Distributed pedagogical leadership (DPL) – A tool for collaborative learning

Author(s):

Aini-Kristiina Jäppinen

Conference:

ECER 2009

Network:

26. Educational Leadership

Format:

Paper

Session Information

26 SES 06 A,

Paper Session

Time:

2009-09-29

10:30-12:00

Room:

NIG, Seminarraum, 6. Floor

Chair:

Helen Wildy

Contribution

Collaborative educational actions are increasingly gaining interest in education. One manifestation of this is distributed leadership as shared leadership practices (e.g. Gronn 2002, 2008; Spillane 2006; Spillane et al. 2001). This paper exploits distributed leadership as the theoretical starting point but extends the gained understanding of the phenomenon to distributed pedagogical practices as distributed pedagogical leadership (DPL). Distributed leadership is a quite new, argued and ambiguous term (e.g. Lakomski 2005, 2008) although the phenomenon itself has already been examined during previous decades. Distributed leadership has been associated to a range of meanings and specified, for example, as degrees or taxonomies. (Hargreaves & Fink 2006; Harris 2006, 2008; MacBeath 2005; Mayrowetz 2008; Ritchie & Woods 2007.) Although DPL originates from distributed leadership, the paper does not focus on direct leadership practices but on those overall pedagogical measures which are shared and ‘led’ by all members of a learning society (Jäppinen, 2007, forthcoming, submitted ab). There is an increasing demand for studying context specific and situated features of organizational pedagogical practices (cf. Harris 2006, 38-39). These kinds of distributed actions relating to teaching and learning have proved to have an effect on student outcomes (Harris, 2006; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006; Waters et al. 2003). As a consequence, DPL concerns all the personnel in a school organization involved in the students’ learning processes, that is, leaders, teachers, support and assistant personnel, administrators etc. In brief, DPL can be defined as overall collective, target-oriented, professional and responsible pedagogical actions of the stakeholder groups in order to create a productive pedagogical space where the whole personnel may take multi-professional responsibility for the students’ education in a living pedagogical process. In spite of the emerged notion of collaborative educational practices’ significance, the study of their realization is not yet common. There is a great lack of knowledge about the ways, practices and processes how various stakeholders interact with each other and, in consequence, improve their school organization’s pedagogical practices as equal members of a learning society. Therefore, the paper focuses on intentional collaborative learning in a few Finnish upper secondary vocational education and training (VET) organizations in order to systematically develop this kind of pedagogical space. This is done through ten critical points of DPL and their realizations as a tool for collaborative learning.

Method

The theoretical framework of distributed pedagogical leadership is developed through two large-scale studies in the Finnish VET of reducing drop-put (2006-2007) and supporting transitions from the previous schooling (2007-2009). Three concrete examples are introduced of the process in promoting DPL through the ten critical points. These describe, firstly, one pilot programme in order to promote transitions from the previous schooling to VET and to avoid early leaving. Secondly, the other two illustrate the ways how the VET staff is able to renew its pedagogical strategy and thinking through in-service training or in developmental meetings. In sum, the examples show how existing distributed pedagogical practices in a learning society can be explored and the state of affairs of DPL defined and how collaborative learning can be promoted and developed by the staff as jointly agreed long-range actions.

Expected Outcomes

DPL is supposed to promote understanding of intentional and purposeful collaborative learning in any kinds of schooling organizations, not only in VET. On the grounds of the theoretical framework, an assessment model called TenKeys™ has been created. It has already been experimented in some VET schools and its potential to uncover the state of affairs of DPL and help to define the follow-up pedagogical measures for development of collaborative learning has become evident. However, piloting of the model will be the next necessary step in progress.

References

Gronn, P. (2008). The future of distributed leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 141-158. Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 423–451. Hargreaves, A. & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Harris, A. (2008). Distributed leadership: according to the evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 172-188. Harris, A. (2006). Opening up the ‘black box’ of leadership practice. Taking a distributed leadership perspective. Leadership and Management, 34(2), 37–45. Jäppinen, A.-K. (forthcoming 2009). Get a vocation – keeping on top of studies. Reducing the drop-out rate in vocational upper secondary education and training. European Journal Vocational Training, 49. Jäppinen, A.-K. (2007). Kiinni ammattiin – ote opintoihin. Keskeyttämisen vähentäminen ammatillisessa peruskoulutuksessa. [Fixing to the occupation – grasping the studies. Reducing drop-out in vocational education]. Publications of the Finnish Ministry of Education 2000:27. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino. Jäppinen, A.-K. (submitted) Distributed pedagogical leadership in preventing drop-out in five types of strong VET organizations. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. Jäppinen, A.-K. (submitted) Ten keys towards distributed pedagogical leadership – Opening the magic box of collaborative learning. International Journal of Educational Research. Lakomski, G. (2008). Functionally adequate but causally idle: w(h)ither distributed leadership? Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 159-171. Lakomski, G. (2005). Managing without leadership. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201–227. MacBeath, J. (2005). Leadership as distributed: a matter of practice. School Leadership and Management, 25(4), 349–366. Mayrowetz, D. (2008). Making sense of distributed leadership: Exploring the multiple usages of the concept in field. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 424–435. Ritchie, R. & Woods, P. A. (2007). Degrees of distribution: towards an understanding of variations in the nature of distributed leadership in schools. School Leadership and Management, 27(4), 363-381. 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. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28. Waters, T., Marzano, R. J. & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: what 30 years of research tells about the effect of leadership on student achievement. A working paper. http://www.mcrel.org/PDF/LeadershipOrganizationDevelopment/5031RR_BalancedLeadership.pdf.

Author Information

Aini-Kristiina Jäppinen

University of Jyväskylä

Finnish Institute for Educational Research

Jyväskylä

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.