Angela de Jong LEADING COLLABORATIVE INNOVATION in SCHOOLS
Leading collaborative innovation in schools Angela de Jong
Assessment Committee Prof. dr. W. Admiraal Prof. dr. E. Hooge Prof. dr. E. Knies Dr. A. Ros Prof. dr. L. G. Tummers The research reported here was carried out at Oberon Research and Consultancy and Utrecht University, supported by the Netherlands Initiative for Education Research (NRO) under grant number 405-17-812, and conducted in the context of the research school Interuniversity Centre for Educational Sciences (ICO). ISBN: 978-94-6458-464-6 Electronic ISBN: 978-94-6458-465-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33540/437 Layout & Cover design: Publiss | www.publiss.nl Print: Ridderprint | www.ridderprint.nl © Copyright 2022: Angela de Jong, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced, stored, or transmitted in any way or by any means without the prior permission of the author, or when applicable, of the publishers of the scientific papers.
Leading collaborative innovation in schools Leiden van samenwerkend innoveren in scholen (met een samenvatting in het Nederlands) Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Utrecht op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. H.R.B.M. Kummeling, ingevolge het besluit van het college voor promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen op woensdag 2 november 2022 om 2.15 uur door Willemina Angenita de Jong geboren op 14 januari 1993 te Meerkerk
Promotoren: Prof. dr. J. W. F. van Tartwijk Prof. dr. M. Noordegraaf Copromotoren: Dr. D. Lockhorst Dr. R. A. M. de Kleijn
Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction 7 Chapter 2 Collaborative approaches: Studying horizontal and vertical working relations in schools and how they affect collaborative innovation practices 23 Chapter 3 Leadership practices in collaborative innovation: A study among Dutch school principals 47 Chapter 4 Describing and measuring leadership within school teams by applying a social network perspective 67 Chapter 5 Collaborative spirit: Understanding distributed leadership practices in and around teacher teams 91 Chapter 6 Conclusion, Contributions, and Suggestions 121 References Samenvatting [Summary in Dutch] Summary About the author Publications and presentations ICO Dissertation Series Dankwoord [Acknowledgements] 140 158 166 174 175 177 180
1 Introduction
8 1.1. Introduction 1.1.1. Searching for innovation Across the world, school principals, school boards and their organizations, teachers, policy makers, and politicians are searching for innovative ways to improve education. When innovations are initiated, schools encounter many challenges and innovations often do not turn out as intended. These innovations can happen at multiple levels and can relate to different aspects of the educational process. Innovations can be initiated on a national level as nation-wide policy innovations, but they can also happen on regional or local levels, as innovations within schools. Moreover, innovations can focus on substantive elements of educational practices, such as curriculum change, or on improving organizational processes. In the literature, there is an increasing emphasis on investigating how various types of educational innovations turn out (Boyd, 2021; Den Brok, 2018; Fullan, 2008; Vanlommel, 2021; Verbiest, 2021; Wubbels & Van Tartwijk, 2018). In the Netherlands, we have seen multiple nation-wide educational innovations in the last thirty years, which have generally been considered unsuccessful. These unsuccessful innovations prompted a parliamentary investigation, referred to as the ‘Dijsselbloem committee’ (2008), by the name of its chairman. This committee identified a number of problems such as government over-steering in the pedagogicaldidactical domains in schools (Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal, 2008). This resulted in a lack of professional space for teachers and school principals to play a role in the innovations. Teachers felt the innovations were enforced upon them. On the other hand, the committee highlighted that schools did not always take the professional space that was given to them by the government (Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal, 2008; see also Van Eck & Bollen, 2014; Wubbels & Van Tartwijk, 2018). A more recent example of a nation-wide innovation is an attempt to renew the curriculum for Dutch primary and secondary education. Even though the coordinating committee of this innovation aimed to put “teachers in the lead” – amongst others, by selecting a number of them to participate in development teams at the national level – most teachers in Dutch schools do not feel that they had a say in the innovations. When professionals such as teachers perceive a low degree of influence on shaping the content and implementation of national policies, such as certain innovations, in schools they can feel alienated from a policy (Tummers, 2012; Tummers et al., 2013). In case of more local innovations within schools, the same dynamic of perceiving too little professional space and influence on shaping innovations can arise. In this dissertation, we analyze whether and how school principals and teachers shape and lead local innovation processes in schools.
