Making Sense of School Change? The Perspectives and Learning Opportunities of School Leaders and Teachers in the Light of Adaptive Capacity Building
Chair(s): Wouter Schenke (Penta Nova)
Discussant(s): Kim Schildkamp (University of Twente)
In this symposium, we will dive into sensemaking processes of school leaders and school teams who are confronted with school change. Leadership in schools is needed in outlining pathways that stimulate capacity building and collective sensemaking of colleagues (Admiraal, et al., 2022; Thoonen, et al., 2011). Sensemaking processes of school leaders and teachers are influenced by mental models and factors deriving from the system they are part of (Drath, 2001; Ganon-Shilon & Schechter, 2017). Paper 1 presents a literature review on collective sensemaking with a focus on the interplay between actor groups in the system of teachership. Paper 2 entails a study on the factors that influence the adaptive capacity and sensemaking process of school leaders and teachers in a Dutch secondary school. Paper 3 presents a vignette study on system awareness of sensemaking processes of school leaders and teachers. After each presentation we give time for clarifying questions. A discussant will review the three paper presentations and provide points for discussion for the presenters and attendees of this symposium.
Presentations of the Symposium
Through the Looking Glass: A Systems Lens on Collective Sensemaking of School Change
Monika Louws1, Annemie Struyf1, Nicolien van Haeften1, Bregje de Vries2, Amber Walraven3
1Utrecht University, 2Vrije University Amsterdam, 3Radboud University
Objectives & theoretical perspectives:
Due to the vastly changing landscape of teaching and challenges such as teacher shortages, the (micro, meso, and macro) systems in which teachers operate are in need to build adaptive capacity. Whether and how actors within educational contexts make sense of changes and enact them in practice, how they interact in this process within and across systems, can be impactful for the change processes and, thus, adaptive capacity (Coburn, 2001). Sensemaking is a social process – in response to ambiguous events or cues – which can be defined as an “Ongoing process of constructing meaning, forming an understanding, attributing significance, and formulating or taking action” (Spillane et al., 2002; Weick et al., 2005). We view collective sensemaking both as a cognitive process (e.g., forming an understanding) and a social process (e.g., attributing meaning to each other’s role) (cf. Coburn, 2001).
Earlier review studies on (collective) sensemaking departed from one actor group (teacher or school leader or organisations, cf. Goffin et al. 2022; Ganon-Shilon & Schechter, 2014; Maitlis & Christianson, 2014) without an emphasis on the interplay between those subsystems. Our goal is to review studies on (collective) sensemaking from a systems lens with an emphasis on the interplay between actors groups.
Research questions:
1. Which interplay between actor groups in the system of teachership is described in research literature when actors collectively make sense of a (possible) change?
2. Which influential individual, organisational factors or characteristics of a change regarding collective sensemaking of a (possible) change are described in research literature?
Methods & data sources:
A meta-synthesis review of 82 peer-reviewed articles that were selected after three rounds of screening.
Findings:
Three types of interplay could be distinguished:
- Gatekeeping: Leaders extract cues of a reform initiative using their own interpretations and context and, consequently, filter and frame the reform towards teachers.
- Balancing autonomy-structure: How much direction and resources are provided by leaders toward teachers, as well as the perceived hierarchical ‘push’ to implement a given change, impacts the conceptual sensemaking process of teachers and room for adaptation.
- Emotions throughout sensemaking processes: A school change evokes emotions and feelings of uncertainty and stress among those involved. How a school leader or team handles it, seems to impact the degree of adaptation and ownership of the given change.
Additionally, we noticed that district leaders and school leaders or school leaders and teachers are in dialogue about how to interpret a school change, but it’s not often the case that district/state leaders are interacting with teachers. This gives the principal as the ‘in-between leader’ an important role.
Educational importance of this research or inquiry for theory, practice, and/or policy:
The interplay between actors throughout (collective) sensemaking processes in the system of teachership has not been investigated so far. The findings provide insights in how adaptive capacity on a systems level is manifested.
Connection to the conference theme:
This study demonstrates how school changes could be approached from a systems lens, which informs leadership practices.
Adaptive Capacity of School Leaders and Team Members When Confronted With School Changeo
Wouter Schenke1, Leonie Middelbeek2, Ebbo Bulder2, Amber Walraven3, Patricia Brouwer4, Ditte Lockhorst2
1Penta Nova, 2Oberon, 3Radboud University, 4Utrecht University of Applied Sciences
Objectives:
In a large Dutch nationwide research called ‘Expedition Teacheragenda’, on navigating to future teachership, we focused on adaptive capacity. Teachership is defined as the whole of actors and organisations around the teaching professions that together creates the opportunities for teachers’ work. The current study contributes insights in the adaptive capacity of school leaders and teachers who cope with school changes.
