Networks for Innovation and Professionalization in Education

Author(s):

Franz RauchTanja SturmMarcus EmmerichKatharina Maag MerkiNils BerkemeyerAndrew TownsendDavid PedderDavid FrostColleen McLaughlin

Conference:

ECER 2009

Network:

15. Research Partnerships in Education

Format:

Symposium

Session Information

15 SES 02, Networks for Innovation and Professionalization in Education

Symposium

Time:

2009-09-28

11:15-12:45

Room:

JUR, HS 16

Chair:

Franz Rauch

Contribution

In recent years, networks have gained growing attraction in education for a number of reasons, of which two are highlighted here. Firstly central administrative units are ever more focused on steering contexts and on decentralisation with responsibility being increasingly shifted to the level of schools. In this respect networks are conceptualised as intermediary structures (Czerwanski, Hameyer & Rolff 2002). Secondly networks are associated with innovation and change processes at schools. In this sense networks are seen as sites where knowledge is created through collaborative partnerships and where, as a result, teachers and other educational staff are professionalized. The overarching aim is to improve both school and teaching quality through the development and dissemination of innovations. Networks are believed to relate to development processes of individuals, of schools, as well as of the educational system as a whole. These draw together ideas such as a focus on local and regional cooperation, linking educational institutions, and disseminating information through network. The relationships of these to networks have been addressed by a number of authors. Dalin (1999) has identified an information function (exchange of practical knowledge), a learning function (professionalization processes), a political function (enforcement of claims), and a psychological function (empowering individuals by trust) to networks. Features influencing the success of networks in education have also been explored and are believed to include: common intentions and goals (Liebermann & Wood, 2003), trust orientation (McDonald & Klein 2003), the exchange principle (win-win relations) (OECD 2003), and being a steering platform (Dobischat, Düsseldorf, Nuissl, & Stuhldreier 2006). Analysis of the approach to networks focuses on the relationships between autonomous players who are at the same time interdependent. Accordingly, the coordination mechanisms are not prices (as on markets), or formalisations (as in organisations), but reciprocal, mutual forms of support. The strength of social relationships and thus the degree of interdependence in networks varies between the individual players (Kuper 2004). Strong relationships are important, but weak relationships even more so (Granovetter 1978), because they allow for an interlinking of players across distances. Against this general background, the scientific and theoretic discourse on networks and partnerships today is multi-faceted and diverging. During the symposium, the historic development, structures and learning processes of different networks in England, Germany, Austria and Switzerland will be theoretically mapped and reflected on in selected aspects based on empirical data.

Method

The research methods adopted in the studies described in these papers used a range of qualitative and quantitative approaches. This mixture of methods are believed to most appropriate for identifying issues in complex, open and uncompleted development and research fields such as networks and educational partnerships. In addition to examining relevant literature, the contributions to this symposium will draw on a range of specific methods including: interview studies (Sturm), case studies (Townsend), self-evaluation approaches (McLaughlin, Frost & Peddar, Rauch), content analyses (Berkemeyer) and a combination of quantitative surveys and qualitative analyses of content (Maag Merki & Emmerich, Rauch).

Expected Outcomes

In the context of the different networks, the main outcomes of the symposium will cover dilemmas and issues in partnerships (McLaughlin, Frost & Peddar); support by regional networks as well as tensions within the intermediate structures (Rauch); the potential of networks for the professionalization of teachers, and their contribution to the development of classroom teaching (Sturm); the creation of knowledge in networks and the role of school-specific features (Berkemeyer); models for achieving change through participatory interventions (Townsend), and the impact of diverging problem definitions within institutional networks on the implementation of aspired reforms. By dealing with the work of networks in a critical and constructive manner, the symposium aspires to facilitate the further development of theoretical and empirical findings, promote learning from one another, and ultimately lead to a better understanding of the complexity of network operations in the field of education.

