Session Information
01 SES 08 B, Perspectives on Higher Education
Paper Session
Contribution
The aim of our study is to get a deeper understanding of the role of partners as representatives from higher education in a decentralized competence development project.
In Norway, teachers are expected to acquire research-based skills and to have access to continued development within a professional learning community to make informed decisions in their day-to-day work (Ministry of Education, 2018). Recently, a new model for professional development was introduced by the national authorities. The model is called Decentralized Competence Development (Desentralisert Kompetanseutvikling, DEKOM-S). Schools are encouraged to apply for grants to support projects which intentionally develop teachers’ competencies. DEKOM-S is envisioned as a partnership between the county’s school administration, higher education and the applying school. The appointed schools are organized in small groups of 3-4 that are supposed to collaborate. DEKOM-S is initiated by the Government and run by the administration in each county. The schools apply for grants and are selected for participation by the representatives from the county’s administration and higher education.
According to Whitepaper 21 (2016-2017), the new model marks a change in the national authorities strategic thinking of competence development in schools. The initiative is grounded in acknowledging national competence development initiatives, which currently lack sufficiently anchoring in the local school context. Additionally, little attention has been paid to the fact that implementation takes time and finally that national initiatives has so far not led to real and lasting changes in the ways local authorities, schools and teachers work (Whitepaper, 21 (2016-2017): 89-90). The policy-document is in line with research on competence development (Guskey, 2002; Timperley, Barrar & Fung, 2007; Cordingley, 2015).
During six years from 2019, DEKOM-S is supposed to be evaluated by a research group from Oslo Met (Lyng, Fossestøl, & Borg (2022) (2019-2025). Already, the group has identified some challenges. First, that the partnership does not work by its intention when it comes to equality among the three partners: county administration, schools, and higher education. Another problem is lack of local ownership and involvement from the schools. The third challenge mentioned is connected to participation from higher education. There seems to be a great variation in the ways higher education offer support to the schools, and this is the background for the current study.
As three teacher educators we were asked by the administrator in higher education if we could “follow up” the four upper secondary schools in our local district. There were few guidelines either from the representatives from the local authorities, or from the administration in higher education. In addition, the four schools were selected from some criteria decided by the county’s administration that we as representatives from higher education did not have access to. Some fixed arrangements as one common meeting for all the schools, and six digital meetings with each school during the year were announced. As representatives from higher education, we were confused. The three partners were supposed to be present, but how the meetings were supposed to be arranged was unclear. Uncertainty was present regarding questions like: what were the criteria for selection of schools, what were the roles the different partners, who were going to lead the meetings, and what was the outcome supposed to be? As a result, we were left with an unclear work assignment.
On this background, we, as a group, decided to do action research on the role as a representative from higher education into the partnership. Our research question is: What expectations do we and other representatives from higher education, schools, and the county’s administration have to the role of higher education in the partnership?
Method
Since we have the role as representatives from higher education, and simultaneously are doing research on the same role, we decided to define the study as action research. Action research as a methodological approach is characterized by action and research. It is an action because the researchers are acting inside the system they are trying to improve and understand, and research because a systematic, critical investigation is published (Feldman, 2007). Action research makes it possible to systematically learn from experiences (Winter, 1998). The approach is based on a personal wish to gain a deeper understanding of one’s own practice based on systematically gathered information, carried out in dialogue with others. (Ponte, Beijard, & Ax, 2004). During the autumn semester 2022 we decided to create a peer-mentoring group (Heikkinen, Jokinen, & Tynjäläla, 2008) in order to support and challenge each other in the rather vague role as partners. From our meetings with the schools, we agreed to write field-notes. In order to strengthen our primary research methods, we plan during the spring semester to collect data from the schools, the county’s administration team, the administrative representative from higher education, and the four schools to answer our research question through a qualitative online survey. Since the stakeholders participate by writing their own responses to open-ended questions, developed by us as researchers, we seek to collect rich and subjective responses in the participants own words to extend the reach of our primary data (Braun et al., 2021).
Expected Outcomes
Our preliminary findings from our field-notes and peer-group discussions tell us that the schools’ backgrounds are different and consequently our role differs. For instance, in one school, the initiative for participation comes from the staff and all the teachers agree to participate, while in another school the leadership was responsible for the initiative, and some teachers do not even know each other. The partner schools are at different stages in their respective projects. This impacts their needs from us as representatives from higher education. Consequently, our next step in this ongoing action research is to investigate our partners’ expectations to our partnership as representatives from higher education. Our preliminary findings have important implications for understanding the partnership role as representatives from higher education in a decentralized competence development project. Firstly, successful partnership between schools, the administrative level and higher education, is contingent on all actors being part of the project from the start. This can for example involve being part of the process of evaluating the applications from schools and selecting doable developmental projects within the time frame. Secondly, the different roles and functions of the actors should be made explicit from the onset, which would allow for a clearer division of responsibility between stakeholders. The role of systemizing knowledge is not clarified in the project. We would contend that a more precisely defined role of researchers would allow for a more systematic approach to accumulating data. Thirdly, our role was strengthen by working together as a team, since our undefined roles and tasks required support from each other . Fourthly, this kind of work requires a line of open communication at all levels, with room for trial and error, and all voices to be heard and incorporated in the work community as a holistic pedagogy of communication and cooperation.
References
Braun, V. C., Boulton E., Davey, L., & McEvoy, C. (2021). The online survey as a qualitative research tool, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24:6, 641-654, DOI: 10.1080/13645579.2020.1805550 Cordingley, P. (2015). The contribution of research to teachers’ professional learning and development, Oxford Review of Education, 41(2), 234–252. Feldman, (2007). Teachers, responsibility and action research. Educational Action Research, 15(2), 239-252. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, Theory and Practice, 8(3/4), 381–391. Heikkinen, H. L. T., Jokinen, H., & Tynjäläla, P. (2008). Reconceptualising mentoring as dialogue. In G. Fransson, & C. Gustafsson (Eds.), Newly qualified teachers in Northern Europe (pp. 107–124). Gävle: University of Gävle. Lyng, S.T., Fossestøl,K. & Borg, E. (2022). New infrastructure for local competence development- three important challenges (In Norwegian: Ny infrastruktur for lokal kompetanseutvikling − tre viktige utfordringer). Bedre skole. Ministry of Education (2018). Teacher Education 2025 National Strategy for Quality and Cooperation in Teacher Education. 04/2018. Published by: Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research Ponte, P., D. Beijard, and J. Ax. (2004). “Don’t Wait Till the Cows Come Home: Action Research and Initial Teacher Education in Three Different Countries.” Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 10 (6): 591–621. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H. & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration (BES), International Academy vi-220. Winter, R. (1998). “Finding a Voice – Thinking with Others: A Conception of Action Research.” Educational Action Research 6 (1): 53–68. Whitepaper, 21 (2016-2017). (Eager to learn- early Lærelsyt – tidlig innsats og kvalitet i skolen, https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/meld.-st.-21-20162017/id2544344/ https://www.udir.no/contentassets/9df2a26d560c47e1b1159622330e69ca/evakomp_temanotat_1.pdf
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.