Introduction 9 1 1.1.2. Collaboration in and around innovation A well-known international example of an educational innovation that gives more professional space to school principals and teachers is Ontario’s approach (Boyd, 2021; Mourshed et al., 2010). This approach has positive results and is based on a theoretical framework derived from Fullan (e.g., 2010). One essential element of this approach is that responsibility and professional space are given to teachers to improve education collaboratively (Boyd, 2021). Teachers are regarded as professionals who are critical partners in leading innovations. They share responsibilities in achieving educational goals and intentionally collaborate with colleagues to improve education (Boyd, 2021; Hargreaves et al., 2018). The number of such collaborative forms of jointly led innovations is increasing in the Netherlands and elsewhere (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2018; Leithwood et al., 2020; Onderwijsraad, 2018). These collaborative forms are in line with the advice of the OECD (2016) for Dutch schools to further improve their educational quality by strengthening staff collaboration. Improving education through more collaboration requires a change in professionalism. Teachers must change from being isolated in classrooms towards collaboratively innovating education (e.g., Koeslag-Kreunen et al., 2018; Ros, 2022; Vangrieken et al., 2015). Moreover, school principals must change from being leaders (with many if not all responsibilities) to sharing responsibilities and leadership with teachers, providing teachers with professional space. In the Netherlands, this interest in their professionalism is reflected in the “Knowledge agenda”,1 focusing on the school as a professional organization (e.g., Ros, 2022; Van Tartwijk, 2022) and a new initiative called “Developmental force”2 that connects educational practice and research to innovate education (Rijksoverheid, 2022). Recently, additional financial resources have been invested in the professional development of school principals and teachers (Rijksoverheid, 2022; VO-raad, 2022). Moreover, this interest in professionals and changing professionalism fits a wider development in many other public and nonprofit domains (e.g., Martin, 2021; Noordegraaf, 2020; Stone & Travis, 2011). In the medical domain, for example, the classic image of professionalism, with the doctor as the professional with autonomy, changes into modern images of organizing medical action aimed at treating complex cases, prioritizing patients, and accounting for actions. Patient treatments become more complex, and multiple patients and critical environments exert strong pressures (Noordegraaf, 2020). 1 Kennisagenda [Knowledge agenda] of the Netherlands Initiative for Education Research (NRO). 2 Ontwikkelkracht [Developmental force] of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and Nationaal Groeifonds [National Growthfund].
10 Questions arise for schools, scholars, and policy makers on how to organize and lead more collaborative forms of innovating education (e.g., Vanlommel, 2021). Secondary school teachers who were interviewed for the research presented in this dissertation, for instance, noted: “We wanted to improve our lessons and education but how to do that was unknown to us. We had conversations with each other but didn’t really get anywhere”. A school principal mentioned: “I noticed there was room to improve our education, but I did not want the change to be dependent on my formal role”. These quotes illustrate that many Dutch teachers and school principals together search how to improve their education and how to lead these innovation processes. All schools that we studied chose to work with a two-year program of Foundation leerKRACHT, implemented by schools locally.3 This independent foundation aims to structure collaboration in schools to improve education.4 It stimulates school principals to be involved in innovation processes and to share responsibility for the success of the innovation with teachers. Furthermore, it stimulates teachers to collaborate and take the professional space provided by their school principals to innovate education. 1.1.3. Leading collaborative innovation In both educational practice and literature, the focus is still mainly on teacher collaboration, such as in professional learning communities and data teams (Admiraal et al., 2021; Hargreaves & O’Connor, 2017; Schildkamp et al., 2016). In organizational literature, however, scholars try to go beyond this. They have introduced the notion of collaborative innovation. Collaborative innovation is characterized by a multi-actor approach to innovation. A specific feature of this notion is that it involves both horizontal and vertical working relations (Bekkers & Noordegraaf, 2016; Sørensen & Torfing, 2018). Horizontal relations refer to working relations between persons and organizations at the same hierarchical level. In this dissertation we study relations between teachers. Vertical relations pertain to working relations that cut across different organizational levels, functions, and hierarchies (Torfing, 2019). In this dissertation we study relations between teachers and school principals. These horizontal and vertical working relations in schools need to be led (Angelle, 2010; Bason, 2010; Ospina, 2017). There is growing public and scholarly awareness of the importance of leadership and leading innovation processes in schools (AVS 3 leerKRACHT means “Learning force” and also “Teacher” in Dutch (usually referring to teachers in primary schools). 4 https://stichting-leerkracht.nl/.
Introduction 11 1 & VO-raad, 2021; Fullan, 2016; Knies et al., 2018; Knies & Leisink, 2014; OECD, 2016; Onderwijsraad, 2018). In particular, based on the Dutch Education Agreement, 10 million euros will be invested per year in the professional development of school principals (Rijksoverheid, 2022). However, leading innovation processes in schools involve school principals and teachers, referring to forms of distributed leadership. Distributed leadership means that multiple team members can be considered leaders and leadership is a fluid co-performance process (Daniëls et al., 2019; Harris & Spillane, 2008; Spillane, 2005). Such collaborative approaches to innovation in schools raise new situations of leadership and call for new roles, attitudes, and acts among school principals and teachers. It is yet unclear how leading collaborative innovation actually happens, and what it asks from both teachers’ and school principals’ leadership practices in day-to-day working contexts. That is why we initiated this study. 1.2. Research objective and question The aim of this dissertation is to understand better how collaborative innovation is led in schools by school principals and teachers. Working on collaborative innovation in schools calls for changes in leadership practices of both school principals and teachers, going beyond more traditional “cultures of individualism” (Vangrieken et al., 2015, p. 36). Insights into their leadership practices will contribute to scholarly knowledge on leading collaborative innovation in schools and on school practices in which collaborative innovation can be designed, initiated, and led. Against this background we will answer the following main research question: How do school principals and teachers lead collaborative innovation in schools? In order to answer this main research question, we have set up four related studies, each with a specific sub-question. The first study focuses on working relations among teachers and between teachers and school principals and how these affect collaborative innovation practices in schools: 1. How do horizontal and vertical working relations in school affect collaborative innovation practices? The second study examines the role of school principals in leading collaborative innovation: 2. How do school principals enact leadership practices in leading collaborative innovation?
