educational practice of SAEC staff with heterogenous professional background act in various learning environments. The principals' knowledge and perceptions of the SAEC is decisive in order to drive organizational educational change (Meyer et al., 2022). Leadership in SAEC seems to be more complicated than in school (Boström & Haglund, 2020). Research on principals' work in SAEC is sparse in Sweden (Glaés-Coutts, 2021; Jonsson 2018, 2021) and non-existent in Switzerland. On the other hand, there is extensive research on how prevailing discourses influence successful schools: if principals and staff embrace the same rules, norms and beliefs over time and if there is mutual cooperation (Lomos et al., 2011; Scheerens et al., 2007; Seashore & Murphy, 2017). Therefore, it is both important and relevant to study this field.

The objective for this study is to analyze and compare principals' perceptions of their mission with a focus on SAEC. The aim is to generate knowledge about this unexplored area and to compare the professional practice internationally.

The theoretical perspective is based in school improvement theory (Fullan, 2010; Bredeson, 2002). Critical parameters emphasized are structure, culture and leadership (Höög, & Johansson, 2014). Internal improvement capabilities which seem to be particularly important for school improvement are communication, cooperation, skills development and leadership (Björkman, 2008; Grissom et al., 2021).

In this study a comparative content analysis (Krispendorff, 2016) is used as research method to analyze and compare the principals’ views on SAEC and their leadership. This method allows us to draw meaningful sense-making processes (Weick, 1995) and comparisons to make inferences about the similarities and differences between the two contexts. The sample consists of twelve interviews with six principals in each country.

The preliminary results show a growing awareness of the pedagogical role as principal in Sweden, emphasizing the whole school day. This blurs the boundaries between the school and SAEC which becomes problematic for maintaining the distinctiveness of SAEC. In Switzerland, principals acknowledge their lack of professional knowledge on the function of SAEC and the workforce’s skills. Principals face the dilemma to mainly serve parental needs as a professional and empirical orientation. The results also pinpoint how cultural values, norms, or ideologies are reflected in principals’ perceptions about their leadership.

The educational importance of the study is to extend the principals’ vision on SAEC and view a child’s entire school day to serve its individual needs. The connection to the conferences theme is that quality for professional education for enhanced school effectiveness and improvement begins in principals' understanding and leadership of their mission.

References
Björkman, C. (2008). Internal capacities for school improvement: principals' views in Swedish secondary schools (diss). Umeå; Umeå University.

Boström, L. & Haglund, B. (2020). Att leda fritidshemmets aktiviteter.[ To lead activities in SAEC]. In G. Berg, F. Sundh, & C. Wede (Red). Lärare som ledare – i och utanför klassrummet. (pp. 309–326). Studentlitteratur
Bredeson, P. (2002). The Architecture of Professional Development: Materials, Messages and Meaning. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(8), 661-675 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00064-8

Fullan, M. (2010). Leadership Development: The larger Context. Instructional Leadership, 45-49.
Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J., & Lindsay, C. A. (2021). How principals affect students and schools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research. New York: The Wallace Foundation.

Höög, J., & Johansson, O. (2014). Framgångsrika skolor - mer om struktur, kultur, ledarskap. [Successful schools - more about structure, culture, leadership]. Studentlitteratur
Glaés-Cutts, L. (2021). The Principal as the Instructional Leader in School-Age Educare. Leadership and Policy in Schools,1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2021.2019792

Jonsson, K. (2018). Socialt lärande – arbetet i fritidshemmet (Licentiatuppsats, Mälardalens högskola)). Retrieved http://mdh.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:1231356/FULLTEXT03.pdf

Jonsson, K. (2021). Principals’ vision of social learning in school-age educare, Early Years, 1-14, https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2021.1997934

Krispendorff, K. (2019). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, 4th ed.; Sage
Lomos,C., Roelande H. Hofman & Roel J. Boske (2011). Professional communities and student achievement – a meta-analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(2), 121-148, https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2010.550467¨

Meyer, A., Hartung-Beck, V., Gronostaj, A. et al. (2022). How can principal leadership practices promote teacher collaboration and organizational change? A longitudinal multiple case study of three school improvement initiatives. J Educ Change.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-022-09451-9

