School leadership in changing institutional practice. Creating shared spaces for collective assessment of classroom practices and learning A KP-Lab project.

Presentasjon om: "School leadership in changing institutional practice. Creating shared spaces for collective assessment of classroom practices and learning A KP-Lab project."— Utskrift av presentasjonen:

1 School leadership in changing institutional practice. Creating shared spaces for collective assessment of classroom practices and learning A KP-Lab project (EU) Trond Eiliv Hauge & Svein Olav Norenes, InterMedia, University of Oslo Lillehammer, April 7-8, 2008

2 Hauge & Norenes, InterMedia, UiO 2 Research context (1)  School effectiveness studies and international school assessment studies (PISA/PIRLS/TIMSS) are contributing to a growing body of knowledge with regard to students’ learning (Kjærnsli, Lie, Olsen & Roe 2007; Teddlie & Reynolds 2000)  However, reform initiatives and pedagogy are facing problems in transforming this descriptive knowledge to sustainable practice solutions (Hubbard, Mehan, Stein 2006; Elmore 2004; Olsson 2003; Cuban 2001; MacBeath & Mortimore 2001).

3 Hauge & Norenes, InterMedia, UiO 3 Political/ governing levels The school as a professional and intelligent knowledge organisation Learning outcomes The challenge - bringing school leaders and teachers back in as professional knowledge workers Control/development tools: -Evaluations -Reporting -Curricula -Teacher education -Text books -Economy -Structuring -…… Teaching

4 Hauge & Norenes, InterMedia, UiO 4 The school context and history (2)   This upper secondary school was supposed to be closed down in 2000 because of low student recruitement and staff problems. A new principal was hired, a new organisation model was implemented and new teachers were gradually hired. Today it is a national demonstration school focusing on leadership and organisational development, teacher collaboration and systematic follow- up work of students’ learning outcomes. ICT and learning is a high priority field of innovation.   During the last 3-4 years InterMedia has been involved in a series of classroom and teacher team intervention studies by use of wikis and video recording.   The present project is part of an evolving institutional change process facilitating new leadership practices across professional community levels and supporting expansive classroom practices.

5 Hauge & Norenes, InterMedia, UiO 5 The objective of KP-Lab project is to facilitate innovative knowledge practices in education and workplaces; a central characteristic of such practices is to engage in sustained and long-standing collaborative effort of knowledge creation. The project explore tool-mediated, on-going activities of expansion and transformations of knowledge practices to contribute to deeper understanding of conceptual and operational challenges inherent in knowledge creation. The project research how professionals’ approach open-ended problems solved by non-routinized activities, and cooperate in hybrid, shared spaces to use, modify and/or create artefacts that support ‘face to face interactions’ and ‘face to space interactions’. Research context (3): the Research context (3): the KP-Lab EU project (Knowledge Practices Laboratory)

6 Hauge & Norenes, InterMedia, UiO 6 Research focus Overall aim Analyzing and activily facilitating new leadership practices in redesign of classroom practices Research focus of the paper How are institutional assessment practices being made into an object of inquiry in order to be reconfigured? How are institutional assessment practices being made into an object of inquiry in order to be reconfigured? What characterizes the tools and objects facilitating the transformation of assessment practices? What characterizes the tools and objects facilitating the transformation of assessment practices? What characterizes the evolving shared spaces for collective assessment and redesign of classroom practices? What characterizes the evolving shared spaces for collective assessment and redesign of classroom practices?

7 Hauge & Norenes, InterMedia, UiO 7 Theoretical grounding  Developmental Work Research (DWR) and cultural- historical activity theory (Vygotsky 1978; Engeström 1991, 2007; Daniels et.al. 2007)  Conceptions of knowledge creation and transformation (Hakarainen et.al. 2004; Paavola & Hakkarainen 2005/2008)  Video/VideoPaper as means of objectification of knowledge practices (Roth, 2007; Beardsley et.al. 2007; Sutherland et.al. 2004)

8 Hauge & Norenes, InterMedia, UiO 8 Interations of the methodological framework  1. Pilot study 2005-06 in Media and Communication (PIE-group work enhancement)  2. Study of mathematics teaching and teachers’ teamwork 2006-07 (VideoPaper enhanced work analysis)  3. Study of leadership practices and object transformations across levels of professional communities 2007-09 (technology enhanced practices)

9 Hauge & Norenes, InterMedia, UiO 9 Development Work Research (DWR) design Teamwork observation and design discussions VideoPaper and Maths ed. interventions Workshop 2 Workshop 3 Planning 2008-09 Video recording March 08 Video recording December 07 2006-2007 Video recording May 08 Workshop 1 June – November 07

10 Hauge & Norenes, InterMedia, UiO 10 Collaborative routines Task rules Strategies Competence, task responsibility and accountability P-team and ComDev-team communication Expansive practice New routines and design Tools Wiki technology Visibilization of assessment practices Workshops Analytical models Team participants Object oriented leadership team development

11 Hauge & Norenes, InterMedia, UiO 11 Tools for description of assessment practices Institutional tools  Curriculum competence criteria  Evaluations (Quality measurement, MMI, user investigations)  Grade statistics  Exam results/ LEA test/local test  Student absence statistics  Performance appraisal meetings for students and teachers  ”Yellow note”-description strategy  …. Evolving tools  Student portfolios  Students’ texts/assignments  Videofilms of teaching and teamwork  Pictures from classroom settings  Log/reflection notes  Practice descriptions  ….