12 The third study focuses on the role of both school principals and teachers in leading collaborative innovation by studying how to describe and measure distributed leadership: 3. How can distributed leadership in school teams be described and measured by applying a social network perspective? The fourth study builds on the previous studies and examines how distributed leadership is embedded in the sociocultural context on three levels – individual, team, and school level: 4. How can differences in distributed leadership between collaborative innovation-oriented teacher teams be understood from multiple sociocultural context levels? 1.3. Research perspective In order to answer the main research question, we have used and related various key concepts derived from different bodies of knowledge. By bringing these bodies of knowledge together, we have tried to develop a more overarching perspective on educational innovation in which multiple levels of analysis (school, teams, individuals) and multiple factors (organizational, cultural, educational) are interwoven. The key concepts we used are changing professionalism, collaborative innovation, leadership, networks, and sociocultural contexts. Below, the key concepts are briefly explained. 1.3.1. Changing professionalism The changing roles of teachers and school principals fit into a wider development of changing professionalism, as is studied in organizational literature (e.g., Martin, 2021; Noordegraaf, 2020; Stone & Travis, 2011). For instance, Noordegraaf (2020) argues that professionalism is not ‘made’ by professionals themselves, but is dependent upon many actors, their interactions, and contextual factors. Due to internal and external changes, professional fields are becoming less stable and professional work is being reconfigured. Professional work is embedded in organizational contexts and connected to outside worlds. Such changing forms of professionalism occur in education and many other public and non-profit domains, such as the medical and judicial domains, as outlined earlier. In this dissertation, we focus on teachers and school principals as modern professionals working together in collaborative innovation. Together with other school staff and school board members, teachers and school principals might collectively contribute to the quality of education (Grissom et al., 2013; Leithwood et al., 2020).
Introduction 13 1 Therefore, teachers and school principals need opportunities tomaintain their professional knowledge and skills and must be encouraged to professionalize – i.e., to develop their knowledge and skills, as well as ways of working, standards, and routines. They will have to be supported by the organization – i.e., by school principals and HR-officials (e.g., Knies, 2019; Knies et al., 2018). Supported by the organization, teacher professionalism might be enacted (Evans, 2008). Instead of prescribing what teachers should do, how, why, and when, teachers can shape professional work (Van Tartwijk, 2022). Teachers will then have more autonomy, beyond individual autonomy in the classroom. 1.3.2. Collaborative innovation Innovation in the public sector can be defined as an effort to respond to challenges, develop new ideas that disrupt established practices, and transform the way that things are usually done (Torfing, 2019). Collaborative innovation is a relatively new organizational notion that is based on a combination of recent research on collaborative governance (Ansell & Torfing, 2014; Emerson et al., 2012) and new theories of innovation (Hartley et al., 2013; Sørensen & Torfing, 2011). Roberts (2000) conceptually compared collaborative, hierarchical, and competitive approaches, concluding that a collaborative approach to innovation is superior when it comes to developing and implementing innovative solutions. A problem with the hierarchical approach is that solutions devised by formally appointed leaders fail to benefit from the knowledge sharing and mutual learning that arise from interaction with relevant and affected actors inside or outside the organization. A problem with the competitive approach is that competing innovators tend to waste valuable resources on bitter conflicts and on duplicating their efforts to develop and test new products and technologies (Roberts, 2000). The major strength of the collaborative approach is the broad inclusion of relevant and affected actors who possess significant expertise for the challenge at hand (Bommert, 2010).Acollaborative innovation approach facilitates the exchange of knowledge, competences, and ideas between relevant actors. It stimulates processes of mutual learning that may improve understanding of the challenge at hand and extend the range of creative ideas about how to solve it (Roberts, 2000). Underlying this argument is the idea that collaboration involves the constructive management of differences in order to find joint solutions (e.g., Gray, 1989). Educational literature also states that collaboration brings school organizations the opportunity to benefit from the capacities and resources, knowledge, and ideas of multiple members, referring to social exchange (Sinnema et al., 2020). Social exchange tends to disturb the established practices and their cognitive and normative underpinnings, thereby building joint ownership and shared responsibility for solutions (Fullan, 2016; Sinnema et al.,