Scheerens, J., Luyten, H., Steen, R. & Luyten-de Thouars, Y. (2007). Review and meta-analyses of school and teaching effectiveness. University of Twente. Universiteit Twente, Afdeling Onderwijsorganisatie en -management. Retrieved https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/review-and-meta-analyses-of-school-and-teaching-effectiveness, 2022-09-15

Seashore Louis, K., & Murphy, J. (2017). Trust, caring and organizational learning: The leader’s role. Journal of Educational Administration, 55, 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-07-2016-0077

Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage


ID: 365 / P44.P3.EL: 2
Educational Leadership Network
Individual Paper
Orientation of proposal: This contribution is mainly an academic research contribution.
ICSEI Congress Sub-theme: Leading improvement collaboratively and sustainably

A Cross-Cultural Investigation of Distributed Leadership in Schools: Views of School Principals with PhD Degrees in Ireland and Türkiye

Metin Özkan1, Çiğdem Çakır2, Joe O'Hara3, Shivaun O'Brien3, Martin Brown3

1Gaziantep University, Türkiye; 2Ministry of National Education, Gaziantep, Türkiye; 3Dublin City University, Ireland

In recent decades, distributed leadership has become a prominent area of research and practice in education, generating significant attention, debate, and controversy in the field of educational leadership (Harris et al., 2022). Distributed leadership continues to receive global attention in the educational context, although its implementation and effectiveness vary across different countries and local contexts and, in some cases, is influenced by official policies.

This study explores the implementation of distributed leadership in different countries, comparing government-supported models with those primarily implemented through scientific processes. Focusing on Irish and Turkish schools as case studies, the study aims to understand leaders' styles, priorities, support systems, and perceptions of distributed leadership. It investigates the impact of distributed leadership on schools, compares it to other leadership practices, and explores strategies for enhancing its effectiveness in education.

Our study utilized a qualitative research approach, employing semi-structured interviews as the primary data collection method. We conducted interviews with school administrators who hold or continue their Ph.D. degrees in educational administration science and have experience with distributed leadership in schools in both Ireland and Türkiye. In this context, this study is based on a comparative case study. As Bartlett and Vavrus (2017) noted, the comparative case study approach provides the opportunity to compare and analyse different cultures and contexts using horizontal, vertical, and transversal dimensions.

The interviews were conducted with seven participants from each country, for a total of 14. To analyze the data obtained from the interviews, we employed meta-theme analysis, a qualitative method specifically designed for cross-cultural research (Wutich et al., 2021).

Among the common leadership approaches identified in the interviews with school principals in Ireland, there is a collaborative and inclusive style, emphasis on shared responsibilities, focus on the development and cooperation of all individuals, and open communication. In Türkiye, where more autocratic tendencies are observed, the leadership of the central bureaucracy at schools has a certain degree of leadership. was confined to the frame.

Distributive leadership in Irish schools shows regular formal meetings between middle and senior leaders, as well as informal discussions in hallways and staff rooms. There is a focus on sharing information, staying connected, and involving staff members in the decision-making processes. However, there are concerns about how leadership is distributed, the recognition of teachers' contributions, and the need for clear facilitation and support to create a positive and inclusive atmosphere for distributed leadership. On the other hand, distributed leadership practices in Türkiye feed school culture and improve decision-making processes. However, it has been concluded that the fact that schools are under the influence of central policies prevents school principals from demonstrating their competencies as leaders.

The research aims to explore the conceptualization and implementation of distributed leadership in schools, aligning with the conference theme of "Leading improvement collaboratively and sustainably" by examining how distributed leadership practices contribute to collaborative and sustainable improvements in school effectiveness and educational outcomes.