Research question:
What factors influence the adaptive capacity of a school team that is confronted with change and how is the collective sensemaking process experienced by school leaders and teachers?
Theoretical framework:
Adaptive capacity in teams is considered to be a process of (collective) sensemaking, followed by decision-making and acting. Adaptive capacity of individuals, teams and organisations is addressed in situations where friction occurs (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018; Vermeir & Kelchtermans, 2020). For example, when a school leader thinks differently than colleagues about future developments. Adaptive capacity requires leadership that stimulates team members to balance between exploration (new activities) and exploitation (routines) (Rosing, Frese & Bausch, 2011).
Methods and approach to inquiry:
We conducted an in-depth study in a small-scale rural school for secondary education in the Netherlands. We collaborated for a year with a committee of three teacher leaders who lead a school change. This change consisted of discussing and setting up the conditions for optional learning time for students in which they were provided more autonomy and clear rules. We had feedback dialogues with the committee on decisions taken in team sessions.
Data Sources/evidence:
Interviews with three school leaders and three teacher leaders; reflection logs filled in by teacher leaders after team sessions; questionnaire filled in by team members.
Findings:
System awareness and future orientation were two of the main factors that influenced the adaptive capacity of team members, in particular their sensemaking processes. System awareness manifested as the committee set out goals and formulated key values for the school change in close harmony with all teachers. They got all involved in the change process which contributed to collective sensemaking. Future orientation was stimulated by the school board by framing the change into the already formulated school vision. This opened up discussions and gave room for team members to take decisions for future teaching.
Educational importance of this research or inquiry for theory, practice, and/or policy:
This study provides an in-depth view of the adaptive capacity of school leaders and team members. Providing space for teachers to make sense of school changes is important for ownership in the new ways of working. This requires school leaders to stimulate experimental ideas as well as framing school changes in existing processes, as Rosing and colleagues (2011) refer to as opening and closing behaviour of school leaders.
Connection to the conference theme:
Our study demonstrates how different stakeholders (school leaders, teacher leaders, researchers) are involved in stimulating adaptive capacity building that fosters learning.
Adaptive Expertise of Teachers and School Leaders: A Vignette Study on Coping with Change
Annemie Struyf1, Monika Louws1, Patricia Brouwer1, Suzanne Gerritsen2
1Utrecht University of Applied Sciences, 2Oberon
Objectives
Extensive research exists on how teachers and school leaders make sense of various educational changes (e.g. Bergmark & Hansson, 2021; Ganon-Shilon & Schechter, 2019). However, it remains unclear to what extent these actors are aware of the broader work environment or system in which they operate, their role within it (system awareness) and the role this plays in the sensemaking process. Departing from a systems lens, this study assumes that system awareness, particularly among school leaders and teachers, benefits the adaptive capacity of the entire system of teachership.
Research question
1. How do sensemaking processes of teachers and school leaders during times of change occur and how do they vary?
2. How does system awareness relate to the sensemaking processes of teachers and school leaders?
Theoretical framework
To build adaptive capacity within the system of teachership, it is essential that actors initially make sense of changes to comprehend them and proactively adapt. The process of sensemaking entails not only (1) making sense of a situation, but also (2) making decisions in function of (3) (intended) actions. This means that individuals also make decisions about which actions should be taken to deal with a change (Coburn, 2001, Weick et al., 2005). It is possible that different actors` sensemaking of a certain change differs due to varying interests, roles, or prior experiences. For instance, school leaders often bear the responsibility for introducing changes such as a new educational approach, while teachers play a pivotal role in its implementation in classroom practice.
Methods & data sources
52 interviews, in which teachers` and school leaders` sensemaking processes were elaborated using two vignettes; one on a bottom-up change and one on a top-down change.
Findings
Sensemaking processes differ in particular depending on how the change was initiated (top down or bottom-up), but interestingly the formulated decision making processes in function of the (intended) actions are often similar.
All participants seem to be system-aware, but they interpret this system awareness differently. We found 3 (preliminary) categories of system awareness. Category 1 consists of statements about system awareness in which teachers(teams) have an active responsibility being in the lead, and in which others - especially leaders - also play a role but are more 'receptive'. In category 2, the opposite of category 1 can be found. Category 3 entails statements about system awareness in which both teachers(teams) and leaders have an active role or responsibility, often in collaboration.
Educational importance of this research or inquiry for theory, practice, and/or policy
We offer empirical insights into the role of system awareness in the sensemaking of teachers and school leaders. Additionally, we hope this will create awareness on how they deal with change and their position within the broader system of teachership.
Connection to the conference theme
This study informs leadership practices revolving around adaptive expertise.