14 2020). In sum, collaborative innovation is characterized by a multi-actor approach to innovation in which social resources are exchanged, resulting in mutual development (Owen et al., 2008; Torfing, 2019). 1.3.3. Leading (collaborative) innovation Collaborative innovation processes need to be supported, guided, and led (e.g., Bason, 2010). Most empirical studies in the organizational literature have found positive relationships between leadership and the performance of public organizations (e.g., Knies et al., 2016). Educational literature acknowledges the vital role of school principals in creating suitable conditions for innovation processes and in leading these processes (Bush & Glover, 2014; Fullan, 2007, 2016; Hallinger & Heck, 2010). School principals can build organizational climate and culture, trust, and collaboration (Daniëls et al., 2019). Leadership is commonly defined as individuals exerting influence over others to structure activities and relationships, knowledge, and skills (Daniëls et al., 2019; Yukl, 2002). It is argued, mostly theoretically, that leadership of collaborative innovation is essentially distributive, horizontal, and adaptive, and that leaders need to respect the self-regulating character of collaborative innovation processes. Thus, in relation to collaborative innovation, there are limits to the enactment of traditional leadership theories based on command and control (Angelle, 2010; Ospina, 2017). A growing body of literature acknowledges a crucial role of distributed leadership for successful innovations in schools (Brown et al., 2020; Daniëls et al., 2019; Fullan, 2016; Hulpia et al., 2009; Jambo & Hongde, 2020; Law et al., 2010; Meijer, 2014; Ricard et al., 2017; Sullivan et al., 2012; Tian et al., 2016; Tummers & Knies, 2013; Vogel & Masal, 2015). Distributed leadership theory postulates that multiple teammembers – thus both school principals and teachers – can be considered leaders. They can influence the motivation, knowledge, or practices of other team members (Daniëls et al., 2019; Harris & Spillane, 2008; Spillane, 2005). Leadership results from interactions between leaders and followers and the situation in which these interactions are embedded (Jackson & Temperley, 2007; Murphy, 2005; Spillane, 2005). In order to gain more specific insights into leadership in collaborative innovation in schools, we use the concept of leadership practices applied in the organizational (e.g., Raelin, 2016) and educational literature (Alqahtani et al., 2020; Noman et al., 2018). This refers to actions that shape leadership (Chreim, 2014). The focus on practices means that leadership revolves less around individuals, personal leadership behaviors, and styles such as transformational leadership (Crevani & Endrissat, 2016), and more around practices that are the outcome of relations and interactions (Gronn, 2002; Harris & DeFlaminis, 2016;
Introduction 15 1 Spillane et al., 2004). This means that leadership practices are not the privilege of formal leaders but can also be conducted by informal leaders such as teachers. This leadership-aspractice approach fits with the notion of collaborative innovation, which implies practices such as exchanging resources in interaction in horizontal and vertical working relations. Furthermore, the approach resonates with distributed leadership (Raelin, 2016). Both the leadership-as-practice approach and distributed leadership theory acknowledge leadership as a social phenomenon that is enacted in interactions and networks. 1.3.4. Leading (collaborative innovation) in networks Studying leadership as a social phenomenon of leadership practices that are enacted in interactions between several persons, fits with a social network perspective. This perspective can be used to understand relations between persons or groups and interactions of organizational and relational processes (Freeman, 2004; Raelin, 2016; Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Therefore, this perspective is considered promising for studying interactions that shape leadership practices in schools (Azorín et al., 2020; Liou & Daly, 2020). The relationships between persons and their resources, such as information, knowledge, and support (Coleman, 1988), shape a social network structure. Within this network structure, persons have access to and can mobilize the resources (Lin, 1999). This is interpreted as social capital (Brouwer et al., 2020; Coleman, 1988; Lin, 1999, 2001; Liou & Daly, 2018, 2020). Within education, communities of practice (COP) and professional learning communities (PLC) are network forms in which (mainly) teachers exchange social resources (Admiraal et al., 2019; Giles & Hargreaves, 2006; Prenger et al., 2017; Wenger, 2011). PLCs refer to groups of people who engage in interaction processes of collective learning in a shared domain of interest to develop shared practices (Wenger, 2011). In the Netherlands, PLCs are increasingly established with the aim of enhancing teacher quality and school improvement – for instance, by helping teachers to keep their expertise up-to-date and to improve practices in their schools together with colleagues (Prenger et al. 2017; Schaap et al., 2018). Admiraal et al. (2019) stress the importance of teacher PLCs in which teachers informally share practices, support each other, and collaborate. They studied interventions that Dutch secondary schools implemented aimed at enhancing a school as a PLC, finding that schools focus most on professional learning opportunities, collaborative work, and teachers’ learning. Interventions focused on leadership, such as activities of teacher leaders, team leaders and school principals, were rare. In this regard, less attention still seems to be paid to (distributed) leadership practices in learning and innovation processes in networks such as PLCs. Studying how collaborative innovation is led by school principals and teachers might contribute to insights in the literature on PLC’s, COPs, and other networks of collaboration.