References
Balıkçı, A., & Aypay, A. (2018). The bureaucracy daily life interaction of school principals. Turkish Studies Social Sciences,13(10), 787-811 http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies
Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2017). Rethinking case study research: A comparative approach. Taylor & Francis.
Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P. A., & Harvey, J. A. (2003). Distributed Leadership: A Review of Literature. National College for School Leadership. http://www.rtuni.org/uploads/docs/Distributed%20Leadership%20-%20review.pdf
Bird, S. N. (2016). Examining Middle Management Perspectives on Distributed Leadership: A Case Study of an Independent School (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis), University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Bolden, R. (2011). Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13, 251-269. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00306.x
Buluç, B. (2009). The Relationship between Bureaucratic School Structure and Leadership Styles of School Principals in Primary Schools. Education and Science, 34(152), 71-86.
Circular Letter 0003/2018 (2018). Leadership And Management In Post-Primary Schools. Department of Education and Skills.
Curriculum Development Council (2014). Basic Education Curriculum Guide - To Sustain, Deepen and Focus on Learning to Learn (Primary 1–Secondary 3). Hong Kong: Curriculum Development Council.
Çakan, H. (2019). Investigation of the relationship between school bureaucracy and teacher leadership: The case of Arnavutköy District of İstanbul (Master’s Thesis). İstanbul University-Cerrahpaşa Graduate Education Institute, İstanbul.
Davis, M. W. (2009). Distributed leadership and school performance (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). The Graduate School of Education and Human Development of George Washington University, USA.
Dimmock, C. A. (2012). “Distributed Leadership as Capacity Building: Possibilities, Paradoxes and Realities.” In Leadership, Capacity Building and School Improvement: Concepts, Themes and Impact, edited by C. Dimmock, 98–114. London: Routledge.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a New Structure For School Leadership. The Albert Shanker Instıtute, Winter, 2000. http://www.shankerinstitute.org/sites/shanker/files/building.pdf
European School Heads Association (2013). Distributed Leadership in practice: A descriptive analysis of distributed leadership in European schools. http://josephkessels.com/sites/default/files/duijf_e.a._2013_distributed_leadership_in_practice_esha-etuce_0.pdf
Fidan, T. & Beyhan, A. (2020). The effects of schools’ bureaucratic structures on teacher professionalism: A study on high school teachers. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Education, 20 (2), 869-887. https://dx.doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2020..-556552
Gordon, Z. V. (2005). The effect of distributed leadership on student achievement (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Central Connecticut State University, Connecticut.
Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational Management and Administration, 28 (3), 371-388.
Harris A (2008) Distributed leadership: according to the evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2): 172–188.
Harris, A. (2009). Distributed leadership: What we know. Distributed Leadership: Different Perspectives, Harris, A. (Eds), pp. 11–21, Dordrecht: Springer.
Harris, A. (2012). Distributed leadership: implications for the role of the principal. Journal of Management Development, 31(1), 7-17. DOI 10.1108/02621711211190961
Harris, A. (2013). Distributed Leadership: Friend or Foe? Educational Management Administration Leadership September, 41(5), 545-554. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258135609_Distributed_Leadership_Friend_or_Foe
Harris, A., Jones, M., & Ismail, N. (2022). Distributed leadership: Taking a retrospective and contemporary view of the evidence base. School Leadership & Management, 42(5), 438-456, DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2022.2109620
Hartley, D. (2007). The emergence of distributed leadership in education: Why now? British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(2), 202–214.
Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 46 (3), 659–689. DOI: 10.3102/0002831209340042
Hickey, N., Flaherty, A., & Mannix McNamara, P. (2022). Distributed Leadership: A Scoping Review Mapping Current Empirical Research. Societies, 12(15), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc12010015
Hulpia, H., Devos, G. & Rosseel, Y. (2009). Development and validation of scores on the distributed leadership inventory, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(6), 1013-1034.
Ireland Department of Education and Science (2004). A Brief Description Of the Irish Education System. https://assets.gov.ie/24755/dd437da6d2084a49b0ddb316523aa5d2.pdf
Jambo, D., & Hongde, L. (2020). The effect of principal’s distributed leadership practice on students’ academic achievement: A systematic review of the literatüre. International Journal of Higher Education, 9(1), 189-191. DOI:10.5430/ijhe.v9n1p189
Karip, E., & Köksal, K. (1996). Developing effective education systems. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 2(2), 245-257.
Kelley, C., & Dikkers, S. (2016). Framing feedback for school improvement around distributed leadership. Educ. Adm. Q. 2016(52), 392–422.
Kouzes, J. M & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership practices ınventory: theory and evidence behind the five practices of examplary leaders. http://media.wiley.com/assets/61/06/lc_jb_appendix.pdf.
Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2003). Leadership Practices Inventory Facilitator’s Guide (3rd Ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer A Wiley Imprint.
Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 529-561.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321221
Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., & Strauss, T. (2009). Distributed Leadership According to the Evidence, Routledge, Abingdon.
Liu, Y. (2021). Distributed leadership practices and student science performance through the four-path model: Examining failure in underprivileged schools. J. Educ. Adm. 2021, 59, 472–492.
MacBeath, J., Oduro, G. & Waterhouse, J. (2004). Distributed leadership in action: Full report. www.ncsl.org.uk
Murphy, G. (2019). A systematic review and thematic synthesis of research on school leadership in the Republic of Ireland: 2008–2018. Journal of Educational Administration 57(6), 675–689.
Murphy, G., & Brennan, T. (2022). Enacting distributed leadership in the Republic of Ireland: Assessing primary school principals’ developmental needs using constructive developmental theory. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 0(0), 1–20. DOI: 10.1177/17411432221086850
Obadara, O. (2013). Relationship between Distributed Leadership and Sustainable School Improvement. Nigeria: Department of Educational Management Tai Solarin University of Education.
Özkan, M. & Çakır, Ç. (2017). Development of distributed leadership scale. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 8(30) 1629-1660.
Pack, B. T., & Ramsay, H. A. (1998). Managing Schools: The European Experience, New York:Nova Science Publishers Inc., 1998.
Republic of Türkiye Ministry of National Education (2011). Organization of the Turkish National Education System. Ankara. https://docplayer.biz.tr/4920042-T-c-milli-egitim-bakanligi-strateji-gelistirme-baskanligi-turk-egitim-sisteminin-orgutlenmesi-2011.html
Republic of Türkiye Ministry of National Education (2015). Turkish Education System and Secondary Education. Ankara. http://ogm.meb.gov.tr
Smith, L. M. (2007). Study of teacher engagement in four dimensions of distributed leadership in one school district ın Georgia (Electronic Thesis & Dissertations). Georgia Southern University.
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Research News and Comment, April, 23-28.
Taşdan, M., & Oğuz, E (2013). Validity and reliability study of distributed leadership scale for primary school teachers. Journal of the Institute of Social Sciences, 11, 103-124.
Tian, M. (2011). Distributed leadership and teachers’ self-efficacy: The case studies of three Chinese schools in Shanghai (Master’s Thesis). University of Jyväskylä, Institute of Educational Leadership, Department of Education, Finland.
Tian, M., & Nutbrown, G. (2021). Retheorising distributed leadership through epistemic injustice. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, XX(X), 1–17. DOI: 10.1177/17411432211022776
Wan, S. W., Law, E. H. & Chan, K. K. (2017). Teachers’ perception of distributed leadership in Hong Kong primary schools. School Leadership & Management, DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2017.1371689
Woods, P. A., Bennett, N., Harvey, J. A. & Wise, C. (2004). Variabilities and dualities in distributed leadership: Findings from a systematic literature review. Educational Management Administration Leadership, 32(4), 439–457. DOI: 10.1177/1741143204046497
Wutich, A., Beresford, M., SturtzSreetharan, C., Brewis, A., Trainer, S., & Hardin, J. (2021). Metatheme Analysis: a qualitative method for cross-cultural research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 16094069211019907.