12 Hauge & Norenes, InterMedia, UiO 12 Eleven leverer sammen med presentasjonsmappen et refleksjonsnotat. Det er en subjektiv artikkel, som skal omhandle alle tekstene i mappen. I refleksjonsnotatet kan eleven for eks. skrive om skriveprosessen, kildebruk, samarbeid osv. Viktigst er det at eleven beskriver egen tekstutvikling, dvs. hvilke vekstpunkt eleven har og hva som er endret fra tekstutkast 1 til tekstutkast 2 og hvorfor. Eleven skriver sjelden på refleksjonsnotatet før det nærmer seg innlevering for presentasjonsmappen. En må ha god kontroll på tekstversjoner og god hukommelse for å huske relevante poeng så sent i prosessen. Teksten skrives ofte raskt, og den er lite gjennom-arbeidet. Eleven skriver ofte en informativ og ekspressiv tekst, ingen fagartikkel. Eleven bruker kort tid, og det virker som mange er ukjent med sjangerkrav. Eleven mangler gjerne både metakompetanse og språk til å beskrive egenutvikling. Ofte gjengir eleven de vekst-punktene, som læreren har pekt på. Det er lite problematisering av lærerens forslag. Eleven finner sjelden helt egne vektspunkt. Det stilles få spørsmål, og det filosoferes lite. I refleksjonsnotatet påpekes det gjerne at det er fint å få muligheter til å forbedre tekst. Eleven skriver at de lærer av arbeidsformen og liker at de får mulighet til å forbedre karakteren. Læreren deler ut en oppskrift på refleksjonsnotat og gjerne en modelltekst. Det settes av lite tid til å skrive refleksjonsnotat underveis i timer, og det gis sjelden som lekse. Sjangeren problematiseres lite. Likevel opplever læreren at refleksjonsnotatet må med, fordi det hører med til mappemetodikk, og det passer godt til utvalgte mål i KO6, som handler om å selvevaluering. Læreren er usikker på hvordan en logg skal evalueres, og praksisen er høyst forskjellig. Er det en tekst, som skal vurderes på lik linje med andre tekster (både innhold og form)? Kan en sette karakter på refleksjon? (En logg har tidligere gjerne vært fritatt formell vurdering.) Hvis en ikke karaktersetter den, hvordan skal en da måle kompetansemål som omhandler refleksjon? Hvor mye skal en vektlegge denne teksten? Fordi læreren er usikker, unngår en å bruke mye tid på refleksjonsnotat i klasserommet. I faglagg diskuteres også logg lite, men retteskjema lages i fellesskap. Faglag utveksler ikke logger med hverandre på tvers av fag. Det er nok andre arbeidsoppgaver å bruke tid på i faglaget. Object descriptions - what is the role of subject content requirements in text writing? The text does’nt reflect substantial expectations of writing. The students are not reporting developments on their own growth lines. What are the prodedures for writing according to the criteria and community support? How is this specific assignment linked to the rest of the portfolio? What are the object for this assignment? The division of labor between teachers and students – needs to be clarified Tools for portfolio practice evaluation – case example 1

13 Hauge & Norenes, InterMedia, UiO 13 Tools Student portfolio Assessment practice Objects Assessment for learning Supporting individual growth lines Status for basic competencies Grading Labor division Individual feedback from teachers Weak structures for sharing of knowledge Rules Self-assessment Feed-back procedures Use of technology Visual assessment criteria Work plan Portfolios/exams/assessment meetings Community Class oriented Individualized practices Participants Students and teachers Workshop 1 Content analyses of portfolio assessment practices

14 Hauge & Norenes, InterMedia, UiO 14 Changing and evolving knowledge objects  Workshop1 (Dec07): The institutional assessment object defined and made into a development object – portfolio assessment a tool for leadership inquiry  Staff seminar Barcelona (Jan08): Sharing of portfolio experiences and design solutions  Portfolio case descriptions (Dec07-Jan08): Tools development for work analysis  Breakdown of P-teamwork (Feb08): Demands for new leadership practices  Workshop2 (Mar08): Leadership made into a collective and shared knowledge object across community levels  Follow-up work (Mar-Apr08): New conceptual tools for leadership and experiential learning across levels of professional learning being enabled  Workshop3 (May08): The redesigned leadership model for shared portfolio development will be further discussed and analysed. Technology environments will be discussed for elaborated integration (step 2 development)

15 Hauge & Norenes, InterMedia, UiO 15 Lessons learned …… Leadership practices in a changing position  The leadership team is working hard in keeping up with everyday demands: periodic planning, administrative tasks, follow-up work with teachers and students. Devoted time resources for development work are under pressure  The leadership roles and tasks in the team are in a changing position: New roles are evolving more supportive for collective knowledge transformation across levels of teacher communities  Leadership through collective shared space analyses and design practices is evolving Assessment as a knowledge object  Student assessment is a ’loose-defined’ knowledge object as it is reflected in workshop discussions and portfolio case descriptions  The student assessment activities are individual and procedural in its activity orientation  Teaching portfolios are emerging as a new practice in the school - challenging existing routines of assessment  Deep structure analyses of knowledge practices (micro analyses) are time consuming and contradictory to existing knowledge management routines  Further development of portfolio assessment practices has been made into a collaborative object of inquiry for teachers and the leadership team

16 Hauge & Norenes, InterMedia, UiO 16 Lessons learned …. Tool mediated learning and change   Technology tools (material artefacts) offered for sharing, storing and analysis of knowledge practices play a minor role in the team building and knowledge creation process   The conceptual framework underlying the SSP-technology tools (adapted to a wiki space) is evolving as a shared infrastructure for analysis and object development. It is functioning as a double stimulating tool for change   DWR implemented tools for mirroring and analysing knowledge practices have a growing position in the leadership team   New tools for description of classroom practices play a significant role in expanding perspectives and objects for development. VideoPaper/videofilms are especially welcome, but require external support to be fully utilized