16 1.3.5. Sociocultural contexts of (leading) collaborative innovation Leading collaborative innovation in networks is embedded in a wider sociocultural context. Teachers and school principals act in school organizations and interact with each other. Their interactions are mediated by aspects of the wider sociocultural context (Pea, 1993; Rogoff, 1990). This means that leadership practices have to be understood in the contexts in which they are embedded (Powell & DiMaggio, 1991). Sociocultural activity theory states the importance of sociocultural contexts for leadership and other practices in schools (Rogoff, 1990; Spillane & Sherer, 2004; Tian et al., 2016). This theory examines the link between activities, such as leadership practices, and the social contexts in which these activities occur (Pea, 1993). It advocates studying various contextual levels since these are linked to one another. There are no clear boundaries between contextual levels, such as individual (teachers and the horizontal level that the collaborative innovation notion refers to), interpersonal (teacher teams), and institutional (school level) levels (Giddens, 1984; Orton & Weick, 1990; Rogoff, 1990; Spillane & Sherer, 2004). While these theoretical underpinnings suggest that the sociocultural context needs to be considered when studying leadership practices in collaborative innovation, so far only a few educational researchers have done so and those who did mainly focused on one contextual level (Liou & Daly, 2014; Liu, 2021; Liu et al., 2018; Tam, 2019). The studies focused on individual (e.g., Liou & Daly, 2014; Tam, 2019), team (e.g., Mehra et al., 2006), school (e.g., Liu, 2021; Liu et al., 2018), or national contexts (e.g., Liu, 2020), meaning that relationships between contextual levels have hardly been addressed empirically. Therefore, several researchers on distributed leadership have highlighted the importance of future studies to identify characteristics of sociocultural contexts that are critical in constituting leadership practices (Daniëls et al., 2019; Liu, 2020; Liu et al., 2018; Or & Berkovich, 2021; Tian et al., 2016). They view the school context as a factor influencing leadership practices aimed at successfully improving the overall school performance. It is thus important to take context into account when investigating leadership (e.g., Daniëls et al., 2019). 1.4. Research context In this dissertation, we study schools that work with an educational program called “leerKRACHT” (see https://stichting-leerkracht.nl/). Studying a large number of schools that use the same program provides us with a unique sample to pursue research on leading collaborative innovation. This dissertation aims to provide insights into leadership practices in collaborative innovation. By providing these insights, we aim to contribute
Introduction 17 1 to a research project focused on the effects of the leerKRACHT program in schools (De Jong et al., 2021).5 Mourshed et al. (2010) conducted an international comparative study on the development of education systems, recommending that we primarily focus on improving the position and professionalism of teachers and allow teachers to learn from each other through school-wide peer exchange. These recommendations formed the basis for a twoyear program that Foundation leerKRACHT developed for Dutch schools to improve the quality of their education. In the 2012-2013 school year, the program was implemented for the first time by 15 schools from primary, secondary, and vocational education. Up to 2022, more than a thousand Dutch schools have implemented this program. The aim of the program is to initiate a transformation to a learning school culture with the aim to improve education. To achieve this, the program uses a team-based approach, including the teachers and school principal(s), to improve processes step by step (see Rigby et al., 2016). The program’s method is based on four practical tools that are all methods of collaboration. Firstly, stand-up sessions of fifteen minutes, where ideas are translated into joint goals and action plans are agreed upon (see Figure 1.1 for examples of white boards that are used during the sessions). Secondly, within-school lesson visits by team members: after the lesson visit, they have a brief conversation and receive feedback from the observer. Thirdly, codesigning lessons with team members, in which teachers share experiences and knowledge and improve their lessons. Fourthly, students’ voice, a structured approach to get the students’ view as a source of inspiration to improve education and specific lessons. We consider this program to stimulate collaborative innovation, since both teachers and school principals are expected to collaborate and share resources, knowledge, and ideas and thus ask for an (other) approach to innovation. The implementation process starts with training of a start team by a coach from the external program. This coach is called an external advisor. These advisors often have a change management and/or organizational background (see Figure 1.2). The guidance from the external advisor is scaled down in the second year of the program so that the school can continue to work independently when the two-year guidance from Foundation leerKRACHT ends. The start team includes two teachers, called coach-teachers since they have a coaching role in this program, and their school principal. Smaller groups of 8-10 teachers are then formed, and within each team a coach-teacher helps the other teachers to work collaboratively with the four tools in a weekly routine. The school principal is expected to be quite actively involved in the teams and in practicing the tools but is also expected not to steer too much. In primary schools, the school principals who are involved are often those with the final responsibility; in secondary schools, it 5 This project was funded by the Netherlands Initiative for Education Research (NRO).
18 depends whether the whole school or a unit is working with leerKRACHT and thus whether the school principal (with final responsibility) and/or the middle manager is involved. In vocational education, the school principal is often the program manager. Figure 1.1 Examples of White Boards that are Used During Stand-Up Sessions6 6 Copied from: Foundation leerKRACHT (2020): https://stichting-leerkracht.nl/direct-aan-de-slagmet-een-bordsessie-over-afstandsonderwijs/ and https://stichting-leerkracht.nl/zelf-aan-de-slag/aande-slag-met-je-team/bordsessies/.