ID: 362 / P44.P3.EL: 3
Educational Leadership Network
Individual Paper
Orientation of proposal: This contribution is mainly an academic research contribution.
ICSEI Congress Sub-theme: Policy and practice learning to support teacher and school leader development

Internal and External Interventions for School Quality Improvement – The Central Role of School Leadership

Stephan Gerhard Huber1, Christoph Helm2, Rolf Strietholt3, Marius Schwander1, Jane Pruitt1

1University of Teacher Education Zug (PH Zug), Switzerland; 2Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria; 3IEA Hamburg

Due to their location and the composition of the student body, schools in challenging cir-cumstances face more difficult conditions. As a result, quality characteristics can differ. With a high proportion of students from non-privileged family situations (usually measured by the educational attainment and financial circumstances of the parents), these poorer so-cio-economic circumstances are often associated with special compensatory services pro-vided by the school. These schools need external support. The necessary additional support from the system can be provided within the framework of professionalization and advisory services. School leadership also plays an important role not only in school development and building up school development capacities but also in accessing external resources and moderating and mediating external interventions.

This paper examines the quality and benefits of a support program designed for schools fac-ing challenging circumstances, including various interventions and their impact on school leadership, school development and school quality.

This five-year longitudinal mixed methods study is based on a sample of around 150 schools in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. Over a period of three years, half the schools experi-enced further measures to professionalize school leadership (coaching of principals, profes-sional development program) and support school development (additional financial re-sources, school development consultancy). The study assesses the quality and the change in the quality of school characteristics and examines the contribution of the interventions to these changes.

