Embedding Inquiry-based Working In The School Organization: The Strategic Role Of School Leaders

Author(s):

Wouter Schenke(presenting / submitting)Femke Geijsel Jan van Driel Monique Volman

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

32. Organizational Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

32 SES 04, Leading Change in Educational Organizations

Paper Session

Time:

2017-08-23

09:00-10:30

Room:

K3.18

Chair:

Petr Novotný

Contribution

Inquiry-based working is a method to stimulate professional development of teachers that encourages them to reflect critically on their own practice (Handscomb & MacBeath, 2003). Although a number of studies provide insights into inquiry-based working, more understanding is needed how to position inquiry-based working in the school organization (Sleegers, Den Brok, Verbiest, Moolenaar & Daly, 2013). These insights are especially required in the case of funded research projects that are initiated by schools and lasts for two or three years. After finishing such a project, the wish is to continue the method of working in school, but insights are needed how schools can embed inquiry-based working in their organization. The role of school leaders is considered to be crucial in these cases (Krüger, 2010). Our research question in this study is: How do school leaders strategically embed inquiry-based working in their school on the teacher, team and organizational level during the years of a funded research project?

In various countries, including the Netherlands, UK and Scotland, government funding is provided to school practitioners and researchers to perform practice-based research and stimulate school development in a collaborative effort (NTRP, 2012; Nutley, Jung & Walter, 2008; Onderwijsraad, 2011; SEED, 2002). In the last decade, we have observed a rise of research and development (R&D) projects in education. In these R&D-projects, school leaders and teachers are engaged with researchers, advisers, and supervisors in various sorts of research and development activities in schools. R&D projects in schools enables school leaders to encourage inquiry-based working of their teachers (McLaughlin & Black-Hawkins, 2007; Vanderlinde & Van Braak, 2010).

Inquiry-based working may provide teachers more access to knowledge from educational research and a better analysis and diagnose of current issues in practice. Inquiry-based working can also stimulate teachers to conduct practice-based research themselves and it encourages collaboration with external researchers (Schenke, 2015). Literature on how schools function as professional learning communities provides insights on how inquiry-based working can be positioned in the school organization (Admiraal et al., 2016). In the context of the school as professional learning community, Sleegers, et al. (2013) offer a useful, multilevel framework of the school organization:

- The individual teacher level considers the abilities of teachers to actively reflect on knowledge and utilize this knowledge for their own practice.

- The interpersonal, team level concerns the ability of teachers to share visions and teaching practices, collaborate and learn together.

- At the organizational level, it is the organizational structures that promote learning of teachers, for instance the team structure and the availability of resources. Stimulating and participative leadership is considered to be an essential part of the organizational level (Levin & Datnow, 2012).

The question remaining is what strategic role school leaders do take up, to stimulate and embed inquiry-based working in their school organization.

Method

This study is the final component of a longitudinal study of 19 R&D-projects in Dutch secondary education (see dissertation Schenke, 2015). In this multi-case study design, nineteen R&D projects in Dutch secondary education were included. The R&D projects were part of a funding scheme of the Dutch Council for Secondary Education. The projects received funding for research purposes for two or three years after the funding application was accepted. The school concerned had to apply for the funding and was responsible for the possible transfer of the research budget to a party with research expertise, which could be universities, universities of applied sciences, teacher education institutes and research and advice bureaus. In the R&D projects, professionals from schools and educational research institutes were involved, including school leaders, teachers, and researchers, advisers, and supervisors. In the final year of the project period interviews with twenty-eight participants with managerial and leadership responsibilities in the projects were conducted. The interviews were based on pre-structured interview guidelines containing questions about the following topics: the output of the project, their views on practice-based research and inquiry-based working in schools, their role, tasks, actions undertaken, and responsibilities as school leader regarding the research and development activities in school, their perspective on collaboration among the professionals in the projects, and future plans and expectations on research and development in schools. A transcript was made of all interviews. The qualitative data were analyzed with coding schemes that were developed based on the literature and with the interview questions in mind. The software program MaxQDA (version 10) was used for coding the interview fragments for each research question. Selected interview fragments and information on the projects and professionals were subsequently organized in within-site matrices and cross-site matrices (Miles & Huberman 1994). Understandings of document analysis and interview data from earlier interview rounds with participants of the projects were used as information to interpret the interview fragments and consider the school contexts.