References

Altrichter, H. and Posch, P. (2009). Action Research, Professional Development and Systemic Reform in Sage Handbook of Action Research. London: Sage Publications. Anagnostopoulos, D., Smith, E. & Basmadjian, K. (2007). Bridging the university school-divide: Horizontal expertise and the "Two-worlds pitfall". Journal of Teacher Education, 58(2), 138-152. Berkemeyer, N., Bos, W., Manitius, V. & Müthing, K. (2008) (Eds.). Unterrichtsentwicklung in Netzwerken. Münster: Waxmann. Bohnsack, R. (2003). Rekonstruktive Sozialforschung. Einführung in qualitative Methoden (5. ed.). Opladen: Leske + Budrich. Bourdieu, P. (1992). Sozialer Raum und symbolische Macht. In P. Bourdieu (Ed.), Rede und Antwort (1. ed., 135-154). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Chapman, C. (2008). Towards a framework for school-to-school networking in challenging circumstances. Educational Research, 50(4), 403-420. Czerwanski, A., Hameyer, U., & Rolff, H.-G. (2002). Schulentwicklung im Netzwerk – Ergebnisse einer empirischen Nutzenanalyse von zwei Schulnetzwerken. In H.-G. Rolff, K.-O. Bauer, K. Klemm, & H. Pfeiffer (Eds.), Jahrbuch der Schulentwicklung (99-130). München: Juventa. Chrispeels, J.H. & Harris, A. (2006). Conclusion. Future Directions for the Field. In A. Harris & J. C. Chrispeels (Eds.). Improving Schools and Educational Systems (295-307). London: Sage. Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, SL (2001). ‘Beyond certainty: taking an inquiry stance on practice,’ In A. Liebermann and L. Miller (Eds.), Teachers Caught in Action. New York: Teachers College Press Connelly, M., Clandinin J. & Ming, F. H. (1997) Teachers' personal practical knowledge on the professional knowledge landscape. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13 (7), 665-674. Dalin, P. (1999). Theorie und Praxis der Schulentwicklung. Neuwied: Luchterhand. Dobischat, R., Düsseldorf, C., Nuissl, E., & Stuhldreier, J. (2006). Lernende Regionen – begriffliche Grundlagen. In E. Nuissl, R. Dobischat, K. Hagen, & R. Tippelt (Hrsg.), Regionale Bildungsnetze (S. 23-33). Bielefeld. Bertelsmann. Flick, U., Kardorff, E.v. & Steinke, I. (Eds). (2007). Qualitative Forschung: Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Granovetter, M. (1978). The Strengths of Weak Ties. In American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380. Gravani, M. N. (2008). Academics and practitioners: Partners in generating knowledge or citizens of two different worlds? Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(3), 649-659. Häcker, T., & Rihm, T. (2005). Professionelles Lehrer(innen)handeln – Plädoyer für eine si-tuationsbezogene Wende. Retrieved 28.05.2008: http://rihm-paedagogik.info/download/Professionelles_Lehrerhandeln_RC_08_Linsler.pdf Krainer, K. (2007). Die Programme IMST und SINUS: Reflexionen über Ansatz, Wirkungen und Weiterentwicklungen. In D. Hoettecke (Eds.). Naturwissenschaftlicher Unterricht im internationalen Vergleich (20-48). Berlin: Lit-Verlag. Kuper, H. (2004). Netzwerke als Form pädagogischer Institutionen. In W. Böttcher & E. Terhart (Eds.), Organisationstheorie in pädagogischen Feldern (237-252). Wiesbaden: VSVerlag. Lamnek, S. (2005). Qualitative Sozialforschung. Weinheim: Beltz. Lieberman, A., & Wood, D.R. (2002). From Network Learning To Classroom Teaching. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 315-337. Lieberman, A., & Wood D. R. (2003). Inside the National Writing Project. Connecting Network Learning and Classroom Teaching. New York: Teacher College Press. Mayring, P. (2003). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken (8. ed.). Wein-heim und Basel: Beltz, UTB. MacBeath, J. & Moos, L. (Eds.) (2000). Democratic Learning: the challenge to school effectiveness. London: RoutledgeFalmer McDonald, J., & Klein E. (2003). Networking for Teacher Learning: Toward a Theory of Effective Design. Teacher College Record, 105(8), 1606-1621. Nonaka, I.. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 14 - 37. OECD (Ed.) (2003). Schooling for Tomorrow. Networks of Innovation. Paris: OECD. Posch, P. (1994). Changes in the Culture of Teaching and Learning and Implications for Action Research. Educational Action Research, 2(2), 153-161. Posch, P. (1995). Professional development in environmental education: networking and infrastructure. In OECD (Ed.) Environmental Learning for the 21st Century (47-64). Paris: OECD Rauch, F. & Scherz, H. (2009). Regionale Netzwerke im Projekt IMST: Theoretisches Konzept und bisherige Erfahrungen am Beispiel des Netzwerks in der Steiermark. In K. Krainer, B. Hanfstingl & S. Zehetmeier (Eds.), Fragen des Bildungswesens – Antworten aus Theorie und Praxis. Innsbruck: Studienverlag. (currently being printed) Sachs, J. (2003). Teaching as an activist profession, Buckingham: Open University Press. Schratz, M. & Walker, R. (1995). Research as social change: new opportunities for qualitative research, London: Routledge. Stenhouse, L. (1975). Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development, Oxford: Heinemann. Tsui, A. B. M. & Law, D. Y. K. (2007). Learning as boundary-crossing in school-university partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(8), 1289-1301. Wallerstein, N., & Duran, B. (2003). The Conceptual, Historical, and Practical Roots of Community Based Participatory Research and Related Participatory Traditions. In M. Winkler, & N. Wallerstein (Eds.), Community Based Participatory Research for Health (27-53). San Francisco: Josey Bass. Web-Team, I. (2008). IMST- Innovationen machen Schulen top Retrieved 20.10. 2008, from http://imst.uni-klu.ac.at/ Wohlstetter, P., Malloy, C., L., Chau, D., & Polhemus, J. (2003). Improving Schools Through Networks: A new approach to urban school reform. Educational Policy, 17(4), 399-430.

Author Information

Franz Rauch

Universty of Klagenfurt

Institute of Instructional and School Development

Klagenfurt

Tanja Sturm

Alpe-Adria University Klagenfurt

Institut of Instructional and School Development

Klagenfurt

Marcus Emmerich

University of Zurich

Zurich

Katharina Maag Merki

University of Zurich

Institut of Education

Zürich

Nils Berkemeyer

TU Dortmund

Institut für Schulentwicklungsforschung

Dortmund

Andrew Townsend

University of Warwick

Institute of Education

Coventry

David Pedder

University of Cambridge

Faculty of Education

Cambridge

David Frost

University of Cambridge

Faculty of Education

Cambridge

Colleen McLaughlin

Unversity of Cambridge

Faculty of Education

Cambridge

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.

Session Information

Contribution

Method

Expected Outcomes

References

Author Information

Search the ECER Programme

Navigation

Info for