Introduction 19 1 Figure 1.2 Representation of Coaching from the Program to a School 1.5. Relevance The aim of this dissertation is to better understand how collaborative innovation is led by school principals and teachers in order to further stimulate collaborative innovation in schools. This dissertation aims to contribute to scholarly literature by providing more insights into specific leadership practices of school principals in collaborative innovation. It also seeks to provide more insights into how distributed leadership can be described and measured in collaborative innovation. Furthermore, it aims to contribute insights into how leadership practices in collaborative innovation are embedded in sociocultural contexts. These insights will help us to understand better the roles and specific leadership practices of teachers and school principals in leading collaborative innovation in schools. Moreover, it will further refine our scientific understanding of collaborative innovation. We will combine insights that often remain disconnected, such as organizational, cultural, and educational factors, using a mixed-methods design and multiple levels of analysis (individuals, teams, schools) to develop an overarching perspective on leading collaborative innovation. The urgency of these insights is confirmed by several scholars, specifically on school principals’ leadership (e.g., Leithwood et al., 2020), distributed leadership (Daniëls et al., 2019; Liu & Werblow, 2019; Tian et al., 2016), and leading collaborative innovation (e.g., Torfing, 2019). More practically, we intend to provide insights that help schools to lead and further stimulate collaborative innovation in schools. Insights into specific leadership practices
20 can help school principals and teachers to reflect on how they lead their educational innovations and inspire them to approach innovation processes collaboratively. Furthermore, insights into how distributed leadership practices are related to their sociocultural contexts might help school principals and teachers to be aware of context and to take contextual factors into account. Teacher and school principal professional development programs can help teachers and school principals learn how to enact leadership in relation to the context and how to distribute leadership on a day-to-day basis. 1.6. Overview of chapters In order to answer our main research question, this dissertation presents four empirical studies, each contained within its own chapter. The data were gathered in two cohorts of schools, the first form September 2017 to June 2019, the second from September 2018 to June 2020. We describe hereafter the focus and method of each study. In the first paper (sub-question 1; see Chapter 2), we describe a study on teachers’ perspectives on what plays a role in horizontal and vertical working relations for collaborative innovation. We answer the following research question: How do horizontal and vertical working relations in school affect collaborative innovation practices? We use a mixed-methods design, including a questionnaire on horizontal and vertical working relations (n = 1,200 teachers from 124 schools) and on collaborative innovation practices (n = 2,036 teachers from 157 schools), as well as group interviews with 53 teachers from 20 schools. The two questionnaires are part of the program and thus developed by the Foundation leerKRACHT. In the second paper (sub-question 2; see Chapter 3), we describe a study in which we dive deeper into leadership practices of school principals in collaborative innovation. We answer the following research question: How do school principals enact leadership practices in leading collaborative innovation? We conduct interviews with 22 school principals (of 22 schools) about their leadership. Since studying the role of formal leaders only does not fit with the approach of collaborative innovation, we use a social network perspective to describe and measure distributed leadership in our third paper (sub-question 3; see Chapter 4). We answer the following research question: How can distributed leadership in school teams be described and measured by applying a social network perspective? We conduct a social network questionnaire within 14 school teams, including 118 teachers and 12 school principals.
Introduction 21 1 In our fourth paper (sub-question 4; see Chapter 5), we continue by studying the sociocultural contexts of teacher teams and how these relate to degrees of distributed leadership.We answer the following research question: How can differences in distributed leadership between collaborative innovation-oriented teacher teams be understood from multiple sociocultural context levels? This study has a mixed-methods design, including the social network questionnaire (Chapter 4), the questionnaire on horizontal and vertical relations (Chapter 2), interviews with school principals (from Chapter 3), a questionnaire for the external advisors, and cognitive student outcomes on the school level. Within this study, 130 teachers and 12 school principals are included. In Figure 1.3, we illustrate how the four studies help us to understand how teachers and school principals lead collaborative innovation practices in schools. The numbers of the chapters are mentioned in the figure. Figure 1.3 Overview of the Set-Up of the Studies of This Dissertation Note. Blue person is a school principal, green is a coach-teacher.
2 Collaborative approaches: Studying horizontal and vertical working relations in schools and how they affect collaborative innovation practices This chapter is based on De Jong, W. A., De Kleijn, R. A. M., Lockhorst, D., Van Tartwijk, J. W. F., & Noordegraaf, M. (under review). Collaborative approaches: Studying horizontal and vertical working relations in schools and how they affect collaborative innovation practices. Author contributions: All authors designed the study. WAdJ collected and analyzed the data. Next to WAdJ, DL was involved in the coding of the interviews for reliability, RdK in the multilevel analyses. WAdJ wrote the paper. DL, RdK, MN, JvT critically reviewed the paper.
3 Leadership practices in collaborative innovation: A study among Dutch school principals This chapter is based on De Jong, W. A., Lockhorst, D., De Kleijn, R. A. M., Noordegraaf, M., & Van Tartwijk, J. W. F. (2020). Leadership practices in collaborative innovation: A study among Dutch school principals. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220962098 Author contributions: All authors designed the study. WAdJ collected the data. WAdJ analyzed the data and DL was involved in the coding of the interviews for reliability. WAdJ wrote the paper. DL, RdK, MN, JvT critically reviewed the paper.
48 Abstract School principals and teachers are expected to continuously innovate their practices in changing school environments. These innovation processes can be shared more widely through collaboration between school principals and teachers, i.e., collaborative innovation. In order to gain more insight into how school principals enact their leadership practices in leading collaborative innovation, we interviewed 22 school principals of primary, secondary and vocational education in the Netherlands. All participants have implemented the same program aimed at collaborative innovation, thus enhancement of collaboration between teachers and school principals within schools. This program has already been implemented by 900 Dutch schools. The school principals were interviewed twice during the implementation year. Interview transcripts were analyzed using an open coding strategy looking for leadership practices. Based on 11 leadership practices, we described three leadership patterns. School principals enacting leadership practices as Team player, Key player, or Facilitator. We conclude that our findings suggest a wider repertoire of leadership practices than is reported in previous studies. Future studies would need to address the generalizability of the practices and patterns as found in this specific context of collaborative innovation.