Expected Outcomes

Interview data demonstrates that in 16 of the 19 projects school leaders were embedding inquiry-based working in their school organization. In three projects in which this was not the case, research turned out to be of too little relevance to school practice. The strategies of school leaders involved in the 16 projects appeared to be divided into two tracks: 1. In one track – which included eight projects – school leaders facilitated teachers to become teacher researchers. Often, school leaders were participating in the internal research group. School leaders encouraged teacher researchers to connect with colleagues by giving research presentations and by developing checklists and observation instruments for colleagues to use in their daily work. 2. In the other track – which included the other eight projects – school leaders encouraged teachers to learn from research results of practice-based research performed by external researchers in the project. The school management strategy was more focused on organizing the collective learning of teachers in connection to the research. Teachers were discussing research results and reflected on what these results mean for their own teaching practice. School leaders in all 16 projects were also active on the school organizational level by putting research on the agenda of regular team meetings, by providing hours for teacher researchers or by integrating research in school plans. In track 1 the focus was on the individual level and during the project the attention was altered towards the team level, by disseminating results and involving colleagues. In track 2 the process can be characterized as the other way round: from collective learning towards the awareness what results mean to teachers’ own practice. A majority of the school leaders were able to embed inquiry-based working in their school, thereby fostering the impact of practice-based research on school practice.

References

Admiraal, W., Kruiter, J., Lockhorst, D., Schenke, W., Sligte, H., Smit, B., Tigelaar, D. & de Wit, W. (2016). Affordances of teacher professional learning in secondary schools. Studies in Continuing Education, 38, 281-298. Handscomb, G., & MacBeath, J. (2003). Professional development through teacher enquiry. Professional Development Today, 7, 6-12. Krüger, M.L. (2010). Leading Schools in the Knowledge Society: On the Way to Leaders of Learning in Inquiry-Based Schools. In A.H. Normore (Ed) Global Perspectives on Educational Leadership Reform: The Development and Preparation of Leaders of Learning and Learners of Leadership.Book series Advances in Educational Administration Vol. 11 (pp. 397-417). Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Group. Levin, J.A., & Datnow, A. (2012). The principal role in data-driven decision making: using casestudy data to develop multi-mediator models of educational reform. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23, 179-201. National Teacher Research Panel (NTRP) (2012). Research for teachers, by teachers. Retrieved from: http://www.education.gov.uk. Nutley, S., Jung, T., & Walter, I. (2008). The many forms of research-informed practice: a framework for mapping diversity. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38, 53-71. Onderwijsraad (2011). Ruim baan voor stapsgewijze verbeteringen. [A clear field for step-by-step improvements.] The Hague, The Netherlands: Onderwijsraad. Schenke, W. (2015). Connecting practice-based research and school development. Cross-professional collaboration in secondary education. Dissertation University of Amsterdam. Scottish Executive Education Department (SEED) (2002). The Standard for Chartered Teacher. Edinburgh: SEED. Sleegers, P., Den Brok, P., Verbiest, E., Moolenaar, N. M., & Daly, A. J. (2013). Toward Conceptual Clarity. A Multidimensional, Multilevel Model of Professional Learning Communities in Dutch Elementary Schools. The Elementary School Journal, 114, 118-137.

Author Information

Wouter Schenke (presenting / submitting)

University of Amsterdam, Netherlands, The

Femke Geijsel

University of Amsterdam, Netherlands, The; NSO-CNA Leadership Academy, Netherlands,The

Jan van Driel

University of Melbourne, Australia

Monique Volman