The analyses are built on two different surveys of staff and school leaders on the work situa-tion and on the interventions assessed each year. In addition to a descriptive evaluation of the quality assessments of staff and school leaders, autoregressive regression analyses are conducted to examine the impact of specific program components/interventions on selected school quality characteristics during the program period. Since the program was implement-ed at the school level, the analyses were conducted accordingly.

The results of the study show the very positive assessment of the program’s quality and ben-efits and its positive consequences on the quality of the organization. The regression anal-yses demonstrate that positively perceived outcome qualities of the interventions are associ-ated with improvements in numerous dimensions of school quality, such as cooperative leadership. For example: The school members’ positive perception of the benefits (β = .26**) and achieved goals (β = .28**) as well as their perception of an increase in compe-tence development (β = .25**), behavioral (β = .27**) and organizational (β = .15*) change through the school’s work with a process consultancy for school development is associated with an improved coordination of actions of the steering group as perceived by the employ-ees. Furthermore, when examining the effect size Cohen's d, it becomes evident that most schools involved in the program showed better development over time than the comparison schools, some of which even experienced negative development.

Overall, the findings provide evidence for the effectiveness of school development programs on school leadership and school improvement. Based on these results, the interventions will be discussed in terms of their effects and the necessary conditions for successful implemen-tation, along with their practical implications.



ID: 363 / P44.P3.EL: 4
Educational Leadership Network
Individual Paper
Orientation of proposal: This contribution is mainly an academic research contribution.
ICSEI Congress Sub-theme: Policy and practice learning to support teacher and school leader development

The Key Role Of Mentorship in Principals’ Professional Development Trajectories: Impact Of A University And District Research/Practice Learning Partnership

Alison Jane Mitchell1, Seonaidh Black2, Carolyn Davren2, Julie Harvie1

1University of Glasgow School of Education, Scotland, United Kingdom; 2Glasgow City Council Education Services, Scotland, United Kingdom

A significant concern in many education systems internationally, is the recruitment to and retention of sufficient numbers of suitably qualified and experienced teachers in principal roles. This is a longstanding global issue and Scotland’s system is no exception. This paper reports firstly on findings from the authors’ research with experienced principals in Scotland through a Life History Narrative (LHN) approach, that illustrates key issues around support for new and long serving principals, with strong advocacy in the co-produced LHNs for mentoring to support principalship. Crucially, there is a need for mentoring support to be structured as an opportunity and an entitlement, with value placed on mentoring through allocation of time and resources, and facilitation of a safe space for critical conversations around the role and the challenges of headship.

Secondly, the paper reports on a district and university partnership in Scotland: 'The Headteacher (Principal) Mentoring Programme' from the perspectives of the university researchers, a district lead and a school principal. Development of the programme was supported by learning from the experience of colleagues in the Republic of Ireland, and lessons from the district’s previous mentoring model where lack of a formal structure or training meant that the mentor/mentee partnerships were not deemed to be impactful or sustained. The rationale and content of the programme was underpinned by this learning and also data from the authors’ LHN research. The programme involves:

• Full training for mentors: an ongoing professional learning experience for experienced principals in the district

• Mentoring for all principals new to principalship, as an offer and an entitlement in the district

• System leadership opportunity for the mentoring design team (comprising representatives from the university, district and schools).

Finally, the paper will present research methods and findings to date on the impact of the partnership programme, through a formative evaluation of year one. This research amplifies the voices of long-serving principals (mentors), new principals (mentees) and the mentoring design team (experienced principals representing all sectors in education) in six impact criteria around experience of the partnership, professional growth and practice, development of new skills and knowledge, confidence and wellbeing, motivation and job-satisfaction, and impact on student learning in schools and in the wider education system. The findings have implications for principalship support and continued professional learning, in particular relation to the design of mentoring or similar programmes at a local or national level. There are also propositions for the ICSEI community around how such a partnership may change the perception and representation of the principal role, in a time when the recruitment and retention are deemed by the World Bank to be at crisis level.



 
Contact and Legal Notice · Contact Address:
Privacy Statement · Conference: ICSEI 2024
Conference Software: ConfTool Pro 2.6.150+TC
© 2001–2024 by Dr. H. Weinreich, Hamburg, Germany