Leadership practices of school principals in collaborative innovation 3 49 3.1. Introduction Schools operate in demanding and rapidly changing environments. Therefore, school principals and teachers are expected to continuously innovate their school practices to maintain their educational quality (Serdyukov, 2017). In his theoretical work, Fullan (2016) argues that shared responsibility is essential for innovations to succeed. This sharing of responsibility in turn requires work on innovations to be collaborative (Fullan, 2007, 2016; Hill et al., 2014), an approach that has been described as collaborative innovation in recent organizational literature (Bekkers &Noordegraaf, 2016; Sørensen &Torfing, 2016). In this paper, we study primary, secondary, and vocational education schools in the Netherlands that all implement the same large-scale program aimed at stimulating collaboration between school principals and teachers. These program’s innovation processes focus directly on enhancing collaboration and shared responsibility that both indirectly may lead to improved approaches to “classroom-based teaching, learning and assessment, as well as changes in the school organisation” (definition of OECD in Looney, 2009, p. 5). School principals have a vital role in creating suitable conditions for innovation processes and in leading these processes (Bush & Glover, 2014; Fullan, 2007, 2016; Hallinger & Heck, 2010). However, school principals often struggle with their role in innovation and collaborative school processes (Drago-Severson, 2012; Wildy & Louden, 2000). On the one hand, they are expected to collaborate with teachers and to be democratic and participative (Wildy & Louden, 2000). On the other hand, they have to decide and direct, and assume overall responsibility for their school’s educational quality and the establishment of essential innovation conditions (Fullan, 2016; Wildy & Louden, 2000). This paper aims to explore Dutch school principals’ leadership practices in leading collaborative innovation. We study their leadership practices during the first year schools work with the program, as this year entails the implementation phase. This intensive implementation year provides an interesting opportunity to study how school principals enact leadership practices when challenged with searching for how they should (re)form and enact their leadership in collaborative innovation. 3.2. Theoretical framework 3.2.1. Collaborative innovation in schools The concept of collaborative innovation is mainly used in the public sector context (Bekkers & Noordegraaf, 2016; Sørensen & Torfing, 2016). It is characterized by a multi-actor approach to innovation, both vertical and horizontal, wherein resources,
50 knowledge, and ideas are exchanged, resulting in mutual development (Owen et al., 2008; Torfing, 2019). Vertical processes pertain to collaboration that cuts across different organizational levels, functions, and hierarchies (Torfing, 2016), which in schools would be between teachers and school principals. Horizontal processes imply collaboration between persons and organizations at the same level, which in schools would be between teachers. Collaborative innovation is argued to strengthen and improve all different phases of an innovation process, namely the phases of problem definition, idea generation, idea selection, implementation, and diffusion (Sørensen & Torfing, 2016; Torfing & Triantafillou, 2016; Van de Ven et al., 1999). However, collaboration is not easily fostered in the educational context, since schools are loosely coupled systems (Orton & Weick, 1990). It is common for teachers to mainly focus on their own classroom (practice) and tasks, resulting in their work activities being largely autonomous and isolated (e.g., Admiraal et al., 2012). Consequently, innovation in schools is often seen as an isolated activity of one teacher or a minority of teachers who decide to initiate change (Sales et al., 2016). This hinders innovation, since we know that teachers in schools with collaborative structures and cultures tend to learn more from each other as compared to schools without collaboration (Drago-Severson, 2012). 3.2.2. Leadership and leadership practices in collaborative innovation In both organizational and educational theories, leaders are thought to have a vital role in leading innovation processes (Bush & Glover, 2014; Fullan, 2016; Torfing, 2019). A recent review of twenty years of effective school leadership literature has demonstrated the importance of an active support of instruction and effective communication, as well as the positive influence of school principals’ leadership on building organizational climate and culture, trust, and collaboration (Daniëls et al., 2019). In the context of collaborative innovation, Torfing (2016) for instance theoretically studied leadership. He identified three types of leaders who can stimulate collaborative innovation in the public sector: Conveners (e.g., spur interaction), Facilitators (e.g., promoting collaboration), and Catalysts (e.g., prompting actors to think out of the box). Sørensen & Tor ng (2016) and Torfing (2019) acknowledge the guiding role of leaders in collaborative innovation and call for further research on leadership in collaborative innovation (e.g., Torfing, 2019). In order to gain more insights into leadership of school principals in collaborative innovation, we use the concept of leadership practices. Leadership practices of school
Leadership practices of school principals in collaborative innovation 3 51 principals can be defined as the actions that shape their leadership (Chreim, 2014). A significant discussion in studying leadership is which theoretical framework helps to understand leadership practices. Several researchers (e.g., Aas & Brandmo, 2016; Daniëls et al., 2019; Leithwood et al., 2020) argued that leadership practices should be studied from an integrative perspective, combining theories such as those of instructional, distributed, and transformational leadership, instead of studying solely one fixed leadership theory. For instance, Alqahtani et al. (2020) and Noman et al. (2018) chose the integrative perspective of leadership practices and explored the leadership practices of school principals in Saudi Arabia and Malaysia respectively. In addition to this focus on leadership practices, Leithwood’s et al. (2020) review showed that there is little understanding of how school principals enact leadership practices, and call for further exploration of how school principals enact certain practices. Previous research has established well-known categorizations of leadership practices. The first categorization entails top-down and bottom-up leadership practices. Top-down refers to a leadership practice characterized by a high degree of control, resulting in the restriction of teachers’ views. Bottom-up refers to a practice based on cooperative interactions and efforts to include various views (Draaisma et al., 2018; Fullan, 2016). The second long-standing categorization is task- and relation-oriented leadership practices (Lee & Carpenter, 2018; Leithwood, 1994). The task practices emphasize the achievement of organizational goals, by organizing and directing others’ work. The relation practices emphasize positive interpersonal interactions by showing warmth, help, and giving the appearance of trust and open communication (Lee & Carpenter, 2018). The third categorization is based on a study of Leithwood et al. (2020). They indicated four core categories of leadership practices in relation to student achievement, namely: Setting direction, developing people, redesigning the organization, and managing the instructional program. In the current paper, we empirically explore leadership practices of school principals, with the aim of providing insights into leadership in collaborative innovation within schools. We inductively investigate which leadership practices are enacted by school principals in collaborative innovation and how school principals enact these practices. We focus on the vertical processes, as school principals are argued to have a vital role in leading innovation (e.g., Fullan, 2016). Our study is guided by the following research question: How do school principals enact leadership practices in leading collaborative innovation? Based on previous literature, to which we compare our findings in the discussion section, we expect to encounter the well-known categorizations of leadership practices mentioned in the previous paragraph.
52 3.3. Methods The research described in this paper has an exploratory and qualitative research design. Data were gathered by interviewing school principals about their leadership practices during collaborative innovation. The research described here is the first study of a larger research project on the effects of a Dutch school program, which is further explained under the heading ‘Sample’. We will proceed with studying the relation between leadership practices and outcome measures such as distributed leadership, teachers’ teaching skills, and student achievement in follow up studies. 3.3.1. The Dutch context We explain two characteristics of the Dutch educational system that may reinforce school principals’ struggles in leading collaborative innovation: School autonomy and educational sectors. 3.3.1.1. School autonomy Dutch schools operate in a highly autonomous and responsible policy context (OECD, 2014), which has consequences for the role of school principals. Schools are free to pursue educational visions of their choice (Waslander, 2010), and everyone has the right to establish a school (Hooge, 2017). Schools can have their own school board or be part of a larger association of schools, that share a board. School boards in turn mandate school principals to take responsibility for their school’s quality. Due to this highly decentralized form of governance, school principals have a range of responsibilities, including for financial matters and for ensuring that teaching and learning follow the school’s educational goals as well as a national framework developed by the government. The Inspectorate of Education, under the responsibility of the Minister of Education, monitors both the quality of education and compliance with statutory and financial rules and regulations (De Wolf et al., 2017). 3.3.1.2. Educational sectors The Dutch educational system consists of four educational sectors: Primary (students aged 4 to 12), secondary (students aged 12 to 18), and vocational and higher education (students aged 16 and older) schools. Secondary schools are divided into streams, and primary schools recommend a specific stream to each final-year student. Students can choose any secondary school that offers their recommended stream, which provokes a competition among schools for student numbers and corresponding school funds.
Leadership practices of school principals in collaborative innovation 3 53 This further increases school principals’ responsibilities since they are responsible for attracting new students. In this paper, we study school principals in primary, secondary, and vocational educational sectors. 3.3.2. Sample 3.3.2.1. School program aimed at collaborative innovation In the current paper, leadership practices were studied in the context of a program that aims to stimulate collaborative innovation between teachers and school principals. The program uses a methodology that is partly based on Agile principles, meaning a team-based approach to improving processes step by step. The methodology consists of weekly stand-up meetings, sprints, and retrospectives, amongst other things (see Rigby et al., 2016) and consists of two phases. Firstly, an intensive implementation phase during one school year. External advisors of the program help schools to learn the methodology. The expected outcomes of this phase are enhancement of collaboration and shared responsibility. Secondly, a phase towards independence and sustainability of the collaborative innovation processes in school. The period of this second phase is school-dependent. An independent foundation initiated the program in response to the international study of the OECD (2016), which highlighted that the educational quality of Dutch schools is more than sufficient but could be further improved by enhancement of collaboration within schools. So far, approximately 900 Dutch primary, secondary, and vocational education schools have implemented the methodology of this program. 3.3.2.2. Participants Each school year, around 120 new primary, secondary, and vocational education schools choose to implement the methodology of this program. We randomly selected schools that started working with the program in September 2017 and 2018. The school principals received a short explanation about the investment required and the benefits of participating in the study. This resulted in 11 schools participating in our study in September 2017 and 11 schools in September 2018. In Table 3.1, we provide an overview of our sample of 22 school principals. Two school principals of secondary schools and all vocational education school principals were responsible for a department of a larger school, the other school principals were responsible for the whole school. The schools were well-spread throughout the Netherlands and were all in the implementation year (Sørensen & Torfing, 2016). In this year, schools learn how to apply and work with the methodology.
www.ridderprint.nlRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw